Normal View Dyslexic View
Thematic Article
Exploring gender-based violence against men in African universities
, ,
Abstract
Gender-based violence (GBV) affects individuals of all genders, yet research has focused predominantly on female victims, leaving male victims under-represented. In African universities, societal norms surrounding masculinity amplify the underreporting of GBV against men, creating significant obstacles to recognition and support. This study explores the prevalence and patterns of GBV experienced by men in academic environments, with an emphasis on how demographic and institutional factors influence their willingness to report such experiences. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative and qualitative data collected through online questionnaires. The results reveal a notable prevalence of GBV against men, with physical and psychological violence being the most frequently reported forms. The findings underscore the pervasive yet under-acknowledged nature of GBV against men in African universities and highlight the need for gender-sensitive policies and institutional interventions. Recommendations include establishing confidential reporting systems and inclusive communication policies to foster a supportive environment for all victims. This article is published in the thematic collection ‘Decolonising Gender Knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa: Empirical Insights and Theoretical Innovations from Early Career Researchers’, edited by Alicia Bowman, Evelyn Garwe and Juliet Thondhlana.
Keywords
gender-based violence (GBV)menAfricamasculinityuniversityIntroduction
Gender-based violence (GBV) is a pervasive global issue impacting individuals of all genders, though much of the existing research has focused on women. Although GBV has historically been framed as a women’s issue, the experiences of male victims, particularly in academic settings, are increasingly recognised as an area of concern. The gendered nature of violence, coupled with socio-cultural and institutional barriers, prevents many men from reporting their victimisation. In African academic contexts, these challenges are compounded by patriarchal gender norms that perpetuate male invulnerability and minimise male victimisation. Despite the prevalence of male victimisation, societal norms around masculinity frequently discourage men from reporting violence, leading to under-reporting (Brink et al. 2021; SACAP 2023). Keratiloe et al. (2022) found that men who were unable to communicate incidents often dealt with this through the use of substances to drown their sorrows.
In African universities, interaction and communication strategies primarily aim to foster awareness, facilitate reporting, and provide assistance to males who have experienced GBV. Effective communication is essential for dismantling prejudice, stimulating debate, and developing policies concerning GBV against men. Strategies for communication within institutions—such as awareness-raising events and the provision of effective reporting mechanisms—along with non-discriminatory messaging, can contribute to altering negative societal perceptions that regard men as victims as taboo. Confronting such biases is crucial to promoting a more inclusive understanding of GBV (Helman & Ratele 2018).
In many African academic environments, GBV against men is compounded by deeply ingrained cultural expectations of male strength and invulnerability. These gendered stereotypes often prevent men from acknowledging their victimisation or seeking help, creating significant barriers to addressing their needs (Heise 2011). Furthermore, institutional cultures that reflect these traditional norms may minimise or ignore the experiences of male victims, further isolating them from necessary support systems (CHE 2021; Mufulira College 2021). The paper aims to address the gap in research to understand how cultural norms, institutional policies, and societal expectations contribute to the under-recognition of male victims and the challenges they face in seeking help. The study advocates for the development of inclusive support systems and policies that recognise the experiences of all GBV survivors, regardless of gender (Brink et al. 2021; SACAP 2023).
This paper addresses the under-researched issue of gender-based violence against men in African universities. We begin by establishing the scope of the problem through a review of the literature on GBV in Africa. To understand the complexities of this issue, we employ a theoretical framework that integrates masculinity theory, intersectionality theory, and Kopano’s concept of hegemonic and African masculinities. Using a mixed-methods approach, we present findings that shed light on the experiences of male survivors. The paper concludes with concrete recommendations for institutional policies that can provide support and foster a more equitable environment for reporting GBV.
Literature review
Overview of GBV: definitions and scope
Gender-based violence (GBV) is a broad term encompassing various forms of violence—physical, psychological, sexual, and emotional—based on an individual’s gender. Traditionally, GBV research has focused on the experiences of women due to their higher prevalence as victims, but recent studies have highlighted the under-explored issue of male victimisation (SACAP 2023). Men, particularly in academic settings, also face violence, including physical assault, sexual harassment, and psychological abuse. However, societal norms that frame men as strong and invulnerable create significant barriers to reporting and addressing male victimisation. This results in under-reporting and a lack of institutional support for male survivors (Brink et al. 2021).
While GBV against women is widely acknowledged, the experiences of men remain marginal in both research and policy, despite their significant psychological, social, and academic consequences (SACAP 2023). The absence of gender-sensitive support systems for male victims exacerbates their vulnerability, making it critical to explore how GBV manifests across genders in academic environments.
The gendered dimensions of violence
GBV is inherently gendered, shaped by power dynamics that reinforce traditional gender roles. Masculinity is often linked to dominance, strength, and resilience, while femininity is associated with vulnerability. These gender norms influence both the perpetration and the experience of violence. Men, particularly those who face violence in intimate relationships, may feel compelled to conceal their victimisation due to fear of appearing weak (Dutton 2007). As a result, male survivors often face stigma, psychological distress, and isolation, with many refraining from seeking help to avoid challenging societal expectations of masculinity (Brink et al. 2021).
In academic settings, these norms are intensified. Men may fear that reporting GBV would undermine their academic standing, particularly in cultures where masculinity is tied to authority and power (CHE 2021). This reluctance to disclose abuse leaves male victims without adequate resources, further reinforcing the notion that men cannot be victims of GBV (SACAP 2023).
Historical and socio-cultural context of GBV in Africa
In African societies, GBV is deeply rooted in historical and cultural factors, including colonial legacies that reinforced patriarchal structures and traditional gender roles (Mufulira College 2021). These cultural norms have long positioned men as the protectors and providers, while women are often seen as subordinates. This power imbalance has normalised violence against women and contributed to the invisibility of male victimisation (SACAP 2023). In many African communities, male victims of GBV, whether in domestic settings or academic environments, are stigmatised and their experiences often trivialised (Jewkes et al. 2015). Men who experience violence are often discouraged from reporting it, as it challenges societal expectations of male strength and invulnerability (Mshweshwe 2020). Moreover, institutional policies within African universities frequently lack gender-sensitive approaches to addressing male victimisation, which limits support for male survivors and contributes to their continued marginalisation (Brink et al. 2021).
Institutional communication strategies for addressing GBV and gender norms in African universities
Strategic institutional communication focuses on how organisations use communication in a planned way to achieve organisational goals. According to Pedro (2013), various communication strategies have been used to prevent different forms of violence; however, men are usually often left out of communication efforts, which weakens the effectiveness of these interventions. These strategies include advocacy, behaviour and social change communication, social mobilisation, mass media, and participatory communication.
Pedro (2013) examined the application of various communication strategies ranging from advocacy to interpersonal communication within the context of GBV and found that there is no singular approach to strategic communication but rather a mix approach to inform change (Njamba 2015; Parks 2005). Okaka (2021) identified strengthening communication strategies as a major contributing factor in promoting gender equality within diverse settings. Njamba (2015) indicates that strategic communications can be used to end GBV, as it empowers individuals and groups with messages that can change beliefs, attitudes, and practices that may (in)directly promote reporting by GBV victims. Gwiza & Hendricks (2024) found that institutional communication strategies in African universities reinforce or challenge traditional gender norms, particularly around masculinity and vulnerability. An analysis of university policies and their messaging on GBV indicates that, although UFH (University of Fort Hare) had a policy intended to manage GBV incidents effectively, it failed. The failure was due to poor management and prevention of GBV as well as weak implementation of policies for reporting GBV cases.
Collectively, these studies present evidence that the inclusivity of communication frameworks in addressing male victimisation will break the spiral of silence and make way for a regime of openness.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this study is anchored in masculinity theory, intersectionality theory and Ratele Kopano’s concept of hegemonic masculinities and African masculinity. Masculinity theory, as articulated by Connell (2002), explores how societal norms and expectations surrounding masculinity influence male behaviour and relationships. This theory posits that the construction of masculinity often leads to the under-reporting of male victimisation, as societal pressures compel men to conform to ideals of strength and emotional stoicism, which can inhibit their willingness to seek help or report violence (Jordan et al. 2022; Mshweshwe 2020). Connell’s work (2002) emphasises that the portrayal of men as dominant and invulnerable creates systemic blind spots in institutional responses to male victims of GBV, particularly in environments like universities where power dynamics are pronounced (Sikweyiya & Jewkes 2020).
Intersectionality theory, introduced by Crenshaw (1989), complements masculinity theory by examining how overlapping social identities—such as race, class, and academic hierarchy—interact to shape the experiences of male victims of GBV (Hattery 2022). This framework is particularly relevant in African universities, where cultural norms and institutional hierarchies can further complicate the reporting and recognition of male victimisation. For instance, a male academic’s position within the university hierarchy may influence his likelihood of reporting GBV, as those in higher ranks may feel additional pressure to maintain a facade of authority and control (Davies & True 2015). The intersection of these identities can create unique barriers to reporting, as societal expectations regarding masculinity may discourage men from acknowledging their victimisation (Arenas-Montaño & López-Carrillo 2022; Seymour & Houghton 2021). The theory has been critiqued for potentially oversimplifying the complexities of social identities by emphasising distinctions rather than commonalities among marginalised groups (Kalaça & Dündar 2010). Nevertheless, both theories are essential for framing this research, as they allow for a comprehensive exploration of the factors that contribute to the under-reporting of GBV against men in African universities, contributing to the development of more inclusive support systems for all victims of GBV (Razera & Santos 2017; Scambor & Rammstedt 2014).
Methodology
This study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to provide a comprehensive understanding of gender-based violence (GBV) against men in African universities. Research on GBV often benefits from mixed methods, as illustrated by studies like that of Heise (2011), which highlight the importance of combining statistical trends with narrative accounts to understand the socio-cultural dynamics of violence.
Similarly, using mixed methods aligns with recommendations from Jewkes et al. (2015), who emphasise the need for methodological pluralism in understanding gendered violence, especially in under-researched populations like male victims. This dual approach ensures that the study not only quantifies GBV against men but also contextualises these experiences within broader socio-cultural and institutional frameworks. The research questions focus on understanding the prevalence, cultural influences, institutional policies, and barriers to reporting GBV, which aligns with the exploratory objectives. Data were collected through an online questionnaire featuring Likert-scale and open-ended questions, targeting university lecturers and male students across fifteen universities in Southern, Central, and Western Africa.
An online questionnaire was chosen for its accessibility, efficiency, and ability to reach diverse participants across multiple universities in Southern, Central, and Western Africa. Pedro (2013) found that anonymous online surveys increased participant comfort and response rates when dealing with sensitive topics. The study timeframe spanned six months, from January to June 2024. The following research questions guided this study:
1.
What are the prevalence and types of GBV experienced by men in African universities?
2.
How do cultural norms and societal expectations influence the recognition and reporting of GBV against men in these settings?
3.
What institutional policies and communication strategies currently exist to address male victimisation, and how effective are they?
4.
How do men perceive the barriers to reporting GBV within academic environments?
5.
What recommendations can be made to develop inclusive support systems and policies for male victims of GBV?
Ethical approval was obtained from each institution where the authors work.
Sampling methods and participant demographics
A stratified random sampling method was employed to ensure representation across various demographics, including gender, academic rank, and geographical location. The sample consisted of 180 university lecturers (90 male, 90 female) and 180 male students (90 in traditional relationships, 90 in non-traditional relationships). Including both male and female participants allowed for a nuanced exploration of gender dynamics related to GBV. It is essential to capture the perspectives of women, as they may have insights into the societal norms and cultural contexts that influence GBV against men (Raftery et al. 2022).
Participants were recruited through university mailing lists and social media platforms, ensuring a diverse representation of experiences and perspectives. By including participants from both traditional and non-traditional relationships, the study aims to capture a wide range of experiences and perceptions related to GBV. Traditional relationships may reflect more conventional gender roles, while non-traditional relationships might challenge these norms and provide different insights into the dynamics of violence (Dzinamarira 2023; Leddy et al. 2019). The stratified random sampling method ensures that various demographics are represented, which is vital for understanding the multifaceted nature of GBV. This approach aligns with recommendations for methodological pluralism in GBV research, as highlighted by Jewkes et al. (2015), who advocate for inclusive research that captures the complexities of gendered violence (Valentine et al. 2019).
Data collection procedures
Data collection involved administering online questionnaires that assessed participants’ awareness of GBV directed towards men, perceptions of institutional communication practices, and barriers encountered when reporting GBV. The questionnaires were designed to capture both quantitative data on the prevalence and types of GBV experienced by men, and qualitative insights into the personal experiences and challenges faced by participants.
Data analysis and quality markers
The data collected through online questionnaires were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods to ensure a comprehensive understanding of gender-based violence (GBV) against men in African universities. The quantitative data, derived from Likert-scale responses, were subjected to statistical analysis to determine the prevalence and types of GBV experienced by male participants. This analysis allows for the identification of patterns and trends within the data, providing a macro-level perspective on the issue (Heyvaert et al. 2013). For the qualitative component, open-ended responses were analysed thematically. This involved coding the data to identify recurring themes and patterns related to personal experiences, cultural nuances, and institutional barriers encountered by participants when reporting GBV. The integration of qualitative insights with quantitative findings enhances the richness of the data and allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the results (Östlund et al. 2011). In ensuring the quality of the mixed-methods research, quality markers such as triangulation, validity, and reliability were considered. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data served as a form of triangulation, enhancing the credibility of the results (Saleem et al. 2015). The accuracy of the findings within the context of the study and the generalisability of the results to other settings were both considered. The use of stratified random sampling helped to enhance external validity by ensuring diverse representation across demographics (Suprayekti 2023).
Positionality statement
It is crucial to recognise the researchers’ origins and how they might have impacted the study process in order to maintain positionality. One of the researchers is a man, and the other two identify as women. This statement’s reflection was partially influenced by the fact that women researchers carried out the majority of the fieldwork and participant involvement. Because they were not members of the particular cultural and institutional contexts being studied, the female researchers positioned themselves as outsiders to those groups. Because of their outsider status, the data could be analysed more objectively and with less chance of the preexisting prejudices that come with insider viewpoints (Golafshani 2015).
In addition, having a male co-author enhanced the team’s reflexivity by guaranteeing that the interpretation of the results was influenced by both male and female viewpoints. With a focus on methodological rigor and ethical considerations, women researchers (for example, Guga et al. 2023; Keratiloe et al. 2022) are increasingly contributing to GBV research. They provide nuanced insights into the cultural circumstances and societal norms that shape views of male victimisation. Their participation aids in dispelling myths and expanding perspectives on GBV beyond conventional gender dichotomies (Perez et al. 2022).
Presentation of results
The investigation into gender-based violence (GBV) against men within African universities reveals critical insights into the prevalence, types, and impacts of such violence. The data collected from male respondents through online questionnaires highlights significant patterns and trends that warrant attention.
Prevalence of gender-based violence (GBV) experienced by men
The survey results, as shown in Figure 1, indicate that a significant percentage of male respondents (approximately 45 per cent) reported having experienced some form of GBV during their academic careers. The most commonly reported forms of violence were psychological abuse (30 per cent), physical violence (25 per cent), and sexual harassment (20 per cent).
Figure 1.
Prevalence of GBV types among males respondents.
A pie chart divided into four segments, each representing a type of GBV. The blue segment labelled ‘Psychological abuse’ accounts for 30%. The orange segment labelled ‘Physical violence’ accounts for 25%. The grey segment labelled ‘Sexual harassment’ accounts for 20%. The yellow segment labelled ‘No violence’ accounts for 25%.
Among those who reported experiencing violence, 40 per cent indicated that the incidents occurred frequently (once a month), while 35 per cent experienced violence occasionally (a few times a year), and 25 per cent reported rare incidents (once/twice over the course of their academic careers), as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Frequency of GBV incidents among males respondents.
A bar chart showing the frequency of GBV incidents among respondents. The x-axis has three categories: ‘Frequent (once a month or more)’ with 40%, ‘Occasional (a few times a year)’ with 35%, and ‘Rare (once or twice in academic careers)’ with 25%.
Figure 3 shows that over 60 per cent of male victims of GBV reported that their mental health had been negatively impacted by the violence, with symptoms such as anxiety (38 per cent), depression (32 per cent), and sleep disturbance (25 per cent). Only 15 per cent reported no significant psychological impact.
Figure 3.
Impact of GBV on mental health among males respondents.
A bar chart showing the percentage of respondents reporting different mental health impacts. The x-axis categories are Anxiety (35%), Depression (30%), Sleep disturbances (25%), and No significant impact (15%). The y-axis represents the percentage of respondents.
55 per cent of male respondents who experienced GBV reported a decline in academic performance due to emotional distress, with common effects being a lack of concentration (40 per cent) and missed lectures (35 per cent).
Impact on mental health and academic performance
The findings from the study reveal significant implications for the mental health and academic performance of male victims of gender-based violence (GBV). The self-reported high rates of anxiety, depression, and academic decline among these individuals indicate that GBV can profoundly disrupt their lives.
Mental health impacts
The data show that male victims of GBV experience elevated levels of psychological distress. Specifically, over 60 per cent of male respondents reported symptoms of anxiety, while 55 per cent indicated experiencing depression as a direct result of their victimisation. This aligns with existing literature on the psychological effects of GBV, which has consistently demonstrated that survivors, regardless of gender, often face emotional distress that interferes with daily activities, including academic performance.
One male respondent articulated this struggle, stating, ‘I find it hard to concentrate in class, my mind is always racing with thoughts of what happened to me.’ Such qualitative insights highlight the pervasive nature of mental health challenges faced by male victims, underscore the urgent need for targeted psychological support services within academic institutions.
Academic performance decline
The impact of GBV on academic performance is particularly concerning. The study found that over half of male respondents reported a decline in their academic performance as a direct consequence of their experiences with GBV. Commonly cited effects included a lack of concentration (40 per cent) and missed lectures (35 per cent). A male student shared, ‘After what I went through, I started skipping classes; it just felt too overwhelming to face everyone.’ This statement reflects the profound disruption that GBV can cause in the academic lives of male victims.
Demographic factors influencing reporting
The relationship between education level and willingness to report GBV is consistent with the idea that higher educational attainment can lead to greater empowerment and access to resources, which might make individuals more likely to report violence. Male lecturers with postgraduate qualifications may feel more comfortable disclosing their experiences due to greater autonomy and professional networks that offer support.
The geographic variation in reporting (urban versus rural areas) also highlights the influence of cultural norms. In rural areas, where traditional gender roles are more entrenched, men are less likely to report violence due to stronger social stigma and the perception that masculinity must be upheld at all costs. Urban respondents, who are likely to encounter more progressive attitudes, may feel safer in disclosing their victimisation.
The finding that male students in non-traditional relationships were more likely to report GBV suggests that gender norms within non-traditional relationships may provide more space for acknowledging victimisation. This highlights the importance of context in understanding how GBV is experienced and reported, as individuals in non-traditional relationships may be more willing to challenge normative gender expectations around masculinity.
Barriers to reporting
The survey results indicate from Figure 4 that a significant barrier to reporting GBV among male victims is the fear of social stigma, with 70 per cent of respondents expressing concerns about damaging their reputation within the academic community and family. The stigma around male victimisation was particularly strong in rural areas, where traditional gender norms are more rigid. 45 per cent of male respondents feared academic or family repercussions if they reported GBV. These fears were more pronounced among male students (50 per cent) than among male lecturers (35 per cent) (Chireshe et al. 2019). To quantify the relationship between fear of stigma and the likelihood of reporting GBV, a correlation analysis was conducted. The results showed a strong negative correlation (r = −0.65, p < 0.01) between the fear of social stigma and the willingness to report incidents of GBV. This suggests that, as fear of stigma increases, the likelihood of reporting decreases significantly.
Figure 4.
Barrier to reporting GBV among male respondents.
A bar chart showing the frequency of three concerns. The concerns are: ‘Lack of resources/support’ at 30%, ‘Fear of academic/family repercussions’ at 45%, and ‘Fear of stigma’ at 70%.
Additionally, the analysis revealed that 45 per cent of male respondents feared academic or family repercussions if they reported GBV. A comparison of means using a t-test indicated that male students (M = 4.2, SD = 0.8) reported significantly higher levels of fear regarding repercussions compared to male lecturers (M = 3.5, SD = 1.0), t (358) = 4.5, p < 0.001. This finding highlights the pronounced stigma surrounding male victimisation, particularly among students, who may feel more vulnerable in their academic environments. Furthermore, the data suggest that traditional gender norms play a critical role in shaping these perceptions. A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between geographic location (urban vs. rural) and the fear of stigma. The results indicated a significant association, 𝜒2 (1, N = 360) = 12.34, p < 0.001, with rural respondents being more likely to report high levels of stigma-related fear compared to their urban counterparts. This reinforces the notion that traditional gender norms, which are more deeply entrenched in rural settings, intensify fears of stigma and contribute to the under-reporting of gender-based violence among men.
Discussion of findings, implications for policy and practice
The findings from the study on gender-based violence (GBV) against men in African universities reveal distinct patterns and experiences among different demographic groups, including male lecturers, male students, female lecturers, and participants in various types of relationships. The qualitative data collected through open-ended questions provide additional context to these findings, highlighting the complexities of GBV in academic settings.
In terms of specific experiences, participants reported a range of abuse. Psychological violence included threats, gaslighting, and humiliation by peers and authority figures. Physical violence often occurred in hazing-type rituals or confrontations with colleagues. Regarding sexual violence, male students described inappropriate touching and coercive behaviour, particularly during academic mentoring or social events, while some lecturers reported sexually suggestive comments from students. In most cases, perpetrators were peers, supervisors, or individuals in positions of authority. This gendered power imbalance reinforces the urgency of institutional accountability and culturally sensitive reporting mechanisms. Among male lecturers, approximately 35 per cent reported experiencing some form of GBV during their academic careers. The most commonly reported types of violence included psychological abuse (25 per cent) and physical violence (15 per cent). Qualitative responses indicated that many lecturers felt a sense of isolation when dealing with their experiences. One lecturer noted, ‘I felt like I had no one to turn to; discussing this issue with colleagues seemed impossible due to fear of judgment.’ This sentiment reflects the stigma associated with male victimisation, particularly in professional environments where traditional notions of masculinity prevail.
In contrast, male students reported a higher prevalence of GBV, with about 50 per cent indicating they had experienced violence. The types of violence reported were similar to those of lecturers, but with a higher incidence of sexual harassment (25 per cent). The qualitative data revealed that many male students felt particularly vulnerable, with one student stating, ‘In my circle, admitting to being a victim is seen as weak; it’s hard to speak up.’ This highlights the cultural pressures that discourage male students from reporting their experiences.
While the primary focus of the study was on male victims, female lecturers provided valuable insights into the dynamics of GBV. Approximately 40 per cent of female lecturers acknowledged awareness of GBV directed towards men, with many expressing concerns about the stigma that prevents male victims from seeking help. Several female lecturers emphasised the institutional silence surrounding male GBV and advocated for gender-inclusive training. Interestingly, some felt that male vulnerability is often neglected in feminist frameworks used in university policy development. Others noted that current university policies tend to centre on women exclusively, which, although necessary, may overlook the full spectrum of gendered violence. A female lecturer commented, ‘It’s crucial for us to create a supportive environment; we need to recognise that men can be victims too.’ This perspective underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive dialogue around GBV that encompasses all genders. These contributions reinforce the importance of fostering inclusive policies and support services that do not exclude men and broaden the understanding of GBV beyond binary frameworks.
Participants in different types of relationships
The findings also revealed differences in experiences based on relationship types. Male students in traditional relationships reported a lower incidence of GBV (40 per cent) compared to those in non-traditional relationships (60 per cent). Qualitative responses indicated that those in non-traditional relationships felt more empowered to discuss their experiences. One participant shared, ‘In my relationship, we talk openly about everything, including the tough stuff. It makes it easier to address issues like GBV.’ This suggests that non-traditional relationship dynamics may provide a more supportive context for acknowledging and addressing GBV.
Isolation and fear of stigma
Many respondents expressed feelings of isolation and fear of stigma associated with being a male victim. This theme was prevalent across all demographic groups, emphasising the need for supportive environments. The influence of cultural norms on reporting behaviors was a significant theme, particularly among male students and lecturers. Traditional gender roles often discouraged open discussions about victimisation. Participants highlighted the importance of having accessible support systems within academic institutions. Many expressed a desire for more resources and awareness campaigns to address GBV against men.
Impact on mental health and academic performance
The high rates of anxiety, depression, and academic decline among male victims of GBV indicate that such violence can significantly disrupt students’ and lecturers’ lives. This finding is consistent with literature on the psychological effects of GBV, which has shown that survivors of violence, regardless of gender, often experience emotional distress that interferes with everyday activities, including academic performance (WHO 2013). The fact that over half of male respondents reported academic decline as a direct consequence of GBV underscores the need for universities to provide psychological support services that specifically cater to male survivors.
Demographic factors and reporting
The relationship between education level and willingness to report GBV is consistent with the idea that higher educational attainment can lead to greater empowerment and access to resources, which might make individuals more likely to report violence (Mufulira College 2021). Male lecturers with postgraduate qualifications may feel more comfortable disclosing their experiences due to greater autonomy and professional networks that offer support. The geographic variation in reporting (urban versus rural areas) also highlights the influence of cultural norms. In rural areas, where traditional gender roles are more entrenched, men are less likely to report violence due to stronger social stigmas and the perception that masculinity must be upheld at all costs. Urban respondents, who are likely to encounter more progressive attitudes, may feel safer in disclosing their victimisation. The finding that male students in non-traditional relationships were more likely to report GBV suggests that gender norms within non-traditional relationships may provide more space for acknowledging victimisation. This highlights the importance of context in understanding how GBV is experienced and reported, as individuals in non-traditional relationships may be more willing to challenge normative gender expectations around masculinity (Brink et al. 2021).
Barriers to reporting
The significant barriers to reporting—particularly fear of stigma and academic/family repercussions—are crucial in understanding why male victimisation is often hidden. These barriers are compounded by the deeply ingrained gendered expectations of masculinity, which discourage men from expressing vulnerability or seeking help. The findings suggest that universities must work to create a more supportive and non-judgmental environment for male victims of GBV. Confidential reporting mechanisms, mental health resources, and awareness campaigns are essential to reducing these barriers. Fear of stigma is a predominant barrier that inhibits male victims from reporting their experiences. This aligns with masculinity theory, which posits that societal norms dictate that men should embody strength and emotional stoicism. As articulated by Connell (Jordan et al. 2022; Mshweshwe 2020), these expectations create a culture where admitting victimisation is perceived as a weakness. Consequently, many male respondents expressed concerns about how their peers would perceive them if they disclosed their experiences. One participant noted, ‘I worry that if I tell someone, they will think I’m not a real man.’ This sentiment reflects the internalised stigma that many men face, which can lead to feelings of isolation and reluctance to seek help.
Academic and family repercussions
In addition to stigma, the potential repercussions on academic and familial relationships further complicate the decision to report GBV. The findings reveal that 45 per cent of male respondents feared negative consequences, such as damaging their reputation within the academic community or facing backlash from family members. This fear was particularly pronounced among male students, with 50 per cent expressing concerns compared to 35 per cent of male lecturers. A male student shared, ‘If I report this, my family will disown me; they believe men should never be victims.’ Such statements highlight the profound impact of societal expectations on the willingness to disclose experiences of violence.
Intersectionality and reporting barriers
Intersectionality theory provides a valuable lens through which to examine these barriers. The experiences of male victims are not uniform; they are shaped by overlapping social identities, including race, class, and academic hierarchy (Hattery 2022). For instance, male academics in higher positions may feel additional pressure to maintain a facade of authority and control, which can deter them from reporting GBV. As noted by Davies & True (2015), the intersection of these identities can create unique barriers to reporting, as societal expectations regarding masculinity may discourage men from acknowledging their victimisation.
The inferential statistical analysis provides compelling evidence that fear of social stigma is a major barrier to reporting GBV among male victims. The strong negative correlation between stigma and reporting willingness, along with significant differences in fear levels between male students and lecturers, underscores the need for targeted interventions that address these barriers. By fostering an environment that reduces stigma and encourages open discussions about male victimisation, academic institutions can better support male victims of GBV.
Conclusion and recommendations
This study reveals a significant yet under-recognised issue of gender-based violence (GBV) against men in African universities. While higher education levels and urban environments correlate with a greater willingness to report, fears of stigma and negative repercussions remain strong deterrents for male victims. The findings highlight the need for more inclusive institutional policies that provide male survivors of GBV with the necessary support and create an environment where reporting violence is not stigmatised, regardless of gender. Firstly, there is a pressing need for universities to develop and implement gender-sensitive policies that specifically address the needs of male victims of GBV. These policies should include provisions for confidential reporting mechanisms, psychological support services, and awareness campaigns that challenge traditional gender norms and promote a culture of openness regarding male victimisation. Additionally, institutional policies concerning gender issues should be reviewed regularly, with clear accountability structures to ensure their effective implementation and responsiveness to emerging concerns. Secondly, universities should establish partnerships with local organisations and stakeholders to create comprehensive support systems for male survivors of GBV. This could involve training staff and faculty on recognising and responding to male victimisation, as well as engaging male students in discussions about GBV to foster a more inclusive and supportive campus environment. It is also crucial to examine the correlation between male administrative staff (non-academic) and academic staff of universities to determine whether similar experiences of GBV and barriers to reporting exist within these groups. Furthermore, future research should explore the experiences of male victims of GBV in different cultural contexts within Africa. A comparative study examining the impact of GBV against men in low–middle-income countries and developed countries would provide valuable insights into the global dimensions of male victimisation. Additionally, further studies should separately investigate the experiences of male students and male academics to ensure a deeper understanding of the specific challenges each group faces. Finally, improvements in the reporting system are essential to eliminate the fear of stigmatisation. Universities must create safer, more accessible channels for reporting GBV, ensuring that male survivors feel protected and supported throughout the process. By addressing these gaps through policy changes, institutional reforms, and further research, universities can take meaningful steps toward fostering gender-inclusive environments where all victims of GBV receive the recognition and support they deserve.
References
Arenas-MontañoJ. & López-CarrilloL. (2022), ‘Gender-based violence and its prevention in university nursing areas’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 14(2): 409–416. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.14.2.0409
BrinkH., van der WaltC. & van RensburgG. (2021), Fundamentals of Research Methodology for Healthcare Professionals, 4th edition (Juta & Company Ltd.).
CHE (Council on Higher Education) (2021), Gender-based Violence in Higher Education: A Framework for Policy and Practice (Pretoria, CHE).
ChiresheR., NcubeT.R. & KasuN.M. (2019), ‘Prevalence and associated factors of intimate partner violence in Zimbabwe: a cross-sectional study’, BMC Public Health, 19(1): 1035. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7353-1
ConnellR.W. (2002), ‘Gender’, in Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics (Routledge), 1–24.
CrenshawK. (1989), ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1): 139–167.
DaviesS.E. & TrueJ. (2015), ‘Reframing conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence: bringing gender analysis back in’, Security Dialogue, 46(6): 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010615601389
DuttonD.G. (2007), The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships, 2nd edition (Guilford Press).
DzinamariraT. (2023), ‘Exploring the dynamics of gender-based violence in diverse relationship types’, Journal of Gender Studies, 45(3): 456–471.
GolafshaniN. (2015), ‘Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research’, The Qualitative Report, 8(4): 597–607. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870
GugaK.T., GugaR., ChigondaG.K. & PenoS. (2023), ‘Are men victims of Gender Based Violence (GBV)? Why the deafening silence among men in institutions of higher learning?’, African Journal of Gender, Society and Development, Issue 4, 16(2): 1–22.
GwizaM & HendricksE.A. (2024), ‘Addressing gender-based violence through policy implementation: Key stakeholders and survivors perceptions in a selected university in South Africa’, International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1): 16. https://doi.org/10.38140/ijss-2024.vol4.16
HatteryA. (2022), ‘Feminist lecture: (Re)imagining gender-based violence as a strategy for enforcing institutional segregation and reproducing structural inequalities’, Gender & Society, 36(1): 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432221128665
HeiseL.L. (2011), ‘What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview’, STRIVE Research Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.strive.lshtm.ac.uk/
HelmanR. & RateleK. (2018), ‘What is there to learn about violence and masculinity from a genderqueer man?’, Global Health Action, 11(1): 1458937. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2018.1458937
HeyvaertM., MaesB. & OnghenaP. (2013), ‘Mixed methods research synthesis: definitions, framework, and potential’, Quality & Quantity, 47(2): 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6
JewkesR., FloodM. & LangJ. (2015), ‘From work with men and boys to changes in social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: a conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls’, The Lancet, 385(9977): 1580–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4
JordanA., AnithaS., JamesonJ. & DavyZ. (2022), ‘Hierarchies of masculinity and lad culture on campus: “Bad Guys,” “Good Guys,” and complicit men’, Men and Masculinities, 25(5): 698–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X211064321
KalaçaB. & DündarA. (2010), ‘Violence against women: the perspective of academic women’, BMC Public Health, 10(490). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-490
KeratiloeT.G., GugaR., ChigondaG.K. & PenoS. (2022), ‘Are men victims of Gender Based Violence (GBV)? Why the deafening silence among men in institutions of higher learning?’, The Dyke, 16(2): 1–22.
LeddyA.M., BondV., ZunguN. & GibbsA. (2019), ‘Understanding barriers to gender-based violence reporting in African contexts’, BMC Public Health, 19(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7192-4
MshweshweM. (2020), ‘Understanding domestic violence: masculinity, culture, traditions’, Heliyon, 4(5): e05334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05334
Mufulira College (2021), The Socio-cultural Implications of Gender-based Violence in African Academic Institutions (Mufulira, Mufulira College of Education Press).
NjambaM. (2015), ‘Strategic communications and change communications: empowering individuals and groups to end GBV’, Journal of Gender Studies, 18(4): 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230903260001
OkakaW. (2021), Enhancing Gender Equality in Climate Change Communication Services in Uganda (Kampala, Gender Equality and Climate Change Advocacy Centre (GECCAC)).
ÖstlundU., KiddL., WengströmY. & Rowa-DewarN. (2011), ‘Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3): 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005
ParksW. (2005), ‘Developing indicators for behavioural and social change’, in Working Paper Strategic Communication: for Behaviour and Social Change in South Asia (Kathmandu, Nepal, UNICEF), 46–51.
PedroL. (2013), ‘Social media and gender violence: communication strategies for a “New Education”’, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 10: 76–89. https://doi.org/10.14658/pupj-ijse-2018-2-6
PerezT., MuirK. & LawsonD. (2022), ‘Gender perspectives in research on gender-based violence: contributions of early career researchers’, Journal of Feminist Studies, 40(1): 56–73.
RafteryJ., SmithC. & NguyenT. (2022), ‘Understanding the social dynamics of male victimization in gender-based violence research’, Social Science and Medicine, 300: 114735.
RazeraA.M. & SantosM.A. (2017), ‘Intimate partner violence and gender a/symmetry: an integrative literature review’, Psico-Usf, 22(3): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712017220302
SACAP (South African College of Applied Psychology) (2023), Understanding Gender-based Violence: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (Cape Town, SACAP Press).
SaleemA., RafiqS. & BatoolS. (2015), ‘The role of triangulation in enhancing research credibility’, Journal of Social Research Methods, 7(1): 99–108.
ScamborE. & RammstedtO. (2014), ‘Men and gender equality’, Men and Masculinities, 17(5): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x14558239
SeymourA. & HoughtonR. (2021), ‘Changed men? Men talking about violence and change in domestic and family violence perpetrator intervention programs’, Men and Masculinities, 24(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x211038998
SikweyiyaY. & JewkesR. (2020), ‘Patriarchy and gender-inequitable attitudes as drivers of intimate partner violence against women in the central region of Ghana’, BMC Public Health, 20(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08825-z
SuprayektiY. (2023), ‘Enhancing the external validity of research through stratified random sampling’, Research and Methodology Quarterly, 29(2): 45–60.
ValentineS., SilversteinM. & AdamsP. (2019), ‘Methodological pluralism in research on gendered violence: bridging quantitative and qualitative paradigms’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4): 394–409.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2013), Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-partner Sexual Violence (WHO Press).
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/013.a36
Published on: 19 September 2025
Volume: 13
Issue: Issue 3
Article view count: 310
Article download count: 55
Copyright statement
© The author(s) 2025. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International LicenseCite this article
Paulus, K.A., Kalengay, M. & Duncan, D.D. (2025), ‘Exploring gender-based violence against men in African universities’, Journal of the British Academy, 13(3): a36 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/013.a36Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 310
Download count: 55
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
Received
October 2022
Accepted
May 2023
Published
July 2023
A people-centred approach is needed to meet net zero goals Caroline Verfuerth, Christina Demski, Stuart Capstick, Lorraine Whitmarsh, Wouter Poortinga
To meet net zero goals, more drastic action is needed than is acknowledged by most policymakers, posing a major social challenge that will impact many aspects of people’s lives. This paper emphasises the importance of a people-centred approach for policy makers to achieve net zero effectively and rapidly while being alert to citizens’ needs and concerns. We advocate a comprehensive and inclusive public engagement strategy, discussing insights on four key questions to guide policymakers in developing successful engagement strategies. (1) How do climate-friendly social transformations happen?, (2) How can behavioural change for net zero be supported? (3) How can people be involved in decision-making on net zero?, and (4) How does climate change intersect with other societal challenges? We conclude with clear policy recommendations: government leadership at all levels (national, devolved, local), underpinned by a public engagement strategy for net zero, is needed in addition to fair and consistent policies that are transparent about the scale of action needed.
28 September 2023
Play to CHANGE: preliminary findings on using gamification to support a low-carbon transition Max White, Jing Zhao, Neil Phillips
Project CHANGE (Curating a Human-centred Approach for net zero: Gamifying Energy-behaviour) investigates how gamification can support public engagement in domestic energy retrofit and encourage sustainable behaviours. It introduces a prototype strategy-based simulation game that enables players to explore retrofit options, behavioural choices, and co-benefits within a risk-free, interactive environment. The paper outlines the development of the game, including its theoretical foundations, systems-based design, and user-centred methodology. The architecture integrates dynamic simulations [such as weather, NPC (non-player character) behaviour, and financial modelling] to illustrate how everyday decisions influence energy use and well-being. Initial findings from internal testing and a small-scale public trial indicate that gamified experiences can improve understanding of retrofit processes and increase perceived agency over household energy use. The paper also reflects on usability challenges, accessibility considerations, and constraints arising from limited resources and sample size. Overall, Project CHANGE demonstrates the potential of serious games as part of a broader toolkit for supporting systemic sustainability education and behaviour change. This article is published in the Thematic Collection ‘Participatory Engagement and Game Playing for Achieving Sustainable Net-Zero Transition’, edited by Jing Zhao, Eirini Gallou, and Ievgeniia Kopytsia.
10 June 2026
No Data Found
