This is Part 2 of a two-part series drawn from workshops with women in Uganda and Nigeria on technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV). Read Part 1: "It Happens All the Time": Who Encounters and Who Enacts Tech-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence. 

When researchers measure technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), the instinct is often to begin with a list of behaviors: unwanted messages, image-based abuse, impersonation, online harassment, stalking. Our recent qualitative workshops with women in Uganda and Nigeria suggest that this approach only tells part of the story.

As part of a broader effort by IPA and sistemaFutura to develop a contextually grounded measure of TFGBV, we held participatory discussions with women from different socioeconomic backgrounds across both countries. While the workshops generated rich accounts of online abuse, they revealed something equally important: how women understand, interpret, and respond to these experiences varies considerably and those differences matter for both measurement and intervention.
In the second part of this series, we want to share five lessons for measuring TFGBV with other researchers.

1. Many women experience digital violence before they recognize it

Many participants described experiences that researchers would classify as technology-facilitated gender-based violence, but they did not necessarily recognize or describe them using that terminology.
Some spoke about “scams,” or “phone problems”, while others told stories about jealous partners or being embarrassed online. For many, the humiliation or even fear they felt on phones or online platforms were simply another flavor of controlling relationships or peer-to-peer gossip.

This has important implications for measurement.

Questions that ask women a concept in general, such as  “have you experienced online abuse?” may not accurately assess levels of exposure. Similarly, measures that select a few specific manifestations (like “revenge porn”), may underestimate TFGBV prevalence especially if they rely on respondents recognizing those labels. Asking instead about concrete behaviors - like having passwords demanded by a partner or receiving unwanted sexual images - may offer more accurate TFGBV data.

2. Technology amplifies existing gender inequalities, it doesn't create them

The workshops showed that digital technologies rarely generated entirely new forms of violence. Instead, they intensified existing patterns of coercive control, economic abuse, social surveillance, and intimate partner violence.
Partners used phones to monitor movements. Financial dependence became digital financial abuse. Gossip spread farther and faster through social media. Existing social norms around women's sexuality became amplified when intimate images were shared without consent, and when peers and online trolls piled on comments and gender slurs.
Technology changes how violence happens, but the underlying power dynamics often remain remarkably familiar. Connecting online violence to offline dynamics – rather than studying it as an independent phenomenon – is critical to understand its source, consequences, and potential strategies.

3. Context shapes vulnerability

The workshops reinforced that technology-facilitated violence is not experienced uniformly.
Some forms of abuse were common across both countries. Others reflected local contexts, digital ecosystems, and social norms. Digital literacy, economic opportunities, online visibility, and access to technology all influenced both women's exposure to abuse and how they described it (see our first blog for a detailed account).
This suggests that measurement tools need a balance between standardization and contextual adaptation. Comparable indicators are essential, but they should be flexible enough to capture locally relevant manifestations of harm.

4. Measuring impact is as important as measuring exposure

Much of the existing literature focuses on whether particular forms of online abuse occurred. Women reminded us that the consequences are equally important.

The same experience can have very different effects depending on a woman's circumstances. Losing access to a business account may threaten a family's income while self-monitoring can silence women’s voices and restrict civic participation. Public image-sharing may destroy employment opportunities or marriage prospects, and what accounts as intimate or compromising is defined locally. Constant surveillance by a partner can happen through high tech tools or insistent calls, but the effect is the same.

Measurement efforts should therefore capture not only exposure to different forms of TFGBV, but also their social, economic, psychological, and relational impacts.

5. Violence happens in a system, rather than as isolated events

Perhaps the most valuable methodological insight emerged from the way participants naturally linked different forms of abuse together.

An unsolicited message became grooming. Grooming led to requests for intimate images. Those images became tools for extortion. Public humiliation led to withdrawal from social media, loss of income, or violence at home.
For researchers, this raises an important challenge.

If we measure each behavior independently, we risk overlooking how violence unfolds over time. Future measurement tools should capture not only whether specific events occur, but also how they connect, escalate, and reinforce one another.
Understanding these pathways can inform how surveys are developed, so they can in turn better inform how prevention and interventions are conceived. Identifying where escalation begins may reveal opportunities for earlier action before harms compound.

Building measures that reflect women's realities

Technology is changing rapidly. New platforms, artificial intelligence, and evolving digital behaviors will continue to create new risks.

Our research suggests, however, that the greatest challenge for measurement is not simply keeping pace with technology. It is ensuring that our tools reflect how women actually experience violence.
That means grounding measurement in local contexts, asking about concrete behaviors rather than technical terminology, recognizing that digital and offline violence are deeply connected, and paying attention not only to what happens, but to who perpetrates it, how it unfolds, and what consequences it has.

Better measurement is not an end in itself. It enables stronger evidence, more responsive programming, and ultimately better policies to prevent and respond to technology-facilitated gender-based violence.

As the field continues to mature, qualitative research should remain central. It is not simply a preliminary step before survey design, but also an essential tool for ensuring that the questions we ask are the ones that matter most.