SPECIAL ISSUE 1 June 2026
DOI DOI: 10.66434/ijspsy.v1i1si.466

Digital entrepreneurship education and technology-facilitated gender-based violence: Rethinking safe innovation spaces in schools

Peter Isaac Msughter 1
  1. 1 University of South Africa, South Africa

Abstract

The rapid expansion of digital technologies in education has significantly transformed entrepreneurship education, enabling students to participate in innovation-driven learning through online collaboration platforms, virtual business simulations, digital marketplaces, and technology-mediated project-based activities. While these developments have broadened opportunities for creativity, collaboration, and entrepreneurial skill development, they have also introduced new risks within digital learning environments, including the emergence of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV). Existing research on TFGBV has largely focused on cyberbullying, online harassment, and social media interactions among adolescents; however, limited scholarly attention has been directed to how digital entrepreneurship education spaces may inadvertently reproduce gendered harms through technology-mediated collaboration, competition, and public digital engagement. This conceptual paper critically examines the intersection between digital entrepreneurship education and TFGBV in school contexts, arguing that innovation-oriented learning environments can unintentionally create conditions in which gendered exclusion, harassment, reputational harm, and other forms of technology-facilitated abuse may occur. Drawing on intersectionality theory, digital citizenship frameworks, and contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education, the paper reconceptualises digital innovation spaces in schools not only as sites of entrepreneurial skill development but also as socio-technological environments shaped by power relations, gender dynamics, and digital behavioural norms. The paper analyses how common pedagogical practices in digital entrepreneurship education, including online pitching platforms, collaborative startup simulations, digital prototyping, and virtual innovation competitions, may expose learners, particularly girls and young women, to forms of TFGBV. In response, the paper proposes a conceptual model for Safe Digital Innovation Ecosystems in entrepreneurship education, integrating gender-sensitive pedagogy, digital ethics, teacher facilitation, and institutional safeguards as key mechanisms for preventing TFGBV within school-based innovation environments.

How to Cite

Msughter , P. I. (2026). Digital entrepreneurship education and technology-facilitated gender-based violence: Rethinking safe innovation spaces in schools. International Journal of Studies in Psychology, 1(1si), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.66434/ijspsy.v1i1si.466
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2015). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  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. Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press.
  4. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge, New York
  5. 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
  6. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
  7. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.
  8. 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
  9. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
  10. 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
  11. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Corwin.
  12. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
  13. Jones, S., & Warhuus, J. P. (2018). “This class is not for you”: An investigation of gendered subject construction in entrepreneurship course descriptions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(2), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-07-2017-0220
  14. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
  15. Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how (Entrepreneurship360 Background Paper). OECD/European Commission. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-Education.pdf
  16. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
  17. Marlow, S., & McAdam, M. (2013). Gender and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate and challenging myths; exploring the mystery of the under-performing female entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 19(1), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551311299288
  18. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
  19. Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x
  20. OECD. (2019). OECD skills outlook 2019: Thriving in a digital world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en
  21. Powell, A., Scott, A. J., Flynn, A., & Henry, N. (2020). Image-based sexual abuse: An international study of victims and perpetrators. A summary report. RMIT University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35166.59209
  22. Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know (3rd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education.
  23. Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617
  24. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.
  25. UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
  26. Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Polity Press.
  27. 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