There are a lot of issues there. We've proposed in that report and also subsequently a framework of prevention and response that takes a primary, secondary, and tertiary approach.
Training is an important part of primary prevention. There is, I think, a need for evaluative research to objectively analyze the effectiveness of particular training programs, but in our interviews with them, expert practitioners advocated training approaches that were complex, in the sense that they used both a carrot and a stick approach, the stick approach being to inform employees that sexual harassment is illegal and that there will be discipline and punishment for those who perpetrate it. The carrot approach is a more humanistic approach in training wherein professional codes of conduct are at the heart of them and whereby people attending training can use scenario-based sorts of approaches to play out sexual harassment.
The trainers use other sorts of strategies that our expert practitioners advocated around making clear that sexual harassment is not just the typical salacious conduct between a male boss and a female subordinate, but a very complex phenomenon that can be perpetrated by either men or women, and particularly by men against men as well, which is a common problem.
In terms of bystanders, there's very little empirical evidence of the way bystanders behave in workplaces, but in our empirical work, which is currently unpublished but under review, we used a two-dimensional framework that looked at the level of involvement of bystander behaviours and the immediacy of the involvement. We found that most bystander interventions or bystander actions—because it wasn't just active interventions, but also the providing support to the target—were relatively lower level and relatively non-immediate. There was a wide variety of actions taken, but they were oftentimes lower level and sometimes just based around support.