3.3.1. Colonial impacts on the field of VAWG.

Across all regions, many participants explained that the idea of VAWG and structures in the VAWG field are inextricably tied to a broader colonial framework, making it hard to overcome: “the ‘nonprofit industrial complex’ is very real, and the field has been structured by capitalist and colonialist logics” (HIC, woman, FGD 4, P5, chatbox).

They also stated that definitions and framings of VAWG were problematically “universalised, standardised” instead of being contextualised for specific settings (Multi-region, woman, FGD 8, P8). A health and “disease oriented” way of understanding VAWG was also critiqued as being narrow (Multi-region, woman, FGD 8, P8, chatbox) and playing a role in reinforcing White Saviourism: “The language that is used […] like ‘risky behavior’ or ‘at-risk population’ that sets up a saviour dynamic” (HIC woman, FGD 4, Jamboard).

During interviews and discussions many participants raised questions about how culture, norms and Western meanings of terms like autonomy, independence and oppression had become the standard for how VAWG interventions were framed. For example, norms programming was often primarily about “fighting bad social norms” with the implication that “everything cultural is bad… every norm is negative and has to be challenged” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P1).

Additionally, participants across most regions discussed how notions of women’s autonomy and empowerment were sometimes positioned without the understanding of poverty as a structural force: “[W]e’re selling them a dream and a vision, but nothing else is caught up in terms of structures and systems” (Multi-region, woman, FGD 8, P8). The idea of women’s empowerment was mentioned by participants in LAC as “very paternalistic” (LAC, woman, FGD 5, P6). The Western notion of individual independence being equated to economic independence was also critiqued by a woman working in SSA as being framed as being about “making money,” while “being a homemaker” was perceived negatively despite often being important culturally (SSA, woman, interview 6).

Northern notions of well-being also reportedly shaped VAWG interventions and conceptualisations: “[W]hat women/girls need to live well comes from the North” (LAC, FGD 5, Jamboard), highlighting the need to base programming on conceptualisations of VAWG and needs that are articulated by those working in settings where programmes/research is occurring. For example, “Western” approaches to counselling as a response to violence was mentioned as not always suitable. In contrast, one participant suggested “local” responses to VAWG were “presumed not to be effective” (LAC, FGD 5, Jamboard). Some participants highlighted that the perspectives of those living in settings where programmes/research occurs were neglected, drawing attention also to how VAWG survivors’ perspectives were also not reflected in how VAWG is understood; the latter of which came out particularly from those working in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

3.3.2. Strategies to decolonise the field of VAWG.

3.3.2.1. Overarching strategies. Participants across all regions consistently discussed two overarching strategies for decolonising funding, programming and research in the VAWG field. The first was carefully clarifying what decolonising might mean for the field:

“[W]hat do we mean by decolonising? […] What are we decolonising? Is it the entire system of oppression? […] [O]r are we just trying to change [a] little bit here and there to make it look like, okay, […] we are more inclusive […] [If] we are saying that we want to take the entire White supremacy out of the entire system. Right? Is it possible?” (Asia, woman, interview 8)

This need to clarify what is meant by decolonisation was linked to perceptions of how the term has been used as a buzzword in the sector; and a view that explaining what decolonising actually involved would ensure that it was used meaningfully.

The second strategy identified by many participants across all regions was for all actors to intentionally reflect on their own positionality, and be prepared to relinquish power and privilege. For many participants this was about questioning motives and intentions for engaging in the VAWG space: “[A]s a privileged person, I really need to also push myself to see what I’m doing in this space. What’s my intention? What do I want?” (Asia, woman, interview 8).

Many participants discussed how identifying power hierarchies they were positioned within was key: “Recognising power is very important, it allows you to recognise your own privilege and be conscious of it” (SSA, FGD 1, Jamboard). However, it was also noted by some that reflecting on privilege needed to incorporate deep, critical reflection of power going beyond a “flippant” acknowledgement (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P5). Beyond reflecting on power, being ready to give up power was also discussed by some across all regions:

“How do you want to give away [that] power? […] be honest, that we are privileged […] that’s the honesty we really need from people […] who wants to support this movement.” (Asia, woman, interview 8)

Recognition of power went beyond the individual, to also identifying ways in which the VAWG field and its institutions reproduce colonial inequalities through organisational practices in funding, programming and research.

3.3.2.2. Strategies to decolonise funding. Funding was the area most identified by almost all participants in FGDs and interviews as important when outlining strategies to decolonise the field. Participants critiqued how funding decisions are made from afar, resulting in agenda-setting that is often divorced from the realities of the country in question:

“[T]he decision makers, these people are usually mostly always White men, who sit in the Washington DC offices, New York offices, you know, in the Global North, having absolutely no idea what is going on in the local context.” (HIC, woman, interview 3)

Many participants shared different ways to decolonise funding, including through structural changes and increasing funding flexibility to make requirements less onerous. One key structural change mentioned was enabling more core funding, especially by participants working in Asia and SSA:

“[M]any funders do not cover core costs and yet expect grantees to have strong systems and person power to ensure checks and balance. This approach makes it very difficult for grantees to implement projects comprehensively.” (SSA, woman, FGD 1, P8, chatbox)

“To get core funding as an organisation […] it is very, very freeing. […] It allows them to actually focus on what matters and on what they need to do [rather] than be distracted a lot by just like running after funding”. (SSA, woman, interview 6)

The short-term nature of funding, combined with needing to follow the whims of funders, were also identified as barriers:

“[I]nternational staff are making funding decisions and they come in cycles of four years. So you have these sort of disjointed phases of prioritisation which make it really difficult to do consistent advocacy… If a new person comes in, then suddenly it’s like, oh, actually, I want to work on disability… for example.” (Multi-region donors, woman, FGD 6, P6)

Other structural changes recommended across multiple regions included ending international actors sub-contracting to actors working in the setting: “[T]o deconstruct attitudes and assumptions about who can handle the money” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P4, chatbox). This structural shift was linked to actors implementing programmes/research in their own settings no longer being seen as solely implementing partners: “[W]e’re not your implementing partner… You are coming alongside us to support us in this work” (Asia, woman, FGD 3, P3). Members of an FGD conducted with researchers in Asia also discussed how “umbrella” funding that supported several organisations, instead of just one, could reduce “unnecessary competition” (Asia, woman, FGD 3, P6).

The need for greater flexibility within funding was also discussed as vital, spanning from applications to reporting processes. For instance, participants across all regions discussed the need to change how donors influence change agendas: “[D]onors who come with an outcome, who come with the theory of change… With the logical framework… That’s not decolonising, that’s not giving power to…those who [are] at the grassroots” (Asia, woman, interview 8).

Participants also advocated for allowing actors who are responding to VAWG in their own settings to write proposals in their own language. Additionally, they identified the need to reconsider proposals “beyond the technicalities” to ensure that it wasn’t just the “very known” actors who continually received funds, but also newer and smaller organisations (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P6). The need for feedback to applicants – whether successful or not – was also highlighted. Additionally, a few participants working in HIC and LAC suggested making due diligence processes easier, for example through the process of “passporting” (where due diligence is only done once, instead of separately for each donor) (HIC, woman, interview 12).

Improving information flows and communication between donors and recipients was also highlighted, including creating a mechanism for actors based in settings where programmes/research were occurring to provide feedback on how the partnership was working, and building platforms that gathered donors together with recipients to share feedback. This was identified as part of a shift to “trust-based philanthropy”, to recognise that “no one can do this work without the other” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P4). Part of this trust-based approach for a few participants across multiple regions also meant improved recognition of the difficult contexts they sometimes worked within, including constrained food and job security for practitioners and researchers in countries where the VAWG programmes/research were occurring.

Lastly, the need to recognise that change takes time and success may look differently to different actors was also highlighted: “Funders, researchers, practitioners, communities all seem to view success differently. Working towards agreeing on what we are all trying to achieve would help in deconstruction of these hierarchies” (Africa, woman, FGD 2, P1, chatbox). One donor also suggested removing reporting requirements and instead shifting to “requests for information” (Multi-region, woman, FGD 6, P3). The idea was that having less onerous reporting would provide opportunities for funding to adapt dynamically to changing environments.

3.3.2.3. Strategies to decolonise programming. Many participants across all regions discussed the importance of shifting to programmes led by in-country practitioners to improve quality and relevance of interventions:

“You can set up the best systems and structures and you can pour as much money as you want. But if you’re not focusing on the right things or not focusing on the way in which you can engage with people, rather than seeing it as a foreign concept or foreign agenda that’s being imposed, it won’t make a difference.” (Multi-region, woman, FGD 8, P6)

“[F]or local actors to be part of, from the design […] to the monitoring and evaluation processes, that’s maybe the first and the strongest way to […] have better intervention[s].” (MENA, woman, interview 7)

Assumptions among funders and institutions from the “West” who hold funds about who has capacity (and who doesn’t) were described as influencing professional relationships and dynamics between VAWG actors; with many reflecting on how these were shaped by colonial legacies. This included the preference for hiring international staff over local staff:

“[T]here’s nobody on this budget that is from the country that this research is happening from. So why are you trusting an American guy who has lived in [African country] for two years to be the manager for this study instead of trusting a [African country national] to do this?” (HIC, woman, interview 12)

Differences in pay structures were also mentioned in multiple discussions, alongside the preference for international consultants: “[T]hey pay a lot to this [international] consultant. But when you have experts in your own country, then you negotiate the payment… you don’t think that the person is enough [of an] expert” (Asia, woman, interview 5).

Some participants working in LMICs also recommended shifting from solely assessing impact, or only focusing on numbers as part of “positivist” approaches (Multi-region, woman, FGD 8, P7) to also assessing programme quality: “They just want to see that you’ve got numbers, you’ve got 300 cases coming in every month, and that’s value for money. But in terms of the holistic approach […] how is this counselling contributing to unpacking the root cause of violence?” (Asia, woman, FGD 3, P4)

Relatedly, some also highlighted the importance of going “beyond just addressing the outcome” (Asia, woman, interview 8), through holistic programming that addresses interrelated, gendered structural drivers such as food insecurity and educational gaps, as well as intersectional programming that addresses, for example, violence against LGBTQI+ women or women living in humanitarian contexts.

3.3.2.4 Strategies to decolonise research. Many participants across regions stated that during the inception phase of research, brainstorming priorities and values to ensure shared understanding of expectations, and discussing strengths and gaps in each organisation was vital:

“[W]hat does it mean to say you’re leading this? […] what are the kind of expectations in terms of transparency, in terms of accountability […] there’s so many small things we can do [...] If we really want to do them,” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P3)

Unequal power dynamics meant that real partnerships were not always possible: “[I]t wasn’t a partnership, it was site data collectorship” (Multi-region, woman, FGD 8, P8). To counteract this, many participants across regions suggested that frank conversations about equitable partnership should be ongoing throughout research, through regularly scheduled meetings. While these discussions could be difficult and uncomfortable, they could also be very rewarding. A few participants also stated that meeting in-person and getting to know each other informally could facilitate trust:

“[I]t’s about creating spaces and avenues for people to know each other. You know, like be vulnerable and open to each other [… and] these uncomfortable discussions can form into very important, strong relationships that make these conversations easier to have, so that the tensions can be dealt with along the way.” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P3)

While most reflected on equitable partnerships between Northern and Southern organisations, one participant working in SSA also highlighted the role that larger Global South organisations could play in supporting smaller, activist-led Global South organisations through partnership and mentorship on grant applications. Along the same lines, a few participants working in HIC and SSA also emphasised considering who is best placed to conduct the research, and deferring to local, Indigenous organisations. Additionally, several participants suggested appointing Principal Investigators from the Global South, however, this also posed challenges if such countries had limited capacity:

“[O]ne of the challenges that comes with this is […] those specific people [who have VAWG capacity] get burdened by a lot of requests and people are like, oh, you’re the Global South person.” (HIC, woman, interview 11)

Thus, strengthening capacity was identified as an important way to prevent over-burdening experienced senior researchers. A few participants working in HIC and SSA also emphasised, however, that this should be a bi-directional exchange:

“[W]hat this [capacity building] really means is that someone from the Global North is training or mentoring or coaching someone from the Global South. What if we approached this as a shared process? […] Because […] we have the local knowledge and the local competence […] that’s capacity.” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P1)

Others suggested providing more training opportunities for early career researchers in the Global South, including PhDs funded at an institution of their choice, and appropriately resourcing Global South actors, for example with high-speed internet.

Many participants across all regions stressed that during the data collection and dissemination phases, there was a need to move beyond traditional, quantitative methods, and recognise other forms of knowledge and Global South epistemologies. These included anthropological and participatory action approaches, art analysis, oral storytelling, testimonies and conversational research. Participants described how these could be combined with more commonly recognised methods, such as quantitative surveys from RCTs and qualitative research methods, to arrive at a greater understanding of VAWG, but that true decolonisation meant challenging hierarchies of knowledge:

“[T]here’s no one form of knowledge that has greater value than another form of knowledge, but each form of knowledge has some role to play in solving this puzzle [of VAWG] at different times.” (SSA, woman, interview 9)

Participants also suggested incorporating mixed-methods to help make more creative forms of qualitative research more ‘palatable’ to funders (HIC, woman, interview 11).

Other decolonial approaches to data collection identified by a few in HIC included ensuring participant’s autonomy in deciding whether they participate in research by explaining the research in more accessible ways. Participants stressed appropriate compensation for co-researchers beyond small “incentives” for their time (HIC, Woman, FGD 4, P5). Data co-ownership by researchers in the country was also emphasised by a participant in SSA.

Strategies to decolonise analysis and dissemination identified by many participants across all regions included investigators from the Global South being co-authors in publications, and disseminating research findings quickly to directly inform programming. A few participants described often being left out of authorship, or being relegated to a less important authorship positions:

“There are cases where we have had to plead and beg to write papers from work we were part of…Global North collaborators don’t think of our roles beyond data collection.” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P1, chatbox)

Many participants suggested authorship should be clearly discussed at the beginning of projects. A couple of participants working in HICs explained that while in theory they supported co-authorship with Global South partners, in practice this could be challenging and could perpetuate tokenism: “sometimes it does become tokenistic and kind of adding people in without them actually having been involved” (HIC, woman interview 11).

Similarly, another participant explained that skill differences could lead to potentially unfair or performative practices:

“[W]e’ve had early career researchers from overseas who are like they’re learning still and are supposed to lead Paper X. But then, actually, somebody from our team ends up doing like most of the work […] but then ends up being second author on it. So I feel like, that’s a situation I kind of like often run into that feels a bit unfair; like is difficult to negotiate.” (HIC, woman, interview 2)

One solution to this proposed by several participants was that publications could be written by Global South partners in a more narrative style, to suit different formats such as book chapters or blogs. One participant stated that different dissemination formats “helps us tell stories ethically, in such a way that you centre the voices of the people that you’re writing about” (MENA, woman, interview 3). Others suggested academic journals could loosen their strict requirements:

“[T]hese journals, the way you have to submit it, the way it has to be written, the specific type of referencing… it’s so discouraging […] whereas if … you’re encouraged to present other pieces… more informally written, written for lay people, or summaries or blogs… just communicating that research in different ways [is easier].” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P4)

Moreover, many participants stressed the importance of disseminating findings to non-academic audiences:

“[W]e had to tell them [Global North partners], you know, the report only serves your purpose, whereas those who […] tell their stories, they actually don’t go back with anything at the end because the report is written and sits in your office. […] We have to be able to benefit from this.” (Asia, woman, FGD 1, P3)

Sharing findings in languages accessible to research participants and to broader audiences was also consistently discussed in FGDs and interviews. One participant working in a HIC suggested accessible dissemination could also be promoted through conferences in the Global South, and co-organised by Indigenous organisations, highlighting challenges regarding conferences:

“[If] people cannot travel where they need to travel, you can’t even begin to share knowledge that is diverse.” (HIC, woman, interview 17)

3.3.3. Who should lead efforts to decolonise.

When asked about who should lead decolonisation efforts, responses were mixed, and were not split along geographic lines. Some participants said those who experienced colonisation would be better positioned to formulate appropriate responses:

“[T]hose who are colonised should actually be the ones taking lead. And I tend to think that they should be able to have discussions and reflections on what was there before the colonial process and see those positive things which were washed away during the colonial process and see how to bring them back. In that way, we shall be actually making use of the Indigenous knowledge to reduce violence against women and violence against girls.” (SSA, woman, FGD 2, P2)

“You came, you colonised me, and now you’re talking about decolonising… You’re taking everything away from me and you’re still coming to say you want to take, you want to correct.” (SSA, woman, FGD 1, P5)

Others said that those based in the Global North should be responsible for decolonising since they exercised power over others. However, most participants saw decolonisation as a collective responsibility:

“It is everyone’s responsibility, you can’t just say it’s the people who are oppressed who have to do the work.” (Feedback session 3, online)

“Anyone that has a little bit of power should do something.” (Multi-region, woman, FGD 6, P3)

“We need to put our efforts together, everybody has to help. All of us can contribute with something different, all levels. If we take someone out, we might miss something.” (Feedback session 2, online)

Participants across all regions and roles also made a distinction between taking a leadership role in decolonisation, versus being accountable, responsible or supporting decolonisation:

“It’s like this whole question of, do we work with men and boys to end violence? […] [T]hey are the beneficiaries from patriarchy. […] Do we work with them to […] blindly, […] take over the agenda… Or do we work with them with accountability? And what does accountability look like?… That’s exactly the same for me with the question on decolonisation.” (Multi-region, woman, FGD 6, P1)

“I like the distinction between leadership and who needs to be responsible or perhaps accountable [...] I think those parties, including countries, institutions, whatever, those probably should be the ones at least financially sponsoring the decolonisation part on violence against women and girls.” (HIC, woman, FGD 4, P4)

However, some participants questioned if accountability was possible, asking, “How do you hold someone accountable?”, and arguing this is difficult in practice and unclear how it could be enforced (Feedback session 5, in-person).