On April 16 2026, the SVRI TFGBV Community of Practice (CoP) launched its first event of 2026, Measuring TFGBV: Ethics, Methods, and Meaning. Speakers included Victoria Isika (IPA), LynnMarie Sardinha (WHO), and Taveeshi Gupta and Chloé Lewis (Equimundo). They discussed their process for contextualising validated instruments in low- and middle-income countries, WHO’s integration of TFGBV as a modality within existing IPV surveys, and a systems lens examining masculinities and digital ecosystems.
Launching SVRI’s TFGBV CoP Working groups
To kick start the event, Alexandra De Filippo, CoP facilitator, shared the CoP’s plan to launch two new working groups. She introduced Francia Baltazar, lead of the Measurement & Ethical Research working group, and Barsha Chakraborty, lead of the Policy Influence, Regulation, and Advocacy group. Both groups will focus on practical outputs and bring together CoP members from diverse backgrounds. You can register for the working groups here.
The challenge of measuring and defining an evolving field
Sangeeta Chatterji, the event moderator, opened the discussion by emphasising the difficulty of developing measurements for a construct like TFGBV, where new forms of violence are still being identified and defined. The event provided an opportunity to share measurement resources developed across institutions and insights on how to best interpret them.
Victoria Isika presented IPA’s compendium of 19 validated quantitative instruments measuring cyberbullying, tech-facilitated IPV, online harassment, image-based sexual abuse, sextortion, and cyber dating abuse. The systematic review (2009–2025) shows that most validated instruments were developed in high-income countries, with limited representation from LMICs. She also highlighted key methodological and ethical considerations, drawing on UNFPA and ICRW guidelines, to inform policies, programs, and decision-making in a field that continues to evolve.
This mapping of quantitative instruments was an initial phase of IPA’s TFGBV project in Nigeria and Uganda. It was followed by qualitative workshops with women from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds using vignettes to better understand local experiences. Findings showed that perpetrators were often known men (partners, ex-partners, bosses, coworkers), although women also contributed to certain harms such as rumor spreading and sharing intimate images. Lower-income women faced greater exposure to job scams and financial fraud, while higher-income women experienced harms related to visibility. These insights supported engagement with stakeholders and the adaptation of measurement tools to local realities, with a contextualised instrument currently being validated in Uganda.
Challenges in TFGBV measurement
LynnMarie Sardinha explained WHO’s strategy of measuring TFGBV as a modality rather than a separate form of violence, integrating it into existing measures of physical, sexual, psychological, and economic IPV, as well as non-partner sexual violence. The WHO Multi-Country Study instrument (2005) is currently being updated to include pilot-tested questions on technology-facilitated controlling behaviors and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
She also outlined key measurement challenges, including identifying who has access to technology (and who is excluded), balancing standardisation with local context, capturing diverse forms of violence and perpetrators, defining appropriate timeframes, and managing respondent and interviewer fatigue. These challenges are closely linked to ethical considerations such as ensuring participant safety, protecting confidentiality, and training teams to minimise distress.
A systems lens: masculinities and digital ecosystems
Tavishi Gupta and Chloé Lewis presented Equimundo’s approach, which frames TFGBV as a structural issue rooted in patriarchy and rigid gender norms. They emphasised the need to analyse three interconnected systems: social norms (e.g., expectations around masculinity), digital ecosystems (algorithms, amplification, monetisation, platform design), and broader socioeconomic conditions (precarity or isolation).
“We can’t just look at sort of the binary of perpetration and victimization, and that’s why we lean into calling it tech-facilitated gender-based violence, because that helps us underscore why the system’s lens is important.”
Research with men in Brazil and South Africa shows that those who hold “man-box” beliefs are more likely to adopt misogynistic attitudes online, illustrating the link between offline and online behaviours. At the same time, many men reported feeling a lack of control over their social media feeds and recognised how algorithms amplify divisive and harmful content. Even when seeking neutral content (e.g., dating, career, fitness), users were quickly exposed to misogynistic narratives.
Equimundo’s methodology combines standardised surveys with network mapping of over 600 manosphere accounts across platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, X, and TikTok. In South Africa, this content intersected misogyny with anti-migrant xenophobia, particularly targeting Nigerian and Zimbabwean communities, demonstrating how harmful narratives adapt to specific local contexts.
There is also growing attention to TFGBV targeting women political leaders, particularly in relation to gender backsliding. This work is part of the Global MenCare Changemakers initiative, which includes a democracy and violent extremism track examining violent misogyny as a pathway to extremism.
