SPECIAL ISSUE 1 June 2026
DOI DOI: 10.66434/ijspsy.v1i1si.445

Conceptualising a justice-oriented framework for addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence in digital assessment systems within African school contexts

Moses Mhide Kpum1, Velisiwe Gasa1
  1. 1 University of South Africa, South Africa

Abstract

This paper examines how a justice-oriented conceptual framework can address technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) embedded within digital assessment systems in African schooling contexts. It aims to theorise the structural, institutional, and algorithmic mechanisms through which online examinations, remote proctoring, learning management systems, and AI-supported grading generate gender-differentiated vulnerabilities, and to develop a normative framework for addressing them. Adopting critical normative inquiry grounded in feminist theory, data justice scholarship, and African relational philosophy, the paper synthesises interdisciplinary literature to construct and apply a four-dimensional justice framework. The findings revealed four structural mechanisms, including intimate space intrusion, biometric data extraction, reputational data permanence, and asymmetrical algorithmic accountability, that produce gender-differentiated harm within assessment infrastructures. These harms are not incidental but embedded in governance arrangements that prioritise efficiency and integrity over dignity, equity, and relational responsibility. The paper develops a four-dimensional justice framework comprising: educational equity, drawing on Fraser’s redistribution–recognition–representation triad, data justice, centered on minimisation, sovereignty, and algorithmic transparency, institutional accountability, grounded in substantive equality theory, and community-based ethics informed by Ubuntu philosophy. The framework calls for gender-responsive assessment design, transparent algorithmic governance, participatory policy formation, and restorative institutional processes. Concretely, institutions should conduct gender impact assessments before deployment, establish TFGBV risk registers that include technology-mediated harms, and build equity criteria into procurement requirements. The paper contributes a Global South perspective to debates on digital safety and offers a normative blueprint for ethically defensible assessment practice in technology-intensive African schooling environments.

How to Cite

Kpum, M., & Gasa, V. (2026). Conceptualising a justice-oriented framework for addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence in digital assessment systems within African school contexts. International Journal of Studies in Psychology, 1(1si), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.66434/ijspsy.v1i1si.445
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2023). COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
  2. Bates, S. (2017). Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of revenge porn on female survivors. Feminist Criminology, 12(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116654565
  3. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 77–91.
  4. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a.pdf
  5. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE.
  6. Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674735613
  7. Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2021). Good proctor or “big brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 1581–1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1
  8. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge, New York
  9. Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001
  10. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
  11. Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M.,..., & Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: COVID-19 and its impact on the provision of quality education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 959–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4
  12. Dencik, L., Hintz, A., Redden, J., & Treré, E. (2019). Exploring data justice: Conceptions, applications and directions. Information, Communication and Society, 22(7), 873–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606268
  13. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110
  14. Dragiewicz, M., Burgess, J., Matamoros-Fernández, A., Salter, M., Suzor, N. P., Woodlock, D., & Harris, B. (2018). Technology-facilitated coercive control: Domestic violence and the competing roles of digital media platforms. Feminist Media Studies, 18(3), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447341
  15. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
  16. Forst, R. (2014). Justification and critique: Towards a critical theory of politics. Polity Press.
  17. Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press.
  18. Fredman, S. (2011). Discrimination law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  19. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
  20. Gasa, V., & Kpum, M. M. (2026). Rethinking Youth Resilience in Africa: The Untapped Role of Intergenerational Care and Indigenous Support Systems in Community Health. Global Health Management Journal,9(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.35898/ghmj-911271
  21. Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.10.002
  22. Heinrich, E. (2025). A systematic-narrative review of online proctoring systems and a case for open standards. Open Praxis, 17(3), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.3.836
  23. Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2018). Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 19(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650189
  24. Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B.,..., & Koedinger, K. R. (2022). Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1
  25. Kpum, M. M., & Gasa, V. (2026). A multigenerational African perspective on digital exclusion and psychosocial well-being in remote learning contexts. Discover Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01434-9
  26. MacKinnon, C. A. (2005). Women's lives, men's laws. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  27. Mayfield, E., & Black, A. W. (2019). Should you fine-tune BERT for automated essay scoring? In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 151–162). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.bea-1.15
  28. Metz, T. (2007). Toward an African moral theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 15(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00280.x
  29. Mhlambi, S. (2020). From rationality to relationality: Ubuntu as an ethical and human rights framework for artificial intelligence governance. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Discussion Paper Series 2020-009. Harvard Kennedy School.
  30. Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying, violence and alienation. Federation Press.
  31. Perelman, L. (2014). When 'the state of the art' is counting words. Assessing Writing, 21, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.05.001
  32. Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2017). An elephant in the learning analytics room: The obligation to act. Proceedings of the 7th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK'17), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027406
  33. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B.,…, & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '20), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
  34. Ramose, M. B. (2002). The philosophy of Ubuntu and Ubuntu as a philosophy. In P. H. Coetzee & A. P. J. Roux (eds.), Philosophy from Africa: A text with readings (pp. 230–238). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
  35. Republic of Ghana. (2012). Data Protection Act 843 of 2012. Parliament of Ghana. https://nca.org.gh/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Data-Protection-Act-2012.pdf
  36. Republic of Ghana. (2018). Education Strategic Plan 2018–2030. Ministry of Education. https://www.globalpartnership.org/node/document/download?file=sites/default/files/2019-05-education-strategic-plan-2018-2030.pdf
  37. Republic of Kenya. (2019). Data Protection Act No. 24 of 2019. Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 181. https:/kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/2019/TheDataProtectionAct__No24of2019.pdf
  38. Republic of Kenya. (2019). National ICT Policy. Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology. https://ke-cirt.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NATIONAL-ICT-POLICY-2019.pdf
  39. Republic of South Africa. (2013). Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA). Government Gazette. Retrieved from https://inforegulator.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/PROTECTION-OF-PERSONAL-INFORMATION-ACT-4-OF-2013.pdf
  40. Republic of South Africa. (2016). National Integrated ICT Policy White Paper. Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201610/40325gon1212.pdf
  41. Republic of South Africa. Department of Education (DoE). (2004). Draft White Paper on e-Education: Transforming Learning and Teaching through ICT. Pretoria. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/e-education1.pdf
  42. Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers.
  43. Sayed, Y., & Ahmed, R. (2011). Education quality in post-apartheid South African policy: Balancing equity, diversity, rights and participation. Comparative Education, 47(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.541680
  44. Sommer, M., & Sahin, M. (2013). Overcoming the taboo: Advancing the global agenda for menstrual hygiene management for schoolgirls. American Journal of Public Health, 103(9), 1556–1559. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301374
  45. Swauger, S. (2020). Our bodies encoded: Algorithmic test proctoring in higher education. In J. Stommel, C., Friend & S. M. Morris (eds.), Critical digital pedagogy: A collection. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/our-bodies-encoded-algorithmic-test-proctoring-in-higher-education/
  46. Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data and Society, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335
  47. Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. New York: Random House. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5842.1999.tb00012.x
  48. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
  49. United Nations Women. (2022). How to manage gender-responsive evaluations: Evaluation handbook. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women). Retrieved from https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2022/05/how-to-manage-gender-responsive-evaluations
  50. Unterhalter, E. (2007). Gender, schooling, and global social justice. Routledge.
  51. Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Polity Press.
  52. Wiredu, K. (1996). Cultural universals and particulars: An African perspective. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2979/1448.0
  53. Woodlock, D. (2017). The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216646277
  54. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
  55. Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice (rev. ed.). Good Books.