This qualitative study examined university students’ awareness, socio-cultural barriers, and perceptions of

institutional efficacy regarding Gender-Based Violence (GBV) support services in two universities in Mwanza,

Tanzania. Anchored in an interpretivist paradigm, the study employed six focus group discussions, in-depth

interviews with seven survivors, four key informant interviews with gender desk coordinators, presidents of

students’ organisations and non-participant observation. The research drew on Foucault’s concept of power, the

Social Ecological Model (SEM), and the Health Belief Model (HBM) to analyze findings. Results reveal a

organizations.The study concluded that effective GBV interventions require decentralizing authority,

legitimizing informal support networks, and implementing multi-tiered approaches to address structural and

cultural barriers.

perspectives

Gender-based violence (GBV) in higher education remains a significant social and educational concern

worldwide. Universities, often framed as spaces of empowerment and intellectual growth, continue to

reproduce gender hierarchies and power imbalances that facilitate various forms of GBV. In Tanzania, GBV

jeopardizes student safety, academic performance, and the pursuit of gender equality in education (Mutasigwa

are mandated by the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU, 2024) to implement policies promoting

gender equality and establishing gender desks. These desks are intended to enhance reporting mechanisms and

provide safe environments for survivors. However, implementation challenges remain, including low

awareness, inconsistent service delivery, and weak institutional coordination (UNESCO & Ministry of

Education, 2022).

This study examines how national policies translate into university-level practices, exploring students’ lived

experiences with GBV support services. By investigating the gap between policy intentions and actual service

accessibility, this research offers insights for policy refinement and institutional learning, connecting

Foucault’s theory of governmentality to the governance of gender and power within universities.

two survivors who did not. Two gender desk coordinators served as key informants. Non-participant

observation was conducted to examine physical infrastructure and service accessibility.

Data were organized using ATLAS.ti 25, coded thematically according to university type (public vs. private)

and data source (FGD, IDI, KII). Thematic analysis facilitated detailed interpretation of shared ideas,

experiences, and meanings (Gibson & Brown, 2009). Ethical considerations included anonymizing

participating institutions and individuals to prevent reputational harm and protect confidentiality, as also done

by Wafula and Achoka (2016) when they explored policy gaps, management deficiencies, low victim support,

and stigma in universities in Kenya. Another study by Bull et al. (2022) anonymized three universities in their

study which examined students’ experiences of GBV in the United Kingdom.

providers and students. Service providers expressed scepticism about the level of students’ awareness,

suggesting that many students primarily associated GBV with physical violence. As one president from a

private university explained:

Their awareness is 50/50. Many believe that GBV is limited to physical violence and nothing else.” (KII –

President of Students’ Government, Private University)

In contrast, student participants demonstrated a broader understanding of GBV. Data from focus group

discussions (FGDs) across universities indicated that students conceptualized GBV as extending beyond

physical acts to include violations of rights and dignity. As one participant from private university noted:

Gender-based violence is doing things that violate the rights of another person or discredit one’s humanity

because of his or her gender. (FGD – Mixed Group, Private University)

For us Muslims, we meet every Sunday at the madrassa. We help each other by reminding ourselves to be

responsible. A teacher often comes and tells us that if we ever face violence because of our gender, we should

not keep quiet but seek help and share our problems. (FGD – Female Only, Private University)

Some survivors only became aware of formal support services through indirect referrals. For instance, one

survivor of physical violence explained that she learned about the gender desk through a relative:

The findings identified mistrust of institutional confidentiality, fear of retaliation, and inadequate physical

infrastructure as the main barriers preventing survivors from reporting GBV cases. Students expressed

concerns that reporting GBV might lead to breaches of confidentiality and reputational harm. One survivor of

sexual extortion for academic marks remarked:

If I report and the lecturer finds out, what will my life be like after that? Lecturers can do anything. (IDI –

Survivor, Public University)

Fear of retaliation also emerged as a strong deterrent. A male student in a public university described how

shares the office with the head of department. So, if someone comes to report, they may find another lecturer

there and end up pretending to discuss something else. (FGD – Female Group, Public University)

Field observations confirmed this issue. The office was labelled “Department of Community Development”

the challenge:

here because it’s located among lecturers’ offices, so some leave without getting help. (KII – Gender Desk

Coordinator, Private University)

distribute my pictures. (IDI – Survivor, Private University)

However, some survivors expressed frustration over bureaucratic procedures and evidence-related

requirements. One survivor of physical violence expressed disappointment that she was not compensated for

her medical expenses due to lack of documentation:

receipts. (IDI – Survivor, Private University)

Students proposed several strategies for strengthening GBV support services. These included enhancing

service delivery, training service providers, creating safe and confidential spaces, raising awareness, and

promoting student engagement in prevention initiatives. Participants emphasized the need for universities to

create safe and private reporting spaces where students would feel comfortable seeking help. One female

participant from a public university stated:

We need a secure and safe space where students can comfortably report their cases. (FGD – Mixed Gender,

Public University)

Another student added that service providers should be trained to handle survivors sensitively:

Service providers should leave their personal issues behind and use welcoming language when receiving

survivors. (FGD – Mixed Group, Public University)

Students also advocated for empowerment and bystander training, arguing that such initiatives could foster

Students should be trained to be good bystanders and report GBV cases in dormitories, even if survivors are

students as having limited knowledge of GBV, often equating it solely with physical violence, students

themselves demonstrated a more complex understanding. This finding aligns with studies conducted in other

realities. As Foucault (1980) argues, institutions often define what constitutes valid knowledge, positioning

individuals, in this case, students, as passive recipients of predefined awareness.

GBV often remains confined to the physical dimension, reflecting broader societal norms that equate violence

primarily with physical harm. Such a discourse obscures other forms of violence, including psychological,

economic, and structural oppression (Heise, 2018). However, students’ own narratives in this study challenged

this narrow view. Many recognized GBV as a broader violation of dignity and human rights. This suggests that

between students and service providers to co-construct shared understandings and responsive strategies.

Freire’s (1970) concept of dialogical education supports this approach, emphasizing that awareness develops

through reflection, participation, and reciprocal communication.

On the other hand, awareness of university support services was found to vary across institutions. Gender

desks and the Dean of Students’ offices were the most recognized formal mechanisms. However, many

informal support networks reinforcing values of care and solidarity. This resonates with the African philosophy

of ubuntu, which emphasizes interdependence, empathy, and collective responsibility (Chuwa, 2021). Such

On sociocultural barriers to accessing GBV support services, the findings revealed persistent sociocultural and

institutional barriers that shape students’ access to GBV support services. These include mistrust of

institutional confidentiality, fear of retaliation, and inadequate infrastructure for privacy. Such barriers illustrate

how power, culture, and institutional design intersect to influence survivors’ engagement with formal support

systems.

Viewed through the Social Ecological Model (SEM), institutional responses operate at multiple levels, formal

structures, interpersonal relationships, and broader cultural attitudes. While gender desks play a crucial role,

their effectiveness depends on empathy, accountability, and a survivor-centered culture. Bureaucratic

procedures and inadequate follow-up can erode institutional credibility and reinforce reliance on informal

From the HBM perspective, these recommendations emphasize the importance of reducing perceived barriers

and enhancing the perceived benefits of reporting GBV. Calls for provider training and digital reporting

Overall, the findings indicated that Tanzanian universities, particularly in Mwanza Region, can strengthen

GBV response systems by adopting participatory, student-centered approaches that integrate empathy,

confidentiality, and technological innovation. Such reforms would not only enhance institutional credibility but

also cultivate a culture of shared responsibility, solidarity, and empowerment, essential elements for

This study contributes new insights into the intersection of institutional and socio-cultural factors shaping

GBV response in Tanzanian universities. By comparing private and public institutions, it highlights both

commonalities and context-specific challenges, including the critical influence of informal networks and the

overlooked role of bystanders. It further exposes the gap between policy commitments and lived realities,

18. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the Health Belief

19. Sedman, R. (2019). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

20. Tanzania Commission for Universities. (2024). Guidelines for gender equality and prevention of gender-

21. UNESCO. (2023). Safer Campus Campaign: Preventing gender-based violence in higher education

22. UNESCO & Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2022). Report on implementation of GBV

23. United Republic of Tanzania. (2022). National Gender Policy (Revised). Ministry of Community