University of Maine professor of higher education Elizabeth Allan is the recipient of the 2026 George D. Kuh Award for Outstanding Contribution to Literature and/or Research from NASPA, the professional association for student affairs administrators in higher education.
Allan is an internationally recognized leader in the study of hazing and its prevention. She directs the Hazing Prevention Research Lab (HPRL) at UMaine and is principal and founder of the research group StopHazing, where she leads the Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC).
The consortium is a pathbreaking research-to-practice initiative that has worked with nearly 40 colleges and universities to implement prevention efforts while building an evidence base for successful hazing prevention strategies.
Allan was the lead investigator for the 2008 National Study of Student Hazing, the most comprehensive examination of hazing in the U.S., and currently leads its re-launch.
“This award reflects not only my own work but the collective efforts of many collaborators, students, practitioners and survivors whose insights and courage have shaped my scholarship,” Allan said in a NASPA announcement. “I am especially grateful to colleagues and graduate students at the University of Maine, whose curiosity, care and commitment continue to inform my research and the work of the Hazing Prevention Research Lab. I also extend sincere thanks to the StopHazing team, whose partnership, innovation and commitment demonstrate the transformative potential of research-to-practice collaboration.”
Allan consulted members of Congress and their staff on the bipartisan Stop Campus Hazing Act, which was signed into law in December 2024 and requires colleges and universities to implement comprehensive hazing prevention programs and to publicly report incidents in their annual campus security reports, known as Clery Reports.
HazingInfo.org, a partnership between the UMaine College of Education and Human Development, the University of Washington Information School, StopHazing and Jolayne Houtz and Hector Martinez — who lost their son Sam to hazing in 2019 — recently reported that just 44% of institutions nationwide met the new requirements in the law’s first year.
Allan will accept the George D. Kuh Award for Outstanding Contribution to Literature and/or Research at the 2026 NASPA Annual Conference, March 7-11 in Kansas City.
UMaine News spoke to Allan about the current state of hazing prevention research, upcoming projects and how to increase transparency around hazing on college campuses.
Congratulations on your recent award. George Kuh is well-known in the world of higher education for his work on student engagement and its impact on learning. How do you think your research reflects this commitment to ensuring students feel connected to the institutions where they choose to go to college?
George Kuh helped the field understand that student success is not simply about access to higher education or preparedness, it is about engagement. His work reminds us that what students experience in college matters profoundly.
My research on campus culture, climate and hazing is rooted in that same premise. Belonging and connection are essential to engagement. However, the connection can be distorted. Hazing often masquerades as a pathway to belonging and a so-called “tradition” that builds community in groups. But in practice, hazing undermines trust, safety and the very conditions necessary for meaningful engagement and learning.
Over the past two decades, my work has focused on understanding how peer cultures can shape students’ experiences, for better or worse. If engagement is about investing time and energy in educationally purposeful activities, then we must ensure that the environments in which students invest that energy are healthy, ethical and aligned with institutional values. My scholarship reflects Kuh’s commitment by asking not only whether students are involved, but how and to what end. True engagement should elevate student well-being, not endanger it.
As you said, you now have more than two decades of research on campus culture and climate, including hazing and hazing prevention. When you consider this body of work, what are some practices that higher education institutions can implement to prevent hazing and shift culture away from these harmful behaviors?
Based on our research and our work in the field with campus staff and administrators, we know that hazing prevention is strengthened when certain strategies are in place.
First, there has to be visible commitment from campus administration and leadership when it comes to hazing prevention.
Second, a coalition-based approach that brings different organizations, groups and populations together to focus on campus-wide implementation is needed to ensure you cast as wide a net as possible.
Third, you need research-based education and training to inform students, faculty and staff about the potential harm from hazing, how they can identify it and what they can do to report it and prevent it.
Fourth, beyond education and training, campus communities need to establish fortifying initiatives that cultivate healthy group and team environments including ethical leadership development.
Fifth, you need transparency and accountability supported by institutional policy that is consistently communicated and enforced.
The 2008 National Study of College Student Hazing, which you led with former UMaine colleague Mary Madden, is perhaps your most well-known work of research. You’re currently working to update this study. Where are you at in that process, and what do you hope to learn from relaunching the study?
The 2008 National Study of College Student Hazing remains the most comprehensive examination of hazing in a postsecondary context. Since then, the higher education landscape has changed significantly, and we’re eager to collect data to provide a more current national snapshot of hazing in the context of postsecondary education.
We are now relaunching the study with an updated survey, expanded institutional participation and stronger attention to intersectional experiences. Our goal is to establish a new national baseline that reflects contemporary realities.
We hope to learn more about the nature and extent of college student hazing experiences in the U.S., as well as the extent to which, if any, college hazing behavior has shifted over time. We’re also hoping to learn about students’ attitudes and beliefs regarding hazing, as well as their knowledge and attitudes toward reporting, intervening and preventing it.
Without updated national data, colleges and universities are attempting to address a dynamic problem with outdated intelligence. The new data will help the field continue to move from reactive response to informed prevention.
You consulted on the federal Stop Campus Hazing Act. According to your partners at HazingInfo, less than half of higher education institutions nationwide met the law’s new reporting requirements. What can be done to increase reporting and transparency as required by the law?
The passage of the Stop Campus Hazing Act was a significant step forward, and many colleges and universities are working hard to bolster their hazing prevention efforts and transparency. However, compliance gaps show that legislation alone does not guarantee implementation.
To increase reporting and transparency, federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Education can provide further guidance to support implementation and can bolster compliance by offering technical assistance to institutions. Accrediting bodies and state systems can help by integrating compliance into their review processes.
Colleges and universities themselves should clearly designate personnel responsible for hazing transparency compliance, rather than dispersing responsibility. Public accountability also matters. When transparency data are visible and comparable, institutions have a greater incentive to meet standards. Finally, we will continue to provide education about the role transparency and accountability play in prevention.
The legislation serves as the floor, not the ceiling, of what institutions of higher education can do to shift hazing culture and cultivate environments for healthy leadership and belonging. Transparency is not punitive; it is protective. Families, students and campus communities deserve to know how institutions respond to harm.
Is there data or information that you can take away from the 44% of institutions that did report hazing incidents?
The fact that 44% of institutions of higher education reported hazing incidents tells us at least two important things. First, hazing is occurring and being documented. Reporting does not necessarily indicate an increase in incidence or a more dangerous campus than others; in many cases, it signals a functioning system where students are coming forward and institutions are responding.
Second, variation across institutions highlights differences in infrastructure and culture. Where reporting systems are clear, accessible and trusted, transparency is higher. Where hazing reporting is absent from institutional websites, students and families may not know where to turn.
The early data suggest that transparency itself may be a proxy for institutional commitment. Over time, we can examine whether institutions that meet reporting requirements also demonstrate stronger prevention outcomes. That is one of the critical next steps in our research agenda.
Contact: Casey Kelly, casey.kelly@maine.edu
