“Hope is being stirred up”: Critical consciousness in gender-based violence interventions

Gender-based violence (GBV) research in public health has historically paid close attention to gender as a system of oppression, with less attention paid to the intersections between gender and other oppressive systems such as colonialism, white supremacy, and capitalism. In 2019, we adapted and pilot-tested an individual-level evidence-based sexual violence resistance intervention for university-attending women in Eswatini. We conducted a qualitative assessment of our adapted intervention's acceptability and feasibility using a critical pedagogy lens to explore how power operated in delivering an empowerment intervention, using in-depth interviews with intervention participants and facilitators. We analyzed interview transcripts thematically guided by a critical pedagogy framework and organized emergent themes into a concept map with two primary axes: participant-researcher-driven power and proximal-distal determinants. We located participant experiences with the intervention within three quadrants defined by these axes: 1) “Prescriptive,” in which the researcher or facilitator primarily controls the content and delivery, with a principal focus on proximal risk reduction strategies; 2) “Solidarity,” which emphasizes fostering critical consciousness among facilitators and intervention participants through dialogue, building collective power through participant-driven discussions of individual experiences; and 3) “Liberation,” in which participants critically examined the power structures that underpinned their lived experiences, and expressed a desire to transform these in ways the intervention was not designed to address. These three quadrants suggest the existence of a fourth quadrant, “paternalistic,” - in which the interventionist seeks to didactically educate participants about structural drivers of their own experience. Our analysis highlights a fundamental tension in the epistemology of GBV research: While there is a clear consensus that ‘empowerment’ is a necessary component of successful GBV interventions, “liberatory” approaches that cede power to participants are inherently antithetical to the scripted approach typically required for consistent replication in randomized control trials or other ‘gold-standard’ approaches for post-positivist evidence generation.