Reading ourselves: Feminist data analysis and relational praxis

At the Feminist Internet Research Network (FIRN), we believe that feminist research is inherently personal, grounded in relationality and accountability to the collectives and communities we are a part of, work alongside and imagine as. We acknowledge the messiness of research in general, and upfront imperfections, and tensions that arise throughout the research process. We write and encourage our partners to write about them as part of a transformative feminist praxis. It is in this process of locating ourselves within the data – recognising our own positions, identities and power – that feminist research is distinctively powerful and generative.

We do recognise that feminist research practices continue to be marginalised – particularly within the technology sector, where policy making has traditionally prioritised data that appears to be quantifiable, manageable, and clearly compartmentalised and dichotomous. Often, feminist research reports that base their arguments or recommendations on lived experience and stories of people are considered as “anecdotal”, a fancy term for a footnote reference to large-scale quantifiable data, and hence such reports are viewed as less scientific and authoritative, as accounts of incidental events that do not reflect the majority. Still, we choose to persist alongside feminist scholars and activists, working to centre and create knowledge that is necessary, often overlooked, and deserving of space in the dialogues shaping technological futures. Our commitments are never without scrutiny and criticism; they are constantly interrogated and reflected upon throughout every stage of research, regardless of methodology – whether quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method.

A big lesson that we have learned from our diverse projects is that research methods alone do not define the value or limitations of our work. Rather, it is how we approach, interpret and remain in relationship with the data – recognising the stories, complexities and lived realities within – that reveals the generosity or constraints of our knowledge. Here, “reading data” is not only about expertise; it is a practice of relationality, care and critically engaged meaning-making in connection with the people and movements at the heart of our research.

Our partners, deeply invested in the intentional methodological design of the Feminist Internet Research Network, maintained a committed work schedule with the FIRN team and peer advisors. During this third round of FIRN research, launched in early 2024 with 10 new research partners from a diversity of locations in Africa (Ethiopia, South Africa), Asia (India, Tajikistan), Latin America and the Caribbean (Brazil, Uruguay), and Southwest Asia and North Africa (Egypt, Palestine), we embarked on a journey to deepen the discursive framing of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) by emphasising a more intentional application of feminist intersectional analysis. Each piece of work was completed through a consultative and collaborative process. Ultimately, it is not just about how our partners engaged with and analysed the data, but also how reviewers contributed generously to validating and amplifying regional and Global South-South relationalities reflected in the emerging stories.

The research produces counter-narrative and a fuller picture of participants as powerful agents of change, and not victims of technology. They are powerful knowledge that resists reducing TFGBV to a mere “women’s issue” by capturing the intricate interplay of political and socioeconomic factors, convergence of big tech and government that shape the individual experience and resistance strategies.

The stories that emerge from these research projects have presented us with the lived and everyday experience of the world that is not admitted into dominant and mainstream knowledge paradigms and policy making. Together, they resist rigid and exclusionary discourse, often disguised as rational, scientific and objective evidence, that has long suppressed and dismissed logic and voices falling outside of what is perceived as natural, normal and credible. The research produces counter-narrative and a fuller picture of participants as powerful agents of change, and not victims of technology. They are powerful knowledge that resists reducing TFGBV to a mere “women’s issue” by capturing the intricate interplay of political and socioeconomic factors, convergence of big tech and government that shape the individual experience and resistance strategies. The depth and rich narratives from FIRN research partners have helped us imagine experiences different from our own, and at the same time, have reminded us of the implausibility of ever knowing the experience of TFGBV in certainty.

This GenderIT edition will provide important analysis of the critical insights that have emerged from the 10 research projects under the third cycle of FIRN. At the very core of the research are the heartbreaks and resilience of communities; they illustrate the complexities of TFGBV, how it intersects with the hierarchy of identities and belongings, shaped by various geopolitical, nationalist and socioeconomic factors. In doing so, they expose the gaps within the dominant discursive framings of TFGBV and thereby, invite us to shift our thinking from restrictive and institutionally defined responses towards TFGBV, and to reimagine a different liveable future that celebrates diversity and prioritises care. Without a fuller picture of how TFGBV manifests, we risk investing our resources and labour into band-aid interventions that do not lead to systemic change.

Reading the lines: Silence, gaps and blindspots as structural dominance

In designing the research projects, our partners[1] have talked about their very aims to centre the voices of participants and to speak about it in a political manner, while also recognising the “struggle to articulate the forbidden, ‘incoherent’ experience that makes possible new politics and subsequent analysis.”[2] Many of the participants in this research have spoken of the challenge to have access to spaces or language to articulate their experience, given that the current vocabulary on TFGBV or policy making tends to reflect the Global North worldview. The gaps in data and knowledge have a double-edged relation to systems of domination, where our experiences are both formed by and formed in reaction to ruling institutions.[3] These gaps exist in data and policy because powerful institutions decide what is a priority, whose voice matters and who should be given access to justice. In turn, this shapes how those who are marginalised organise and live their daily lives, including how they remember and tell their stories, how they recognise and articulate what is normal and what is violence.

Despite our efforts to move away from the homogenisation of human experience, we repeatedly fall into the trap of a neoliberal model that insists on categorising human experiences into rigid boxes, thereby erasing their uniqueness. This tendency, encapsulated by the maxim, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck,” risks effacing the singularity and complexity inherent in individual experiences, thus undermining the richness that could emerge from facilitating a feminist analysis that attempts to capture diverse human experience. Resisting such homogeneous categorisation of technology-facilitated violence necessitates a commitment to creating spaces and avenues for researchers to conduct analyses without feeling compelled to rename or reframe participants’ experiences to fit predefined constructs. This is not to suggest that established terms and classifications of violence in what we understand as TFGBV are without merit; indeed, such terminologies already identify different forms of violence and provide a crucial framework for beginning to interpret and contextualise participants’ realities, and to some extent, are demanded by institutions in developing prevention and responses strategies. Despite that, the practice of naming what is and what is not violence is fundamentally political and it is always contestable, as it reflects the ongoing power struggle over meaning, spaces and visibilities of existence. Nonetheless, thoughtful engagement with empirical data requires a readiness to move beyond these familiar labels: to rearticulate, expand and complicate our understandings of what constitutes particular forms of violence.

Resisting such homogeneous categorisation of technology-facilitated violence necessitates a commitment to creating spaces and avenues for researchers to conduct analyses without feeling compelled to rename or reframe participants’ experiences to fit predefined constructs.

The appeal of positivist, quantifiable data to establish a problem or crisis continues to dominate mainstream debates on TFGBV, whether led by government, policy makers or large technology companies. However, research from FIRN partners has repeatedly highlighted the gaps in laws and policies when it comes to understanding the complexities of TFGBV – particularly regarding the chain of events that corroborate the unique experiences of survivors. Empirical data demonstrates how systems of global power, as well as regional and local heteropatriarchal structures, contribute to the perpetuation of online violence. As several FIRN researchers in this edition have shown, the distinction between perpetrators and bystanders is often blurred. For instance, even with the existence of laws and policy to regulate sex work in Uruguay, our partners’ research has shown how these instruments exist to protect the public’s interest instead of the sex workers themselves. State intervention focuses primarily on health, while remaining silent on issues such as privacy, data protection and digital safety. Against this context, feminist research and analysis continue to play a pivotal role in bridging knowledge, policy and practice by revealing the power dynamics that are embedded in knowledge production and policy making. By looking into what is being represented as a priority in policy and what is silenced and side-lined in policy discourse, the research findings revealed the gendered power dynamics embedded in the policy making process.[4] 

It has already been established that, in practice, law and policy makers often operate in the interests of the majority and those with dominant political views, shaping global interest. This dynamic becomes even more complex during the creation of global policy regulations, where remnants of colonial power structures are both visibly and symbolically present, with dominant voices continuing to determine whose knowledge is considered legitimate and whose concerns matter. As such, Western and Global North countries disproportionately influence international agendas, shaping standards and structures that may not be appropriate for or responsive to the realities faced by people in the Global South. Research from FIRN partners has shown that the concept of nation is often constructed and redefined by the ruling class to protect their positions in power, and subsequently, to justify the oppression and silencing of those who are perceived as a threat to national interest. In the research by our partners in Egypt and Ethiopia, they have highlighted how hate speech and crackdown campaigns against LGBTQIA+ individuals tend to intensify amidst rising inflation, economic unrest, corruption, war and social unrest. Narratives such as cultural sovereignty, protecting traditional family values and rescuing the country from homosexuality are employed to scapegoat LGTBQIA+ communities and divert the frustrations from the real culprits. As shared by our partner from Egypt, the violence experienced by LGBTQIA+ communities is not a symptom of a broken system, but rather an intentionally integrated national structure built this way to perpetuate political dominance over these communities.

Similarly, the research project from Tajikistan explained how the current governments had adopted a cautious and measured gender policy with limited agency accorded to women, in fear of the growing influence of radical Islamism, where the majority political views are still conservative and patriarchal. One such example, as argued by our Tajikistan research partner, is a regulation that requires the people to observe elements of national culture, including speaking the state language and wearing the national dress. In practice, the regulation restricts women’s bodily autonomy, limiting both their religious freedoms and their right to self-expression, which easily turns into harassment and bullying.

In the research on South African university students’ online dating experience, many were not familiar with the term “TFGBV” despite having encountered or witnessed such forms of violence. The gap in awareness underscores the lack of institutional recognition of TFGBV, which also shapes what they understand as violence or normal and their subsequent ability to access justice. Therefore, absence of or blindspots in data are not mere clerical error or oversight, but part of an ongoing political dominance that reinforces structural hierarchies around gender, race, sexuality, class, ability, age, nationality, etc.

As such, Western and Global North countries disproportionately influence international agendas, shaping standards and structures that may not be appropriate for or responsive to the realities faced by people in the Global South.

Feminist intersections: Connecting the matrix of dominance

“There is always someone asking you to underline one piece of yourself – because that is the piece that they need to key into. They want to dismiss everything else.” – Audre Lorde

A persistent misperception within research, including some strands of feminist inquiry, is the assumption that oppression targeting minority groups is confined to specific identities, and that trade-offs are unavoidable to protect the welfare or interests of the majority. Such thinking can inadvertently reinforce exclusionary practices by privileging certain narratives over others.

Drawing from our collective experience as a network of researchers, we recognise – with guidance from Audre Lorde’s insights – the tendency to centre research around a singular story, often perceived as most representative or relevant to the topic at hand, such as TFGBV. While highlighting particular experiences can draw necessary attention to urgent issues, it also risks obscuring the multiplicity and intersectionality of oppression faced by communities.

It is vital to foreground the varied and intersecting forms of violence experienced by the diverse communities we engage with. However, research must also resist the urge to narrowly define participants, communities or individuals solely through a specific lens, location or identity relevant to the research focus. To do otherwise risks reducing complex lived realities to one-dimensional narratives and failing to capture the full scope of marginalisation and resilience.

The reports from partners have shown that identities are never singular and are far from being a fixed entity, but rather, they are relational, dynamic and interrelated sets of social categories that change over time and are ever shifting depending on the different contexts we occupy. In the matrix of domination as explained by Patricia Hill Collins, different systems of oppression such as coloniality, capitalism, racism, misogyny, classism, ableism and more weave together to create a matrix, a network, shaping a person’s experiences and life outcomes.[5] In this sense, it is not about who you are, but how the world treats you because of who you are – including your access to technology, jobs, health care and safety, and whether your voices are heard and taken seriously.

While highlighting particular experiences can draw necessary attention to urgent issues, it also risks obscuring the multiplicity and intersectionality of oppression faced by communities.

Research on Black women in Brazil and South Africa revealed that, despite their shared legacy of a history of racial oppressions organised via slavery, colonialism and imperialism and further entrenched by the global rise of white supremacy and the anti-gender movement, their experiences with TFGBV are not identical. The interplay of national history and current political context continues to produce distinct arrangements around gender, race, class and more that shape their experience in context-specific ways. In both research projects conducted in South Africa, the findings show how Black women struggled with hypersexualisation of Black women’s bodies and countering social stigma that in turn legitimise the digital violence they experience in their online dating experience. In Brazil, Black women contested a Brazilian society that privileges whiteness and where Black women are perceived as “invaders” or “outsiders” who are deemed as inadequate contributors to the public debate on politics, culture, society, race relations and social issues. While these research studies show the extent to which racial discrimination plays a role in people’s online experience, reading through the three papers underscores that while systems of domination operate transnationally, they are always refracted through particular historical, political and cultural conditions.

At another level, the research conducted by our Indian partners revealed the persistent erasure of transgender and non-binary persons. A non-binary person found themselves under scrutiny when they dressed in a more masculine way and was “advised” to dress more femininely; a non-binary person who wears hijab found themselves excluded by the LGBTQI+ communities for not looking queer enough. Through the analysis of the experiences of trans and gender non-binary individuals, the research shows how the gender binary system structures and shapes our daily interactions, but affects everyone differently depending on one’s position within the system of power and oppression. These examples highlight how rigid binary framings of gender are not only produced and sustained through heteronormativity, but also intersect with religion, class and social expectations in shaping who belongs and who is forgotten, even within communities that imagine themselves as inclusive and diverse. By defining what non-binary people or transmen should look like, we are reinforcing the very gender binary system that marginalises the communities.

Locating TFGBV victims/survivors’ realities within these interlocking systems of power and oppression will then give us a sharper lens to recognise the root causes and, in turn, it allows us to respond with greater care and intention. For instance, digital literacy and security training are often suggested as a mitigation strategy for victims/survivors. However, in the Tajikistan context, the research has shown that teaching women about stronger passwords and two-factor authentication can be futile if we do not first address the power dynamic within the family – which is also found in the research to be the primary underlying cause of TFGBV in Tajikistan. In an ultra-conservative society, men often have full control over their wives’, sisters’ and daughters’ access to technology, including their ability to own a phone or access social media; as a result, these women and girls are also often subjected to surveillance. Even in contexts where women have ownership of their own phones, efforts to secure their privacy are often misconstrued as secrecy – implying that they have something to hide from their families or communities. This suspicion is rooted in patriarchal norms that seek to control and monitor women’s daily lives. When women assert their right to privacy, it challenges the established power structures that expect transparency and oversight over their communications, relationships and actions. As a result, what should be regarded as a basic right becomes framed as resistance or defiance, further highlighting how digital privacy is deeply entangled with broader issues of gendered power and surveillance. In some cases, women are obliged to surrender their passwords to the men in their family. In this instance, any digital security intervention that does not address women’s autonomy and agency would miss the underlying power dynamics that enable and facilitate TFGBV.

When women assert their right to privacy, it challenges the established power structures that expect transparency and oversight over their communications, relationships and actions. As a result, what should be regarded as a basic right becomes framed as resistance or defiance, further highlighting how digital privacy is deeply entangled with broader issues of gendered power and surveillance.

Resisting, decolonising, reimagining transnational solidarity for TFGBV

The FIRN network and our research partners have opened up the possibility of “world travelling”[6] – through their words, we get a glimpse of what it is to be a Black woman navigating online dating in South Africa, or a queer Sudanese refugee navigating hate in Egypt while finding different ways to show up for their community, or to be a Palestinian witnessing the death of their people unfolding on a screen. The world, as conceptualised by María Lugones, is not a geographical or physical space, but a social construction of meaning, norms, practices and power relations, and ways of being and knowing.[7] Each regional and local context has its own unique dynamics – logics of belonging and exclusion, layered with tensions and contradictions – where power relations are both experienced and enacted. Navigating these realities through research is fundamentally a political act. This is particularly significant given that the Global South has long been, and often remains, the subject of intensive external research scrutiny, with some regions studied far more than others. Frequently, much of what local communities come to “know” about themselves has been authored by outsiders, who often lack meaningful relational ties or genuine investment in these communities.

In light of this, “world traveling” through research becomes an act of political engagement. When feminist researchers from the region itself produce knowledge, they bring a distinctive sense of ownership and accountability to the work. Their perspectives challenge dominant worldviews imposed from outside, and offer nuanced, contextually rooted understandings. It is through this research process that we encounter and make sense of the shifting and intersecting realities that shape our everyday lives. This decolonial approach not only expands our knowledge, but also reinforces a shared commitment to transnational solidarity. It deepens our collective appreciation for diversity, and fosters connections based on respect, mutuality and locally grounded expertise.

Contrary to the universalised TFGBV narratives that reduce people to fixed categories of victims and perpetrators, the worlds of the communities and participants in these 10 research projects shows us that violence, resilience and resistance are experienced and contested simultaneously, often in complex and intertwined ways. We can be at the receiving ends of harm while also reproducing and reinforcing the system of domination that oppresses us in different ways. Meanwhile, findings by our Uruguayan partners show how sex workers are appropriating and redefining stereotypes and stigmas around transgender bodies, masculinity and femininity in empowering ways. In turn, this gives us different ways of reimagining justice and technology that centre decolonial practice of solidarity and care. Our partners in Palestine and Lebanon have taught us that sometimes, a truly decolonial act is to disengage from colonial structures – those very institutions and frameworks that we have long been engaging with, reasoning with, challenging and resisting. Instead of continually centring our actions and thinking around the dictates of these structures, a decolonial approach may involve radically redefining what matters most: setting our own agendas for thought and advocacy, according to the realities and urgencies we experience, rather than according to donor priorities or external expectations. In these ways, decolonial practice becomes about reclaiming autonomy over knowledge production, caring for each other in community, and honouring lived experience and collective wisdom.

On a different note, our partner in Brazil has reimagined and subverted digital forensics for feminist helplines as a counterpoint to traditional digital forensics that focus on state-led prosecution and are highly dependent on widely recognised procedures and tools developed in the Global North. The feminist approach to consensus digital forensics, as well as being characterised by its independent methodology and designed to protect activists, journalists and vulnerable groups who are routinely subjected to illegal surveillance, needs to transcend beyond specific technical issues. Rooted in the awareness that detailed examination of digital evidence goes hand in hand with attention to emotional and social impacts experienced by those affected by TFGBV, the researchers recognise that feminist digital forensics is strengthened when it combines technical excellence in forensic analysis with a feminist perspective of care. Among other findings, the research has reminded us of the importance of care for caregivers, such as support structures for responders who have had prolonged exposure to trauma narratives. By centring the well-being of helpline practitioners, and equally relevant, researchers, we are affirming care as a collective political act of resistance to ensure the growth and sustainability of feminist tech futures.

When feminist researchers from the region itself produce knowledge, they bring a distinctive sense of ownership and accountability to the work. Their perspectives challenge dominant worldviews imposed from outside, and offer nuanced, contextually rooted understandings.

Beyond the examples stated above, hope was a common theme that threaded through the 10 research projects. A feminist hope, grounded in an honest appraisal of structural inequalities, systemic violence, and personal and collective pain. Not with a romanticised optimism, but with a deeply political state of feeling shaped by affect and power – who is allowed to hope, and whose futures are deemed impossible.[8] Despite that, hope has been practised by all our partners and their participants, as an act of resistance, by refusing to accept the violence and oppression targeting them. Instead of denying the rage and pain we feel in our hearts, they find ways to carry all these emotions with care and intention, and a consciousness that alternate ways of thinking and being are possible. This also means reflecting on our existing responses to TFGBV, and doing the hard work of slowing down and asking whether we have been reacting within the narrow framing of TFGBV that was based on a broken infrastructure. Hope does not always happen only at the policy level, but rather it shows up through the everyday act of resistance and reflection. By centring ourselves, our communities, partners and collaborators, and nurturing relationships and sustaining life in the midst of displacement, systemic violence and war, hope becomes a relational and political practice that preserves the possibility of feminist futures.

With that, we hope you find this edition as resonating and thought-provoking as we have found it while reading, writing and reflecting alongside our partners.