Popular Opinion Leaders’ Perspectives on Preventing Gender-Based Violence and Problem Drinking Among Kenyan College Students: A Brief Report

Participants

Participants were 16 young adults in Nairobi, Kenya, who were recently recruited (n = 5; 31.3%) or experienced (n = 11; 68.7%) POLs in the VKCP. Twelve (75%) individuals were current undergraduate students and four (25%) individuals recently graduated. The majority were women (n = 10, 62.5%) and the average age was 25.20 (range = 19-27, SD = 3.06). Regarding nationality, 14 (87.5%) were Kenyan and two (12.5%) were Zimbabwean.

Procedure

The third and fourth authors called and/or emailed potential participants and informed them about the two focus groups, one for new recruits that took place in a coffee shop by a college campus and one for experienced POLs that took place in a private office in Nairobi. The focus groups were conducted by the first and second authors using a detailed interview script. The focus groups were recorded and a series of questions were used to gauge (a) perceptions of the intersection of GBV and related health behaviors (e.g., problem drinking) and (b) perceptions of the VKCP, specifically challenges, strengths, and perceived influence on students. Snacks were provided at the focus groups, and participants each received 500 Kenyan Shillings (equivalent to US$5).

The qualitative data were analyzed by the first two authors using content analyses (Bauer, 2000; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Krippendorff, 2004;). First, we read the transcripts and/or listened to the recording to obtain the gestalt of the data. Second, words, phrases, and sentences that answered the questions were highlighted. Third, we noted similarities and differences in the responses to each of the questions that led to the emergence of categories of similar responses. After coding the transcripts, we read through them again and compared transcripts with our written results to ensure the accuracy of our coding. Given that we interviewed the majority of VKCP POLs and that there was great overlap in responses across the groups, we believe that the data were likely saturated. In general, to qualify as a reportable coding category, the response had to be mentioned by at least two individuals within the same focus group and/or by an individual in both focus groups. We protected against bias by using low inference analysis and two coders (who reached consensus) in addition to considering alternative explanations and discussing/reviewing our findings with stakeholders (i.e., VKCP program developers and implementers).

GBV Is a Problem and Relates to a Host of Other Deleterious Health Behaviors

When asked about problems that students face, participants identified GBV and gave examples of GBV that took the form of rape, sexual harassment, and dating violence. One particular type of GBV that participants identified was “sexually transmitted degrees” (i.e., pressure from lecturers to perform sexual favors in exchange for passing grades). For example, one participant said,

My friend was doing a project and her supervisor was harassing [her]. I was like, “Don’t give him sexual favors, then you’ll never graduate,” and she proceeded to report [it] to [the] university and it became a case. And this lecturer came and told her if it went ahead, you’ll never graduate . . . And for sure she never ever graduated.

Participants noted several additional problems that students faced (e.g., drug use and alcohol misuse) and described how these issues intersected with GBV. For example, participants said in reference to men getting women drunk before sex, “it’s called marinating . . . they get you drunk . . . people are just so used to it.” Another participant said, “you know, when you’re drunk . . . sometimes you don’t get to a place where you can give consent to what’s happening.” In conjunction with alcohol and drug use, party culture was described as contributing to GBV:

You want to try everything on that particular night, so if you haven’t had sex before you want to try it out, if you haven’t taken [drugs] before you want to try it out. Liquor, you want to try it out . . . then the next day you realize, “oh my God.”

Another contributor to GBV was early cohabitation with one’s partner. For example, one participant said, in reference to moving in together:

I also feel like it’s a major contributor to rape. There’s rape in marriage, right? But then, this setting is not a marriage per say. But since you’re living with this guy, then he probably feels like automatically that you guys should have sex. Without consent, then it’s rape. So, I feel like it happens a lot in this setting.

Cohabiting, especially when there is financial dependence, was perceived to increase risk for GBV. For example, one participant stated,

I also think some people cohabit for financial reasons. [If] you [are] from a poor family, you’re not getting enough pocket money. But if you share things with this guy, he also gives you some money here and there . . . And also, girls on campus or even guys on campus have sugar mommies and sugar daddies. And they end up being violated because they’re getting money from this person.

Participants said that violence was often learned in families. For example, one participant said,

Men do not understand “no” from a woman because even our fathers, our grandfathers, would [force sex upon] their wives when they would say no . . . So even if it’s your boyfriend and you tell him that, “No, I don’t want to,” they don’t understand . . . I don’t think the concept “no” from a woman makes sense in their heads.

Participants also felt violence was normalized on campus: “But it is really normalized, sexual harassment at universities. It has become something of a culture, where if you don’t experience it, you’re the odd one out.”

Toxic masculinity was also seen as a contributor to GBV and something that programming needs to address: “Toxic masculinity [is] a deep issue, like it’s deep rooted in how people were raised and all that . . . so like educating them on how it’s not right to look down on a female.” Another participant said,

Teaching people before they even get to where they can actually be violent . . . the way you are raised affects the way you associate with other people. For example . . . if you are a boy child and people are telling you, a boy should not cry, a boy should not do certain things, as you grow up you have that bitterness about all that anger that you have bottled up.

VKCP Is Perceived as Being Impactful

Regarding the perceived influence of VKCP, participants believed that the program first and foremost gave a platform to survivors and aided in their healing process. As one participant said, “My favorite part was giving a platform to people who have gone through gender-based violence to speak up.” Another participant noted,

Someone has an issue that they need to sort, or they need assistance with, and they come to you. And, if it were not for (VKCP) I would have been in a very in a catch-22 situation, ’cause I would not know how to assist a lot of people.

In addition, participants felt that VKCP helped to prevent perpetration via changing of norms to be intolerant of GBV. For example, one participant remarked,

I feel like it has been able to highlight what exactly violence is; and for these people who would have been perpetrators, would now stop being perpetrators or would think twice about the next time they do something close to what they had.

VKCP also helped students raise awareness. One participant said, “I felt like it also brought a reality for me that this happens and we need to address it, like, we need to be more aggressive about how we can address this issue” and another stressed the importance of “just keeping the conversation going.” Participants also thought VKCP enhanced bystander intervention. One participant explained,

My last thought would be able to actually reach out to friends and tell them, “Hey, you know what? What you actually did there was not really appropriate.” So, uh, friends could also now shape up. Like, “Oh, thank you for that correction. I think I’ve done this thing unknowingly. But now that I know, I’d approach it in a different way.” So that, getting them to confess that, “Hey, I didn’t know that was violence,” so, uh, I think that was part of the highlight [of my work with VKCP].

VKCP allowed participants to train others (e.g., training pastors to include GBV prevention into their premarital counseling) and to make the connections between GBV and other health issues (e.g., “through Vunja Kimya I have been able to now connect gender-based violence and mental health issues”). Finally, participants discussed the influence that VKCP had had on their own lives, specifically by enhancing their confidence (e.g., “the platform has given me confidence. [Before] I was really shy, I couldn’t handle a crowd”) and self-development and growth (e.g., “For me, Vunja Kimya has been that place where you actually learn not be a perpetrator . . . I don’t want to become a perpetrator, I want to be someone who can actually offer a hand”).

VKCP Is Perceived to Have Challenges

Despite the perceived positive influence of VKCP, participants noted challenges that included limited resources (e.g., “more funds and more resources”) and time (e.g., “you’re still a student, you have assignments to submit, you have deadlines to meet”). Students also mentioned student resistance to prevention messages and programming efforts (e.g., “ignorance from other people, when you’re trying to sell your ideas, sometimes it’s a challenge”), often because issues of violence have stigma attached (“People do not report because of society and stigma”). Finally, students said a major barrier to implementation was that they had little resources for which to refer survivors who approached them (e.g., “. . . we don’t have counselors, and maybe they don’t even trust them because they are fellow students. So what do you do? Who do you refer them to? So, there’s a need for us to have people like counselors”).