Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 98 116.

Student stalking of faculty: impact and prevalence

Robin K. Morgan1
Abstract: This study investigated the incidence of faculty stalking by students in a
large university system (eight campuses). A subsample of stalked faculty members
was interviewed. Results are discussed in relation to categorization schemes for
stalking, faculty-student interaction, changes in teaching methods, and the unique
problems engendered by students stalking faculty members.
Keywords: stalking, faculty-student interaction, harassment, teaching climate,
social constructivism
I. Introduction.
In October of 2002, three nursing professors at the University of Arizona were killed by a
despondent student who claimed, in a suicide letter, he murdered the professors for giving him
failing grades (Lenckus, 2002). In the year prior to this attack, these nursing professors were
repeatedly harassed and stalked by this student (J. Haase, personal communication, June 20,
2007). Fortunately, not all such incidents result in murder, as exemplified by the charges filed
against a student at the University of Maryland at College Park for threatening a professor with a
handgun in an attempt to manipulate the professor into providing him an A (Schneider and
Basinger, 1998). More recently, a former graduate student at Loyola University attempted to
burn his professors house down in response to having received a failing grade (Collins, 2006).
In the year prior to setting the fires, the student had made repeated harassing phone calls to the
professor (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006).
II. Stalking in the United States.
Since the early 1990's stalking has emerged as a significant social and policy concern (Fisher,
Cullen, and Turner, 2002). Today all fifty states and the District of Columbia have implemented
anti-stalking laws (Marks, 1997), yet state-level statistics on the number of people charged,
prosecuted, or convicted of stalking are not readily available, with estimates varying widely. This
discrepancy reflects the ambiguity associated with the definition of stalking behavior itself.
Several researchers have attempted to isolate and describe stalking behavior into categories that
are easily accessible to both law enforcement and mental-health professionals.
Although studies differ in their definition of stalking, some elements are fairly consistent
(Romeo, 2001). Stalking involves repeated and persistent unwanted communications and
contacts that create fear in the target. Stalking differs from harassment in that harassment is
annoying while stalking leads to fear, feeling threatened, or intimidated (Purcell, Path, and
Mullen, 2004). A standard list of stalking behaviors might include: abusive/excessive telephone
calls, letters, or emails to the person's home/work; trespassing, following or threatening the target
or the target's friends/relatives, obsessively observing the target from a distance, driving by the
1

School of Social Sciences, Indiana University Southeast, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, rmorgan@[Link].

Morgan, R.

person's home, school, or work, and vandalizing the person's property. Many of these activities
can be seemingly innocuous in the beginning, but progress into a pattern of activities that
introduces terror into the lives of victims.
The term stalking has only recently been used to describe behavior directed towards the
general population (i.e., to someone other than a celebrity). The term first appeared during the
1970s primarily in the context of obsessed fans who intrusively followed and interacted with
famous individuals, such as movie stars (Mullen, 2003). Since these initial accounts, researchers
have reported rates of stalking between 2 and 33%, with a national average between 5 and 6%
(Spitzberg and Cupach, 2003). Basile, Swahn, Chen, and Saltzman (2006), for example, report
stalking in 7% of the women and 2% of the men contacted in a cross-sectional, random digit-dial
telephone survey. Similarly, in the National Violence against Women Survey (Tjaden and
Thoennes, 2000), 2.2% of men and 8.1% of women reported being stalked. Some of this
variability may be a result of how those who have experienced stalking perceive the level of
threat. Turmanis and Brown (2006), for example, revealed that 23.4% report stalking when they
are asked about behaviors that led to their being a little or somewhat fearful, 12.3% when fear
was moderate, and 4.7% when fear was of a significant degree.
Across studies, women appear to be at higher risk for being stalked, especially when they
are single and below the age of 55 (Basile, et al, 2006). The most common patterns of stalking
involve a stalker who had a prior intimate relationship with the person being stalked (Roberts
and Dziegielwski, 2006). Path and Mullen (1997) reported stalking behavior is frequently
triggered when a close relationship ends, with the stalker attempting to affect reconciliation or
gaining revenge. Key characteristics of stalking behavior in such situations are jealousy and
possessiveness (Mullen, Path and Purcell, 2000). Dziegielwski and Roberts (1995) proposed
three categories of stalkers: the domestic violence stalker (the most common representing 7580% of stalking cases involving a need to establish, continue, or re-establish a domestic
relationship), the erotomanic/delusional stalker (where the stalker becomes fixated on a person
with whom no prior relationship may have occurred), and the nuisance stalker (where the stalker
continually harasses with emails, telephone calls, or shows up at the victims workplace or
home). Hall (1998) describes two categories of stalkers: the domestic violence stalker and
stalkers who seek revenge. Similar to Dziegielwski and Roberts, Hall also found the domestic
stalkers to be the most common type.
III. Stalking on College Campuses.
Studies investigating stalking on college campuses have almost consistently focused on student
stalking of other students. Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (2002), for example, surveyed a nationwide
sample of almost 4,500 randomly selected female college students. Approximately 13% of these
women reported being the victims of stalking incidents, a figure much higher than the 5-6%
generally accepted as the national average. Interestingly, 83% of these women had not reported
the stalking to any university official. Bjerregaard (2002) also found that 21% of her sample of
college students (24.7% of female students and 10.9% of male students) reported past
experiences of stalking and 6% reported currently being stalked. Overall, female students are at a
greater risk of being stalked and male students, typically an ex-boyfriend, are most likely to be
their stalkers.
Little attention has been given to whether faculty members are at risk of being stalked by
their students. This apparent discrepancy is even more disconcerting when considering the

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

99

Morgan, R.

pedagogical changes recommended to college faculty over the past two decades. Partly as a
function of constructivist theories, faculty members have been encouraged to engage in teaching
practices that increase faculty-student interaction. Social constructivism, most closely identified
with Lev Vygotsky, argues that learning is enhanced when instructors create an interactive
environment designed to enhance learning experiences (Llewellyn, 2002). Such interaction has
been shown to enhance the quality of education provided to students (Astin, 1994) and has been
the focus of numerous studies. Student achievement, whether measured by grades, standardized
tests, or self-reported learning, increases as a function of quality faculty-student interaction
(Anaya, 1999). Accordingly, faculty are encouraged to increase interaction with students
(Holmes, Rupert, Ross, and Shapera, 1999). Faculty may become involved with students in
multiple roles as an academic advisor, an instructor, a mentor for research, a supervisor for
internship resulting in a blurring of boundaries (e.g., Biaggio, Paget, and Chenoweth, 1997;
Feldman-Summers, 1989; Kitchener, 1992).
Increased faculty-student interaction may open the door for increased harassment or
stalking of faculty by students. Batty (2004) reported that female academics in Great Britain
reported physical attacks, stalking and heckling by students. It would seem evident that such
experiences would have a significant impact on future faculty-student interactions. For example,
Bloom (2000) reports on a course he taught where he was heckled by students in the classroom.
As a result, Bloom changed his teaching strategy by providing an introductory motivational
anecdote on the history underlying each topic, leading to less heckling and more positive
interactions with his students. In this case, it can be argued that negative interaction with his
students led Bloom to make a potentially positive change in his teaching methods. However,
Blooms experience may have been idiosyncratic. It seems just as likely that professors may be
making changes in their teaching in an effort to protect themselves from such harassment and
stalking that detract from teaching effectiveness.
In many ways, it is questionable whether the majority of research that has been conducted
on stalking would apply to faculty who are stalked by students. As reported by Roberts and
Dziegielwski (2006), in most stalking situations there is a prior intimate relationship between the
stalker and the person being stalked. In the case of faculty, there should be no prior intimate
relationship as such relationships are frequently forbidden by university policies (Wilson, 2007).
The clearest parallel to faculty being stalked by students might be cases in which mental health
professionals are stalked by their clients. McIvor and Petch (2006), for example, found that
among mental health professionals male therapists were more likely to be stalked by female
clients. This contrasts with the findings of females being more likely to be stalked in relationship
based stalking incidents. McIvor and Petch also reported three distinct patterns of stalkers among
clients who stalked their therapists: those who suffered from personality disorders, those who
experienced drug and alcohol problems, and those who had a history of behavioral problems. In
a similar vein, Hudson- Allez (2006) reported 24% of her sample of mental health professionals
had experienced at least one incident of being stalked by a client. The clients most likely to stalk
their therapist in this study were described as needy clients who made early attachments to their
therapists, clients who were sexually attracted to their therapists, and clients who suffered from
personality disorders, especially narcissistic personality disorder.
The present study, then, addresses three major sets of questions regarding the similarities
between student stalking of faculty and stalking in the general population. First, what is the
incidence of student stalking of faculty? Is the incidence of student stalking of faculty consistent
with the rate of stalking in the general population, more similar to the rate of student stalking of

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

100

Morgan, R.

other students, or consistent with client stalking of therapists? Given the prior literature, there
are several obvious sub-questions relating to incidence. Is stalking more prevalent on smaller,
commuter campuses, or on larger, residential campuses? Is such stalking more common among
faculty teaching smaller or larger classes? Are female faculty members or male faculty members
more likely to be stalked? Second, what types of stalking behaviors do faculty most commonly
report? Given the prior literature, there is an obvious sub-question relating to stalking behaviors.
The literature reports domestic stalking, that is, stalking arising from a previous relationship, as
being the most common form of stalking. Would this be true among students stalking faculty
where no intimate relationships may exist prior to classroom interaction? Finally, the third major
question concerns whether student stalking of faculty impacts future teaching behaviors of
faculty? Specifically, does student stalking of faculty change the interactional patterns of faculty
with their students? If so, what types of changes are faculty making in response to such
incidents?
VI. Phase One.
A. Method.
Participants: Nine hundred and sixty-eight full-time faculty members from all eight campuses of
a large Midwestern university volunteered for the present study; of these, 934 surveys were fully
completed and usable for data analysis. Full-time faculty members were contacted via a
university supplied email list, with a response rate of 31%. Response rates by campus varied
from 23% to 70%. Faculty reported teaching a wide variety of classes with many teaching at
both the undergraduate and graduate level; sixty-one percent of faculty taught graduate classes,
91% taught undergraduate classes, and 6% taught medical students. Twenty percent of the
faculty reported teaching large courses (over 100 students). The age range of full-time faculty
members was 27 to 81 with a mean age of 49 years (SD = 9.71). Of those participating in the
study, 55% were men and 45% were women. This contrasts with a university-wide gender ratio
of 62% men and 38% women. Time spent teaching in the university system ranged from
year
to 40 years with a mean of 13 years (SD = 10.1).
Materials: A demographic questionnaire and a modified form of the Obsessive Relational
Intrusion Scale (ORI) - Short Form was given to all faculty members choosing to participate in
the present study. The demographic questionnaire consisted of the participants sex, age, campus
of employment, how long they have been teaching at the college level, and what type of students
were taught. The Obsessive Relational Intrusion Scale-Short Form (Cupach and Spitzberg, 1998)
consists of 28 questions assessing stalking behaviors on a five point Likert scale ranging from 0
(never) to 4 (over 5 times). For example, the ORI provides the stem, Has anyone ever
undesirably and obsessively pursued you by: followed by possible stalking behaviors such as,
threatening to hurt him-or-herself, verbally threatening you personally, showing up at
places in threatening ways or physically hurting you. The modifications for this study simply
involved changing the wording to reflect faculty and students rather than intimate relationships.
Cupach and Spitzberg (1998) report that the ORI has been shown to have satisfactory reliability
and validity.
Procedure: All faculty members listed on the university supplied email list were asked to
read an informed consent statement and, if choosing to participate, to click on a link to an online
survey. The online survey included the demographic questionnaire and ORI. The instructions to

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

101

Morgan, R.

faculty members specified that behaviors on the ORI should only be reported if a student
undesirably and obsessively pursued the faculty member and only if the faculty member felt
intimidated, anxious, or fearful as a result of the students behavior. Once the faculty member
had completed the questions, the faculty member was asked to hit the submit button. All data
were compiled and sent to the researcher with no identifying email addresses or names.
Completing the demographic questionnaire and the ORI required approximately 10-15 minutes.
B. Results.
Research Question 1: Incidence of Student Stalking of Faculty: To determine the percentage of
faculty reporting stalking, responses to the ORI were evaluated. To be considered as
experiencing stalking, a faculty member needed to report repeated incidents where a student
engaged in at least two separate behaviors on the ORI. Out of the 28 different stalking behaviors
on the ORI, the range of behaviors reported by faculty who were classified as having
experienced stalking ranged from 3 to 25 with a mean of 6.29 (SD=4.29). In addition, the
instructions on the ORI specified that behaviors must lead to feeling intimidated, anxious, or
fearful. Using this definition of stalking, 32.97% (n = 308) of faculty members who completed
the survey could be classified as having experienced stalking by a student. The average age of
those reporting being stalked (48.98 years) did not differ from the overall sample mean age of 49
years.
Research Question 1a: Incidence of student stalking of faculty on smaller commuter
campuses vs. larger, residential campuses: The percentage of faculty members who reported
being stalked by a student varied by campus, ranging from 22% to 57%, and these differences
were statistically significant,
2 (7) = 45.86, p<0.001. Overall, more stalking was reported on the
six smaller campuses (Campuses 3-8) than on the two larger campuses (Campuses 1 and 2).
Another distinction was found with respect to residential vs. commuter campuses. On Campus 1,
a traditional residential campus, 31% of faculty respondents reported having been stalked.
However, on the six primarily commuter campuses (Campuses 3-8), the average percentage of
faculty reporting stalking incidents was 44%. Twenty-two percent of faculty on Campus 2
reported stalking incidents. This campus was importantly different from all others, in that it had
the lowest response rate of any campus (23%), and, residing in a large city, has a mix of both
residential and commuter students.
Research Question 1b: Incidence of student stalking of faculty in smaller vs. larger
undergraduate classes: No significant difference was found in stalking between faculty members
who taught in large or small undergraduate classes.
Research Question 1c: Incidence of student stalking of female vs. male faculty: Of those
being stalked, 54% were female and 46% were male, a significant difference (
2 (1) = 11.37, p.
<0.001).
Research Question 2: Types of Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Faculty: Although not
all faculty experienced all 28 behaviors identified on the ORI, each of the 28 behaviors was
identified as having occurred at least once. Among those faculty who were identified as having
been stalked, the most common behaviors reported were students invading the faculty members
personal space and students intruding uninvited into the faculty members interactions with
colleagues and students by 61% and 57% of faculty respectively (for all percentages, decimals
points were eliminated by rounding). The least common behaviors, reported by only 2% of the
faculty, were leaving or sending the faculty member a threatening object and kidnapping or

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

102

Morgan, R.

physically constraining the faculty member. Table 1 presents the percent of stalked faculty
reporting specific stalking behaviors from the ORI. As can be seen in this table, 12 of the 28
stalking behaviors listed on the ORI were reported by approximately 25% or more of the faculty
who had been stalked.
Table 1. Percent of stalked faculty reporting on the ORI-Short Form (N=308).
Stalking Behavior from ORI
Invading faculty members personal space
Intruding uninvited into faculty members interactions
Leaving unwanted gifts
Leaving unwanted messages of affection
Leaving unwanted threatening messages
Involving faculty member in activities in unwanted ways
Making exaggerated expressions of affection
Verbal threats
Following the faculty member around,
Watching the faculty member
Engaging in regulatory harassment
Student threatening to hurt him or herself
Showing up in places in threatening ways
Intruding on family/coworkers
Invading faculty members personal property
Approaching faculty member in public places
Monitoring faculty members behavior
Obtaining private information
Student threatening to hurt others
Stealing/damaging valued possessions
Sexual coercion
Physical threats
Invading faculty members property
Physically hurting
Physically restraining faculty member
Physically endangering the faculty members life
Leaving or sending faculty member threatening objects
Kidnapping or physically restraining faculty member

% of Faculty Reporting
Behavior
61%
57%
47%
46%
36%
36%
32%
32%
28 %
28%
27%
25%
17%
17%
16%
14%
11%
10%
10%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
2%
2%

V. Phase Two.
A. Method.
Participants: For this phase of the study, participants were recruited through self-selection. After
completion of the online survey and demographic questionnaire used in Phase One, faculty
members who were willing to be interviewed about their experiences were asked to email the
author. Fifty-five faculty members volunteered to be interviewed. Of these 55, 52 were
interviewed. Of the three who were not interviewed, one decided not to be interviewed due to
scheduling conflicts and the other two withdrew because they reported that it would be too
painful to talk about their experiences. Similar to faculty in Phase One, faculty in Phase Two
taught both undergraduate and graduate students; 17.3% of faculty taught only graduate or

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

103

Morgan, R.

medical/dental classes, 55.8% taught only undergraduate classes, and 26.9% taught both
undergraduate and graduate classes. Approximately twenty percent (20.38%) of the faculty
reported teaching large courses (over 100 students). The age range of full-time faculty members
in this phase was 32 to 64 with a median age of 49, mean age of 48.27 years (SD = 6.56). Of
those participating in this interview phase, 55.77% were women and 44.23% were men. Time
spent teaching in the university system ranged from 2 to 35 years with a mean of 17.92 (SD =
6.53) years teaching. Of those interviewed 19.23% had a rank of Assistant Professor, 48.08%
had a rank of Associate Professor, 3.85% had a rank of clinical professor, and 28.85% had a rank
of Professor. No one discipline predominated, with faculty representing almost every school.
In comparison to the faculty who participated in Phase One, the participants in Phase
Two were approximately the same age with a mean age of 48.27 as compared to a mean age of
49 for those in Phase One. Likewise, approximately 20% of the faculty in Phase One and in
Phase Two reported teaching large courses (over 100 students). Two significant differences
occurred between participants in Phase One and Phase Two. In Phase One, 55% of respondents
were men while in Phase Two, 45% of respondents were men. In addition, the mean time spent
teaching in the university was 13 years in Phase One but 17.92 years in Phase Two.
Materials: No additional materials were used in this phase of the study. The basic questions
used to initiate discussion during the interviews may be found in the Appendix.
Procedures: Interviews of each professor were conducted on the campus of the faculty
member being interviewed at the location of their choice. Each interview began by explaining
the study and gathering demographic information. Following this, the faculty member being
interviewed was asked to describe their stalker(s), the incident(s), and their reactions in their own
words. Follow-up questions were asked to clarify the incident(s) and the reactions of the faculty
member. Following this open-ended account, the interviewer asked the faculty member to
describe the impact of the stalking on their subsequent teaching and interaction with students.
The author conducted all interviews and data were recorded by hand. Tape recorders were not
used to preserve confidentiality.
B. Results.
Research Question 2: Types of Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Faculty
The Stalkers: The number of stalkers reported by each faculty member varied from one
to six with a mean of 1.67 (SD = 0.92) and a total of 87 stalkers among the 52 faculty members
interviewed. Of the stalkers reported, 51.72% were men and 48.27% were women. Sixty-seven
percent of stalkers were undergraduates, 31.03% were graduate students, and 2.3% were medical
students. The age range of stalkers was reported by faculty as 19 to 45 with a mean age of 25.16
(SD=5.87). Faculty were not always sure of the student stalkers ages so these are their best
estimates.
Behaviors Reported by Faculty: The 52 faculty members interviewed reported on the
stalking behaviors they experienced in the 87 incidents described in the interviews. Faculty
reported a wide range of problematic behaviors with a mean of 8 behaviors per incident and a
total of 696 behaviors. Using coding procedures similar to those outlined in other studies
utilizing interviewing and open ended questioning (Dupuis, Bloom and Loughead, 2006;
Holmes, 2005), all 696 of these behaviors were organized into categories by the author and two
research students based on similar characteristics; agreement on categories was 100%. For
example, being sent numerous email messages, letters, or being called repeatedly on the

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

104

Morgan, R.

telephone was placed into one category, unwanted messages. As can be seen in Table 2, the most
commonly reported behaviors were unwanted messages, with 92% of faculty who had been
stalked reporting receiving repeated unwanted messages, following the faculty member around
campus and off-campus and obsessively watching the faculty member (73%), and regulatory
harassment, that is, threatening to or reporting the faculty member to their superior (61%). Fiftysix percent of faculty reported being verbally or physically threatened and 32% reported sexually
coercive behavior on the part of the student stalker, including attempts at kissing the faculty
member, requests to engage in sexual activity, and unwanted caresses. Seventeen percent of
faculty reported incidents in which their life had been endangered, in each case where a student
either attempted to kill or actually killed another faculty member being stalked, and 46% of
faculty reported incidents in which the student threatened to harm him or herself.
Table 2. Stalking behaviors reported by interviewed faculty (N=52).
Stalking Behaviors
Unwanted messages
Following around, watching
Regulatory harassment
Verbally or physically threatening the faculty member, showing up
Spreading misinformation about the faculty member, exaggerated
expressions of affection
Obtaining private information
Student threatening his or herself, monitoring behavior, intruding
uninvited
Sexually coercing, intruding upon family and coworkers
Invading personal space, unwanted gifts
Physical restraint
Damaging or stealing possessions, Involving in activities,
endangering life
Invading personal property
Invading property

% Experiencing Behavior
92.31% (n=48)
73.07% (n = 38)
61.54% (n = 32)
55.78% (n = 29)
53.85% (n = 28)
51.92% (n = 27)
46.15% (n = 24)
32.69% (n = 17)
30.77% (n = 16)
21.15% (n = 11)
17.31% ( n = 9)
15.38% (n = 8)
11.54% (n = 6)

Research Question 2b: What is the most common category of stalking in this population?
Previous literature has reported that stalking may be subdivided into various types. As indicated
earlier, a common categorization scheme for stalking has been suggested by Dziegielwski and
Roberts (1995), who outlined three subtypes:
the domestic violence stalker, the
erotomanic/delusional stalker, and the nuisance stalker. The 87 reported stalking incidents were
reviewed by the author and two research students to determine if they fell into one of these three
subtypes. Stalking was labeled as domestic violence if the stalking incident was viewed as
resulting from a need to establish, continue, or re-establish a previous relationship even if the
prior social contact was misperceived by the student. For example, one incident of stalking in
this category occurred following attending an off-campus conference with a faculty member.
Stalking was labeled as erotomanic/delusional if the stalking was viewed as a result of becoming
fixated on a faculty member with whom no prior outside-of-class social contact had occurred.
For example, one incident of stalking in this category involved the student interpreting faculty
gestures in the class as conveying personal, sexual messages to the student. Finally, the stalking
was labeled as nuisance if there was repeated harassment of a faculty member without the intent
of building a relationship with that faculty member. Students falling into the last category
typically were perceived as trying to manipulate the faculty member into changing course

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

105

Morgan, R.

requirements or changing their grade. This category might be most similar to Halls (1998)
category of stalkers seeking revenge. There was 100% agreement between the three raters on
placing each of the 87 stalkers into the three categories. Fourteen percent (n = 12) of the stalking
incidents were classified as falling into the domestic violence or prior social contact category,
42.53% (n = 37) fell into the erotomanic/delusional category, and 43.68% (n = 38) fell into the
nuisance/manipulative category.
Research Question 3: Impact of Student Stalking on Teaching - Responses Reported by
Faculty: Faculty reactions were organized into categories based on similar response
characteristics by the author and the two research students. For example, if faculty reported that
they told their Dean or their Assistant Dean, this response was categorized under Contacted
Administrator. The responses reported by faculty could be organized into two categories: general
behavioral responses, and emotional responses. In terms of general behavioral responses, 67% of
faculty had told their colleagues, 58% had told an administrator, and 38% had contacted city or
university police; however, 27% had told no one about being stalked. Characteristic comments
from faculty included: administrators only interested in solving problems, cant count on them
to help, told a colleague about this latest incident and colleague blew it off not very
supportive made me mad, student would have to injure me to be taken off campus
someone has to get hurt before something is done, and how has academia allowed these things
to happen? Those faculty who had told no one about the stalking typically continued to work
with the student, reporting, Teacher in me feels I cant ignore students feel an obligation to
help students.
Forty percent of faculty reported directly telling the student stalker to stop. Twenty-seven
percent of faculty members reported that they had been accused by a colleague, an administrator,
or the student stalker of having a sexual relationship with the student stalker. One faculty
member, echoing the comments of several others, stated, There is a tendency to immediately
take the students side over the professor very unfair professor has no rights in this
process, and I did not feel I had any rights, the students have all the rights nothing I know of
in system to protect the faculty member unless the student does something criminal and you can
prove it.
Emotional responses were a large category of responses reported by the interviewed
faculty. As can be seen in Table 3, the most commonly reported faculty responses included
emotional reactions with 52% of faculty reporting embarrassment, 42% reporting helplessness,
and almost 37% reporting feeling responsible for the students behavior. Common responses of
faculty included: Were supposed to be accessible to our students. Where do faculty member
boundaries come in? We dont have a life outside their (the students) world, Dose of reality,
you lose your sense of trust can never be fully replaced can be somewhat mended but theres
a scar always in the back of your mind could this be a situation? and Made me question
what I was doing to promote this what would make them think they could do this to me?
Impact on Teaching and Future Interactions with Students Reported by Faculty:
Responses to this question were also categorized based on similar reactions by the author and
two research students. For example, if faculty reported that they had stopped using personal
examples while teaching or no longer shared personal stories with students, this was placed in
the less personal when teaching category. Relative to the current incident of stalking, 40% of
faculty reported giving a higher grade to the student stalker than what the student earned. For
example, one faculty member reported, Just easier to give them all Bs than to have to deal with

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

106

Morgan, R.

Table 3. Responses of interviewed faculty members (N = 52) to stalking incidents.

Response of faculty member
General Behavioral Reactions of Faculty:
Told colleagues
Felt supported by colleagues
Contacted Administrator
Felt supported by administrator
Directly told student to stop
Accused of sexual contact with student by
colleagues, administrator, or student
Contacted city or university police
Told no one
Considered leaving university
Caller id installed
Changed home telephone number
Coordinated with colleagues
Panic button installed in office
Divorced
Consulted union
Obtained a personal protection order
Faculty member moved to a safer community
Emotional Reactions of Faculty:
Faculty member embarrassed
Faculty member felt helpless
Faculty member felt responsible
Stress related health problems
Contacted psychological clinic
Emotional reaction to student committing or
attempting to commit suicide

% Reporting
67.31%
31.25%
57.69%
16.67%
40.38%
26.92%
38.46%
26.92%
23.07%
21.15%
21.15%
17.30%
17.30%
17.30%
17.30%
17.30%
9.61%
51.92%
42.31%
36.54%
32.69%
23.08%
17.31%

them. Another commented, Give all multiple-choice objective test items now so students cant
argue lack of objectivity.
Twenty-three percent of faculty reported that the student was banned from campus email,
almost 10% of faculty reported that the student stalker was banned from campus, and almost 6%
of faculty reported that the student was jailed as a result of the stalking incidents. Almost 83% of
faculty reported that they were less personal when teaching subsequent to the stalking incident.
Fifty-four percent reported reduced spontaneity when teaching and 56% reported that they now
keep their office door open when meeting with students. Additional reports from faculty about
how the stalking impacted their teaching are listed in Table 4. In general, the responses of the
faculty members reflect their efforts to reduce any but the most necessary contact with students.
For example, one faculty member commented, Every year (I) get more and more distant; very
cautious treat them with kid gloves.

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

107

Morgan, R.

Table 4. Impact on teaching reported by interviewed faculty members (N=52).

Impact on Teaching
Reactions of faculty to current stalking:
Gave higher grade to student than deserved
Refused to talk with student or answer emails
Avoids office
Professor tried to be nicer to student
Attempted to cajole student
Banned student from email
Banned student from campus
Pursued legal action leading to student being jailed
Made changes to syllabus
Removed phone number/contact information
Reduced difficulty level/number of assignments
Increased structure/rules on syllabus
Substituted objective grading (multiple-choice) for
subjective (essays, papers)
Less personal when teaching
Keeps office door open when meeting with
students
Reduced spontaneity in classroom
More professional, No longer meets with students
outside of office
Changed or cancelled office hours
Second guesses self
Only responds to certain emails

% Reporting Change
40.38%
36.54%
34.62%
32.69%
30.77%
23.08%
9.62%
5.77%
98.08%
88.46%
53.85%
40.38%
30.77%
82.69%
55.77%
53.85%
50.00%
40.38%
30.77%
26.92%

VI. Discussion.
Stalking was operationally defined in the present study when a faculty member reported repeated
incidents of at least two separate stalking behaviors by a student that led to the faculty member
feeling fear, threatened, or intimidated. In the present study, an average incidence rate of 33%
was found. This rate is concerning given the national rate of stalking among the general
population is about 6-7%. However, the rate seems more consistent with the rate of 24% among
mental health professionals. Although female faculty members were slightly more likely than
male faculty to report stalking, the discrepancy is not as large as found in the general population
(e.g., Basile, Swahn, Chen, and Saltzman, 2006).
Likewise, the most common types of faculty stalking differ in significant ways from the
most common types of stalking found in the general population. Among the faculty interviewed
in the present study, it was clear that three distinct patterns of stalking were occurring, similar in
some ways to the three types proposed by Dziegielwski and Roberts (1995). To recall,
Dziegielwski and Roberts outlined the domestic violence stalker, the erotomanic/delusional
stalker, and the nuisance stalker. In the present study, faculty reported what can be called a prior
social contact based stalking where the student perceives an intimate relationship with the faculty
member and begins the stalking as a way of increasing intimacy or of punishing the faculty
member for refusing deeper intimacy. This might be similar to the domestic violence stalking
described by Dziegielwski and Roberts. However, in the case of students stalking faculty, there
has rarely been any intimate relationship. In the present study, for example, only one faculty

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

108

Morgan, R.

member admitted a previous romantic relationship with the student who later stalked her. In
addition, most studies in the general population report that this type of stalking is the most
common, accounting for up to 80% of all stalking. In the present study, this type of stalking
accounted for only 14% of the stalking. Although there was only one instance of a faculty
member reporting a prior romantic relationship with a student, there were ten additional
incidences of student stalking following what might be perceived as blurred boundaries with
faculty members. For example, one instance of stalking occurred following a pattern of
interactions with the student that included going to the professors house (working in the
professors bedroom) and attending conferences with the professor. In a second incident, the
student had met with the professor off-campus at restaurants and in bars.
A second type of stalking occurs in students who appear, to faculty members, to be
experiencing significant psychological difficulties. These students may have had little to no
contact with the faculty member but have fixated on this faculty member in a delusional manner.
This is what Dziegielwski and Roberts call the erotomanic/delusional stalker. In the general
population, this type of stalking is considered relatively rare. In the present study, this type of
stalking accounted for 42.53% of the stalking. In many ways, this higher figure parallels the
findings of mental health professionals who are stalked by their clients. In those studies, the
clients who were most likely to stalk the mental health professional suffered from personality
disorders, had experienced drug and alcohol problems, had a history of behavioral problems, had
quickly attached to the therapist, or were sexually attracted to their therapists. This seems very
similar to the descriptions of the student stalkers in the present study. The fact that this
percentage is so high is of concern as the majority of college faculty are not trained as mental
health professionals. College campuses are filled with students at a very vulnerable stage of
development (Fromme, Corbin, and Kruse, 2008). These students may be away from home for
the first time, may be trying to attend school and work full-time, and on many commuter
campuses, may be attending school full-time, working full-time, and caring for children. The
pressure for all students to attain a college degree has become more intense. It may be that
students who attend commuter campuses are even more stressed than those on residential
campuses, increasing the dangers to faculty who teach on these campuses.
The third distinct category, that may be specific to faculty, is where students stalk faculty in
a seeming effort to influence the grade the faculty member assigns. Although this may be
considered a subtype of nuisance stalker, it seems evident that this subtype is specific to this
environment and is relatively common, with 43.68% of the incidents in the present study falling
into this category. Given the pressures that students are under to achieve high grades and an
increasing consumer attitude that if they pay for their education, they are entitled to a good grade
(Ritter, 2008), these attempts at manipulation of faculty are not surprising.
Faculty responses to incidents of student stalking included both teaching-related responses
and more personal responses. Although personal responses were not a direct focus of this study,
some reactions are noteworthy. Interestingly, most faculty members (84%) attempted to balance
what they perceived as the best interests of their students with the stress being caused by the
student. For example, although one professor was experiencing physical symptoms of stress,
crying, intense fear, and embarrassment, this professor continued advising the student stalker as
the professor believed that no other faculty member would be as familiar with the student and the
students issues. This was not always the case; several faculty members reported that they simply
refused to teach students sharing characteristics of their stalker (for example, undergraduate

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

109

Morgan, R.

status or a major in, say, psychology), even though they recognized that this was not in the best
interests of students.
One of the primary concerns of the present study was to assess the impact of student
stalking on faculty teaching and interaction with students. Faculty have been encouraged to
increase active learning approaches in the classroom and to engage with students outside the
classroom in order to increase learning. Social constructivisman instructional philosophy most
closely associated with Lev Vygotskyargues that learning is culturally and socially influenced;
that is, the community around us affects the way we see the world. The classroom, from this
social constructivist perspective, must be "active, constructive, intentional, and cooperative"
(Jonassen, Howland, Moore, and Marra, 2003, p. iv), with instructors creating learning
experiences that students find challenging and personally meaningful (Llewellyn, 2002). Within
this framework, the classroom is much like a community, with students participating in both
individual and group roles and seeking support and encouragement from their instructor as well
as their peers. In order for such a classroom to succeed, it seems evident that the professor must
be able to feel safe in the community of students.
Unfortunately for students, however, every professor interviewed directly identified
changes in their willingness to interact with students. These changes varied from changes in the
syllabus more rules, more structure, and fewer opportunities for students to interact with the
faculty member outside of the classroom to increasing the difficulty level for students in
contacting the professor by no longer providing a home telephone number, to preventing student
access to the faculty members office without supervision. Faculty members who were able to do
so reported decreasing their exposure to students by refusing to teach particular classes or even
particular populations of students (students from a particular major or students at a particular
academic level, such as undergraduates). These changes may decrease student choices in terms
of courses and may decrease the community cohesiveness in the classroom.
Not all of these changes are necessarily negative. For example, several professors
reported no longer providing students with their home telephone number. Although students
might enjoy contacting professors at home, there is no pedagogical reason to believe that this is
necessary for student learning. Likewise, three professors noted that the stalking incident led
them to reevaluate their course assignments, leading them to improve the clarity of their
requirements. Such a change would benefit all students.
As a result of their experiences with stalking, many faculty reported a change in how they
viewed colleagues, administrators, and the general climate of the university. Almost every
faculty member attempted at some point to communicate their concerns about the student
stalking to a colleague (67%) or an administrator (58%). In 62% of these cases, the faculty
member reported a lack of concern, disbelief, or recommendations to let it go and not cause any
trouble. Both male and female faculty reported that frequently other colleagues viewed the
professor as the instigator of problems or that the professor should be flattered by the students
interest. In these cases, the stalker was perceived by other faculty and, at times, by
administrators, as having a crush on the faculty member. Since students are almost always of
legal age, the perception of many was that as long as the student was no longer in the professors
class, there was no problem with the professor and student dating. Conceptualizing stalking
behaviors as simply dating attempts was frustrating and humiliating for the professor involved.
In two cases, the student stalker sought out colleagues of the professor to try and help convince
the faculty member to date the student, and the colleagues did so.

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

110

Morgan, R.

The results of this study indicate a potentially critical problem on university campuses.
That is, stalking appears much more common than in the general population and highly likely to
lead to changes in the professors treatment of students. Faculty have a tendency to withdraw
from students following stalking incidents, decreasing the very warmth so many researchers have
argued is necessary for better classroom learning environments. Equally important is the
significant distrust engendered by such incidents between the faculty members and the academic
community. Almost two-thirds of faculty report negative experiences when attempting to report
stalking incidents to their immediate superiors deans or assistant deans or to their colleagues.
Faculty do not feel supported when these incidents occur, reporting that the students are more
likely to be believed than they are. Efforts to address these issues will require significant campus
efforts to educate faculty and administrators about how to handle potential stalking situations and
the development of protocols to allow faculty concerns to be heard openly without fear of
repercussions. Although only a few faculty members reported feeling supported by colleagues
and administrators, those individuals were unlikely to have made potentially negative changes in
their teaching or interactions with students.
VII.

Limitations and Future Directions.

Several limitations of this study caution against overgeneralization. Although eight campuses
were surveyed, all campuses were within one university system. It is possible that the findings
within this system would not be representative of other universities. Obviously, the next step
would be to survey a larger set of faculty from a variety of campuses across the United States.
Likewise, the present study used the ORI Short Form. This survey instrument was designed for
use in a more general population and with more traditional stalking situations, that is, in
situations where there had been a previous relationship between the stalker and the person being
stalked. There is no guarantee that this scale reliably and validly measures stalking in the present
population. Future studies should modify this form to reflect the findings of this study.
Specifically, the form needs to reflect situations in which no prior personal relationship existed
between the professor and the student as well as asking more questions about how the faculty
responded to the stalking incidents. Although there was considerable overlap between the
stalking behaviors identified on the ORI and during the interview, the category rankings were not
identical. Ninety-two percent of faculty who were interviewed described a pattern of unwanted
messages including email, telephone, and traditional notes/letters from students. The ORI did not
have a category that specifically meshed with this. On the ORI, unwanted messages were
categorized into either unwanted messages of affection or unwanted threatening messages. At
times, the types of unwanted messages described by faculty were rambling diatribes reflecting
confusion, hatred, or incoherence and were not perceived by faculty as falling into either of the
two ORI categories. Likewise, in light of the research conducted by Turmanis and Brown (2006),
indicating that rates of stalking vary when assessing level of concern, it seems critical that this be
assessed as well as simply stalking behaviors experienced. In the present study, although all
faculty members reported the unwanted behaviors as threatening or intimidating, thereby
fulfilling the definition of stalking, the level of concern about the stalking was not specifically
addressed.
In addition, since not all faculty chose to complete the survey, it is impossible to know how
the characteristics of those choosing to participate differed from those who did not choose to
complete the survey. It may be that those who had experienced stalking incidents were more

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

111

Morgan, R.

likely than those who had not experienced such incidents to complete the survey. Likewise,
female faculty who had experienced stalking incidents may have been more likely to respond to
the survey than male faculty members. On the other hand, it seemed clear from the interviews
with faculty who had been stalked, that they were reluctant to share their experiences with
others. It may be that faculty experiencing stalking incidents are less likely to categorize their
experiences as stalking and thus, were less likely to respond to the survey. In either of these
scenarios, the actual incidence of student stalking of faculty may be misrepresented by the
present study.
Despite the above limitations, the present study clearly illustrates the need for additional
research in this area. The types of behaviors experienced by faculty who are being stalked by
students identified in this study overlap with the general findings in the stalking literature but
present some unique challenges in that such stalking incidents are less likely to be the result of
prior, mutual emotional relationships. This suggests that student stalking of faculty may be more
similar to clients stalking mental health professionals. These differences need to be added to
future surveys of faculty stalked by students. The detailed interviews with the faculty in this
study clearly suggest the significant emotional impact of student stalking and the toll it takes on
the future interactions between faculty and students both within and outside of the classroom.
Finally, the interview data suggest that college campuses need to develop a more supportive
environment for those faculty members who may be experiencing student stalking. More
specifically, the development of campus wide training for faculty and administrators on the
potential problem of student stalking of faculty and appropriate measures would be of use. Such
training needs to be coordinated with campus security and the campus improvement of teaching
center, if available. The inclusion of administrators such as deans, assistant deans, and program
chairs ideally should allow for a greater sense of support. Clear guidelines for faculty to
document such incidents should also be developed. In addition, faculty need to discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of meeting with students off-campus or in more isolated parts of
campus. How stalking impacts teaching and the campus community also needs to be directly
addressed. As stated by one of the interviewed faculty members, Everyone knew this was going
onno one was stopping hermy colleagues were just glad it was happening to me and not to
them.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by a P.A. Mack Fellowship. I would like to thank my
research students Tara White, Nolan Brewer, and Erin Emington for their assistance with this
study.
Appendix 1. Standard Questions Used to Initiate Discussion in Interviews.
For each stalking incident:
Tell me a little about yourself: age, gender, race, marital status, length of time at
university, rank, discipline, etc.
Tell me a little about the stalker: age, gender, race, level of program, etc.
When did these events take place?
Describe the behaviors of the student follow-up questions as needed.
Did you tell anyone while this was occurring? Who? What was their reaction?
o If not, why did you tell no one?
What impact did this have on your teaching?
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

112

Morgan, R.

o Do you have any indications that this impacted your teaching?

o Do you believe this was a positive or negative change in your teaching? Why?
Did you change anything on your syllabi as a result of this incident?
o Get specific information on changes
Did you change any of your classroom procedures as a result of this incident?
o Get specific information on changes
How do you believe this incident impacted your students?
o Get specific information
o Can I use this in any way?
References

Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self reported
gains, standardized test scores, and college grades. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 499526.
Astin, A. (1994). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Basile, K.C., Swahn, M.H., Chen, J., and Saltzman, L.E. (2006). Stalking in the United States:
Recent National Prevalence Estimates. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 31(2), 172175.
Batty, P. (2004). Female staff face abuse. Times Higher Education Supplement, 1639, 1.
Biaggio, M., Paget, T.L., and Chenoweth, M.S. (1997). A model for ethical management of
faculty: Student dual relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(2),
184-189.
Bjerregaard, B. (2002). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and Victims, 15,
389-406.
Bloom, R. (2000). Have you ever been heckled in the classroom? Accounting Education, 9(4),
413-415.
Collins, S. (August 26, 2006). Ex-student charged in arson of professors home. Retrieved July 9,
2007, from [Link]
Chronicle of Higher Education (August 25, 2006). Disgruntled ex-student charged with trying to
kill professor. Retrieved July 24, 2008 from [Link]
[Link] (April 18, 2007). Retrieved May 29, 2007, from
[Link]

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

113

Morgan, R.

Cupach, W.R., and Spitzberg, B.H. (1998). Obsessional relational intrusion and stalking. In W.R.
Cupach and B.H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The Dark Side of Close Relationships (p. 112-137). New
York: Springer Publishing Company.
Dupuis, M., Bloom, G., and Loughead, T. (2006). Team captains' perceptions of athletic
leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 60-78.
Dziegielwski, S.F., and Roberts, A.R. (1995). Stalking victims and survivors: Identification,
legal remedies, and crisis treatment. In Crisis Intervention and Time Limited Cognitive
Treatment, A.R. Roberts, ed., pp. 73-90. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Feldman-Summers, S. (1989). Sexual contact in fiduciary relationships. In G. O. Gabbard (Ed.),
Sexual exploitation in professional relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association.
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., and Turner, M.G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a
national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 257-308.
Fromme, K., Corbin, W.R., and Kruse, M.I. (2008). Behavioral risks during the transition from
high school to college. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1497-1504.
Hall, D. (1998). The victims of stalking. In J. Reid Meloy (Ed.). The psychology of stalking:
Clinical and forensic implications. p. 113-117, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Holmes, D.L., Rupert, P.A., Ross, S.A., and Shapera, W.E. (1999). Student Perceptions of Dual
Relationships Between Faculty and Students. Ethics & Behavior, 9(2), 79-107.
Holmes, R.M. (2005). Working to play: College student athletes' conceptions of play and work.
In F. McMahon, D. Lytle and B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Play: An interdisciplinary synthesis: Play
& Culture Studies, Vol. 6 (pp. 209-231). Landham, MD: University Press of America.
Hudson-Allez, G. (2006). The stalking of psychotherapists by current or former clients: Beware
of the insecurely attached! Psychodynamic Practice, 12(3), 249-260.
Jonassen. D.H., Howland. J., Moore, J., and Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems
with technology: A constructivist perspective. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Kitchener, K. S. (1992). Psychologist as teacher and mentor: Affirming ethical values throughout
the curriculum. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 190195.
Lenckus, D. (2002). College shooting underscores risk. Business Insurance, 36(44), 3-4.
Llewellyn. D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

114

Morgan, R.

Marks, C.A. (1997). The Kansas stalking law: A credible threat to victims. Washburn Law
Journal, 36, 468-498.
McIvor, R.J., and Petch, E. (2006). Stalking of mental health professional: An underrecognized
problem. British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, 188, 403-404.
Mullen, P.E. (2003). Multiple classifications of stalkers and stalking behaviors available to
clinicians. Psychiatric Annals, 33(10), 651-656.
Mullen, P.E., Path, M., and Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
New York Times (July 19, 1997). Man gets three life terms for killing three professors.
Retrieved July 18, 2007, from
[Link]
n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fP%2fPlea%20Bargaining.
Path, M., and Mullen, P.E. (1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 170, 12-17.
Purcell, R., Path, M., and Mullen, P.E. (2004). When do repeated intrusions become stalking?
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 15(4), 571-583.
Ratelle, L. (1994). Reports on 1992 campus murders bring shakeup to Concordia University.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 40(41), A37.
Ritter, K. (2008). E-valuating learning: Rate my professors and public rhetorics of pedagogy.
Rhetoric Review, 27(3), 259-280.
Romeo, F.F. (2001). A recommendation for a campus anti-stalking policy and procedures
handbook. College Student Journal, 35(4), 514-516.
Schneider, A., and Basinger, J. (1998). Faculty notes. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(10),
A14.
Spitzberg, B.H., and Cupach, W.R. (2003). What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational intrusion
and stalking related phenomena. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 8(4), 345-376.
Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. (2000). Report of the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of
Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ
183781). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Turmanis, S.A., and Brown, R.I. (2006), The Stalking and Harassment Behavior Scale:
Measuring the incidence, nature, and severity of stalking and relational harassment and their
psychological effects. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Research and Practice, 79, 183-198.

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

115

Morgan, R.

Wilson, R. (2007). A right to romance. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(50), 6.

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2009.

116