Written by Joan Njagi, Childhood Sexual Researcher at SVRI
Every second, 5 children – 3 girls and 2 boys – experience sexual violence. Globally, 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 7 boys experience sexual violence in childhood. In the last year alone, over 150 million children experienced sexual violence – and online sexual abuse and exploitation affected 300 million more. [i]
In a world where far too many children experience sexual violence, often in silence, the need for research that drives meaningful change in preventing and responding to child sexual violence (CSV) has never been more urgent. But whose priorities are guiding that research? For too long, CSV evidence has been shaped by a narrow pool of voices – often disconnected from the lived realities of those most affected.
The outcome was a powerful, contextually relevant research roadmap shaped by global expertise and grounded in LMIC perspectives.
Driven by this reality, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) partnered with Together for Girls, WeProtect Global Alliance, Brave Movement, and the Safe Futures Hub to facilitate a collaborative, inclusive process for setting research priorities and co-create a shared CSV research agenda – one that centers the perspectives of survivors, practitioners, researchers, and advocates across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This article takes you behind the scenes of the process: how we did it, what we learned, and what it means for the future of CSV prevention and response.
[i] Together for Girls (2024). Break the Record: Ending Sexual Violence Against Children for Good.
Why we need an inclusive and equitable CSV research agenda
The agenda builds on a scoping review of child sexual abuse (CSA) evidence conducted by the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) between 2011 and 2021. The review revealed a fragmented evidence base, methodological gaps, ethical concerns, and a lack of intersectional perspectives. It also highlighted a stark imbalance: research from high-income countries (HICs) dominates, while voices and data from LMICs remain underrepresented.
We aimed to break away from top-down approaches that often privilege academic voices and instead foster an agenda informed by the diverse realities of those impacted by and/or working to end CSV. The result is a shared research agenda designed to close evidence gaps and build a stronger foundation for CSV prevention and response – one that is priority-driven and inclusive, better aligned with the needs of LMICs and capable of informing impactful policy and practice.
How we developed a CSV research agenda
To co-create the CSV research agenda, we adapted the CHNRI method, a globally recognised approach to research prioritization. We further incorporated the lessons, feedback, and wisdom gained from previous participatory agenda-setting processes facilitated by SVRI and partners.
This adaptation allowed us to build on existing evidence from LMICs, and use an inclusive, iterative approach to map out key research gaps and organise them into five critical domains, which are explained in detail in the full report:
- Domain 1: Understanding CSV
- Domain 2: CSV intervention and response
- Domain 3: CSV prevention interventions
- Domain 4: CSV measures and methodologies
- Domain 5: CSV among vulnerable and marginalised populations
Driven by the belief that lasting solutions must be shaped by those closest to the problem, we sought to move beyond consultation to co-creation. To achieve this, we created different spaces and opportunities to allow those who know the issue best – practitioners, activists, researchers, funders, decision-makers, children, and survivors, to use their experiences and insights to shape the CSV research agenda.
Making space for multiple voices
To guide this agenda-setting process, we established a robust governance structure made up of three groups, each playing a vital role:
- The Stewardship Group coordinated the entire process, ensuring momentum, clarity, and alignment.
- The Advisory Group provided technical expertise and played a pivotal role in shaping and refining priority research questions.
- The Global Expert Group was comprised of a diverse and representative body, that ranked the final questions to identify the most critical research priorities.
Recognising that some of the most important voices are often the most excluded, we made a deliberate effort to include LGBTQI+ individuals, children, youth, people with disabilities, Indigenous populations, and survivors of CSV. Through qualitative interviews and focus group discussions, we ensured that the agenda reflects underrepresented perspectives.
Instead of asking qualitative participants – especially grassroots activists and frontline practitioners – to formulate formal research questions, which can be a complex task requiring advanced skills, we framed our inquiries around the kinds of knowledge that would support their professional or activist goals. This approach generated more meaningful and relevant responses while minimising confusion. However, it also demanded more rigorous data analysis, as the analyst must interpret participants’ lived experiences and practice challenges, identify knowledge gaps, and translate these insights into potential research questions. Similarly, with child participants, we used participatory methods such as vignettes and role play to help them express what they see as the most important or pressing issues related to child sexual violence that warrant deeper exploration by researchers.
This participatory and inclusive process helped ensure that the priorities identified consider the diverse contexts in which CSV manifests across the world, and the views of all are treated equally without the dominance of some voices.
What we developed: A shared roadmap to fill critical gaps in CSV research
The collaborative process generated a total of 380 research questions – a testament to the depth and diversity of the voices engaged. Through careful review and refinement by the Stewardship and Advisory Groups, this was distilled into a focused set of 49 priority questions.
These questions were then ranked by a Global Expert Group, using three key criteria:
- Does it fill a significant knowledge gap?
- Is it applicable across contexts?
- Will it drive effective prevention or response?
The outcome was a powerful, contextually relevant research roadmap shaped by global expertise and grounded in LMIC perspectives—74% of the 264 valid responses came from LMICs, ensuring strong representation from regions most affected by CSV and underrepresented in existing research.
Below is a list of the top-ranked priorities across the five domains:
| Domain 1: Understanding CSV | 1. What are the best strategies to help break the cycle of abuse/intergenerational trauma for CSV survivors and/or victims? |
| 2. What are the risk and protective factors in areas where CSA is highly prevalent, and how can insights into these interrelated factors help shape the design of prevention interventions? | |
| Domain 2: CSV Intervention and Response
|
1. What are effective ways to address barriers to disclosure and reporting of CSV, including decreasing the stigma of CSV and providing children and youth with safe environments for disclosure? |
| 2. What activities and interventions are effective at increasing reporting of CSV by boys and men? | |
| Domain 3: CSV Prevention Interventions | 1. What types of interventions targeting social norms have proven effective in decreasing occurrences of CSV? |
| 2. What are effective strategies and interventions for preventing CSV perpetration among children and teens? | |
| Domain 4: CSV Measures and Methodologies
|
1. How can we best facilitate CSV survivor participation in CSV research while minimizing adverse outcomes, including emotional outcomes (secondary trauma, shame, self-blame, other forms of distress), vulnerability to others (threats, retaliation, revictimization), and other potential adverse consequences of disclosure? |
| 2. Given that CSV is under-reported, what alternative data collection strategies and/or proxy outcomes could be used to help assess the effectiveness of CSV prevention interventions? | |
| Domain 5: CSV among Vulnerable and Marginalised Populations | 1. How do CSV prevention and response interventions need to be adapted for different groups of vulnerable and marginalised children and youth? |
| 2. What are the barriers to reporting CSV and accessing CSV response services and how do they differ among different groups of vulnerable and marginalised children and youth |
A collective call to action to end child sexual violence
This research agenda is more than a list—it’s a call to action for policymakers, researchers, activists, funders, or frontline workers to use these priorities to align efforts, close evidence gaps, and co-create safer futures for children everywhere. Check out our launch blog for a summary on how different stakeholders can use this agenda to help build the evidence needed to end child sexual violence.
The report and the launch webinar can be accessed here Shared Research Agenda on CSV.
This article was written by Joan Njagi, Child Sexual Violence Researcher at the SVRI and Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to Joan at joan@svri.org
