RAISING AWARENESS AND COMBATTING DIGITAL GENDER 
BASED VIOLENCE THROUGH SERVICE-LEARNING 
R. Monera Ortiz, L. Freude, C. Camps Calvet, E. Almeda Samaranch, J. Bonet 
Martí, C. Vivancos, A. Morero Beltrán 
Universitat de Barcelona (SPAIN) 
Abstract 
Digital Gender Based Violence (DGBV) is a growing social problem and affects especially younger 
people. DGBV describes any kind of Gender Based Violence (GBV) related with new Information and 
Communication Technologies. To combat DGBV we designed the teaching innovation project "Digital 
gender-based violence: learning from feminisms" aiming to contribute to the eradication of digital sexist 
violence in order to promote healthy digital relationships. The project is part of the broader Service 
Learning project of the University of Barcelona “Sharing Ideas – University goes to High school”: In the 
classes at University, students will learn the curriculum specific content, to develop a workshop to be 
implemented in short sessions with high school students. 
We implement the project at the University of Barcelona in the subjects Social Control (6 ECTS, 
compulsory) and Sociology of Genders (3 ECTS, optional) of the Sociology Bachelor. Beside the high 
schools, the project also involves the feminist third sector organization Alia complementing the university 
students’ training on DGBV. The different actors involved underline the inter-institutional character of 
the project. The project is a special Service Learning experience as it applies feminist research and 
teaching methodologies, emphasizing social transformation of gender inequalities. 
For our project, we share our research results on DGBV with our students in order to enable them to 
identify and recognize what are DGBV and why they occur. Therefor we expose our own research 
answering the following questions: what profiles are most affected? What are the profiles of the 
aggressors? What are the survivors’ reactions on DGBV and how do they evaluate them? For the 
introductory sessions, we count with the support of the third sector association Alia. The main objective 
of these activities is to raise the awareness of existing DGBV between adolescents and young people. 
In addition, we aim to share tools to protect themselves from DGBV as well as to deal with DGBV in 
order to finally eradicate DGBV. 
We wonder if the project achieves its goals: Do university students acquire new content at class? Are 
the contents we provide university students with helpful in order to prepare the workshops at school? 
What are the additional contents and competences acquired during the workshops at school? Do the 
high school students benefit from the workshop in terms of contents and competences? We also assess 
gender differences taking into account gender and paying specially attention to non-binary identified 
persons. 
In order to assess these research questions, we consider observation of the sessions, students’ 
reflections (qualitative) as well as a quantitative questionnaire. 
Keywords: Digital Gender Based Violence, Service Learning, Gender, Feminist Methodology, Sociology. 
1 INTRODUCTION 
Gender Based Violence (GBV) constitutes an important social problem referring to “violence directed 
against a person because of that person's gender or violence that affects persons of a particular gender 
disproportionately” ([1]). As such, it affects especially women and LGTBQ* ([2]). With the increasing 
digitalization of our lives Gender Based Violence online, further in the text Digital Gender Based Violence 
(DGBV) is gaining importance ([1], [3]). In the following, we rely on the UN Women’s definition adding 
LGBTQ* people. For the UN Women DGBV is “any act of gender-based violence against women that is 
committed, assisted or aggravated in part or fully by the use of ICT, such as mobile phones and 
smartphones, the Internet, social media platforms or email, against a woman because she is a woman, 
or affects women disproportionately” ([3], p. 8). 
Núria Vergés and Adriana Gil-Juárez recently summed up the existing literature on DGBV ([2]). Despite 
growing visibility of GBV and DGBV we still need to increment our efforts to overcome them, and this 
Proceedings of INTED2022 Conference 
7th-8th March 2022
ISBN: 978-84-09-37758-9
1008
  
project aims to put its grain of sand. GBV need to be understood as a structural phenomenon imbricated 
in sexism, racism, capitalism, and other forms of oppression, being DGBV their continuity in the digital 
space. Though we understand GBV and DGBV as a continuum, it is important to underline the specificity 
that digital violence can be more harmful on the long run ([4]) and has an important impact on political 
participation, working and learning opportunities as well as physical and psychological health. Occurring 
digitally, DGBV often remain undetected as such ([2]). Considering that time spend online is growing 
especially between adolescents and young adults ([5]), working with university and High school students 
is central to raise awareness and combat DGBV. According to data, women and LGTBQ* persons suffer 
most DGBV ([6]) and racialization aggrieves the exposition the threads or non-consented sexual content 
([7], [8]); younger people are overexposed, too ([9], [10], [11]). Feminist activists and women with high 
public visibility such as journalists, politicians or academics are also object of DGBV ([12], [13], [14], [15]). 
The feminist collective Donestech from Catalonia distinguishes between four types of DGBV ([16]). First, 
sexist harassment such as insulting, humiliating and undermining self-esteem via TRIC. Second, 
sexualized violence online attempting against the sexual liberty such as sexspreading, sexual 
harassment online, sextortion, online exhibitionism as well as the censorship of female sexuality. Third, 
digital intimate partner violence as controlling or censoring virtual relations or using spyware. Fourth, 
attacks against the feminist movements or visible women via insults or slut shaming, cracking accounts 
or webs as well as sending threads.  
1.1 Service-Learning in the Teaching of Sociology 
Sociology is a discipline with a tradition of the analysis of inequalities, as well as the development of 
strategies to overcome them to archive an equal society ([17], [18], [19]). GBV and DGBV constitute 
therefore an important field of research for sociologists. In this communication, we share first results 
from our research project eGBVHelp! Tackling and responding to online gender-based violence through 
a pioneering e-helpline for reporting GBV online and empowering women, girls and LGBTIQ+ persons 
and professionals. The project is funded by the Justice Programme “Rights, Equality and Citizenship” of 
the European Union.  
All of us do research as well as teaching in Sociology. We are engaged to implement a feminist 
perspective in both research ([20], [21]) and teaching ([22]). For some of us, Service Learning (S-L) has 
proofed to be a tool for feminist research and teaching ([23], [24]). S-L is “an educational proposal that 
combines learning and community service processes in a single and well-articulated project in which 
participants are educated while they work on real needs of the community with the aim of improving it” 
([25], p. 61). The case we share here comes from a broader teaching innovation project “Sharing Ideas. 
The University goes to Highschool” based on S-L implemented by the University of Barcelona ([26]; 
[27]). S-L has shown to have positive effects on university students as well as community partners ([28]). 
For students there is abundant research underlining its positive effects for the acquisition of transversal 
competences as communication skills ([29]), teamwork ([30]), as well as specific contents ([31]) and 
empathy ([32], [33]) and empowerment ([34]). In addition, S-L can help in the process of professional 
orientation ([35], [36]). The challenges of S-L reside in the establishment of a genuine and long-term 
commitment with the community, organizational shortcomings in terms of preparation and coordination 
([33]) as well as a superficial and extractavist service ([37]). Another problem is how University students 
reach an equal encounter of different knowledge without privileging the academic one ([38]). 
Feminist scholars have claimed S-L to commit with social transformation through feminism ([39]), 
introducing gender perspective to their S-L experiences ([23], [40]) and gender sensitive courses ([38], 
[41], [42], [43]). Concerning the gender impact of S-L experiences, we know that women tend to be more 
interested to participate ([44]). In case of GBV S-L raises the awareness of violence and enables 
participants to engage against violence ([40], [45], [46]). Concerning sexual orientation, we dispose of 
less information: some argue that LGTBQ* engage less in S-L ([47]). We know even less about the 
(gendered) community: Núria Vergés and her equip showed that their intervention on service learning 
was gender sensitive and binary participants evaluated to service more positive ([23]).  
In this teaching innovation project, university students design and implement a workshop based on class 
contents to high school students. In our optional undergrad course Sociology of Genders of 3 ECTS our 
students already participated offering workshops on Gender and Substance (ab)use ([48]) as well as 
boosting women’s presence in ICT ([49]) where they are underrepresented ([50]). 
To put it in a nutshell: in the framework of a pioneering European Research Project on DGBV we 
developed a teaching innovation based on Service Learning in our course Sociology of Genders. Here 
we are going to evaluate if  
1009
  
• University students acquire new content at class considering DGBV?  
• There are differences according to gender and according to the participation in the SL experience. 
• Do the contents we provide university students with are helpful in order to prepare the workshops 
at school?  
• Are additional contents and competences acquired during the workshops at school?  
• Do the high school students benefit from the workshop in terms of contents and competences? 
2 METHODOLOGY 
In terms of methods, we situate our approach in multi-method ([51]) and feminist methodologies ([20], 
[21]). The strength of multi-method designs is that different techniques can complement each other to 
draw a more realistic image of the research object ([51]). We therefore rely on quantitative methods as 
well as qualitative methods, mainly a questionnaire, observation and narratives on the experiences. 
Concerning the feminist approach, we consider that the choice of the topic – DGBV – already constitutes 
a feminist epistemic claim on the research agenda ([20]). In addition, we work with gender and sexual 
identity as key variables of the evaluation ([20]). 
Here we expose the evaluation of two learning situations: first, the seminar held by a member of the 
feminist collective at our University Course Sociology of Genders; and second, the workshop three of 
our students held in a High school in Barcelona. 
During the seminar at University, three equip members observed the session paying special attention 
to participation, gender differences and differences between students participating in SL and those who 
did not participate. In addition, we asked students to fill out a questionnaire on their knowledge on 
competences and content concerning DGBV; after the seminar, we asked the same questions in order 
to detect changes. We also asked for overall satisfaction. All items were evaluated on a scale from cero 
(do not agree at all) to 10 (totally agree). 
For the workshop our students gave at High school, we also observed the workshop: here we were 
interested to see if they reached a mutual exchange with the High school students; we also wanted to 
know how the High school students reacted on the topic of DGBV. Finally, we looked for unequal 
participation in terms of gender, ethnicity, or another axis. Like the workshop at University, we collected 
data on competences as well as content knowledge before and after the workshop, asking for High 
School student’s satisfaction too. Regarding our students running the workshop we based asked them 
to send us a written reflection as well as a short exposition on their experience for their classmates. 
For the analysis of the quantitative data, we controlled on gender and sexual orientation differences.  
3 RESULTS 
For the results, we share firstly our observations during the seminar and the workshop. We then present 
the quantitative evaluation of the workshop at University, finishing with the quantitative and qualitative 
evaluation of the workshop at the high school. 
As commented before, the experience consisted in two important sessions integrated in the optional 
Sociology of Genders course (3 ECTS) in the fourth and last year of the Bachelor of Science in Sociology 
(240 ECTS). We impart the assignment weekly for 2 hours. At the 25th November, International Day for 
the Elimination of Violence Against Women, we dedicated the weekly class to the seminar on DGBV 
inviting a member of Alia / Donestech, a feminist collective and third sector organization, exposing their 
work. During the seminar we observed both gender biases and differential participation depending on 
the participation in the SL project. 
The second evidence is the workshop three our students implement a week after this session in a 
Highschool, based on Sociology Genders and especially the seminar on DGBV. Here we observed how 
the workshop went, taking into account both our students’ performance paying attention to contents and 
competences, as well as the participants’ reactions. 
3.1 Observation of the Service-Learning experience 
Concerning the seminar at University we observed that the whole group paid attention to the seminar, 
listening quietly, and positioning themselves towards the invited speaker. They participated all actively 
1010
  
when their participation was required, and the distractive use of laptops and mobile phones was much 
less extended than in an ordinary class; men distracted themselves over proportionally compared to 
women. The informal comments on the seminar were much more extended between the assisting 
women underlining that the topic affected them overproportionally. Concerning the participation of three 
students participating in the SL project (the three students who prepared the workshop for high school 
students afterwards), we were surprised by a less active participation. Though their informal participation 
was high, one of them arrived late, none of them raised specific questions or participated more actively 
in the interactive part of the seminar. 
During the workshop at school, we observed that our University students implemented a well-structured 
and participatory workshop, summing-up class-contend. They arranged the chairs in a cycle and started 
with an introduction of themselves and the participants gathering examples of DGBV proposed by the 
high school students. Afterwards they ordered the different proposals in a grid according to the definition 
of Vergés Bosch and Donestech ([16]). Then, they distributed different cases of DGBV and discussed 
the cases and possible strategies to resolve them with the students. In this sense, the whole workshop 
was participative and horizontal, and the timing was adequate. 
3.2 Quantitative evaluation of the workshop at University 
At our classes, physical assistance is recommended but not compulsory. Being present is therefore an 
indicator for interest in the seminar on DGBV. We can see that seventeen of the forty matriculated 
students and assisted. For a rainy day, 42,5% of presence is a regular assistance. Considering that the 
three students who participate in the SL project are all present (100%), shows that their interest in the 
workshop is much higher. 
Concerning gender biases, we can observe that in terms the whole class, women have a slightly higher 
participation rate than men. Considering the voluntary participation in SL we can see that women are 
clearly overrepresented. This might confirm that women are more interested to participate in SL ([23]; 
[24]; [44]). 
Table 1. Participation rate Workshop at University. 
 Total students Present students Participation rate in % 
Total students 40 17 42.5% 
- Men 10 4 40,0% 
- Women 30 13 43,4% 
Participation SL 40 3 7.5% 
- Men 10 0 0.0% 
- Women 30 3 10.0% 
Considering the acquisition of class specific Competences and Content Table 2 shows an increment in 
all the items. In this sense the formation has been positive, especially if we take into account the key 
competences to identify, distinguish and explain DGBV as well as how to act in case of suffering or 
observing others suffering DGBV. In all items students improved between 2 and 3 points. Considering 
Gender, we noticed that men and non-binary participants departed from lower scores in terms of 
competences and contents before the workshop; after the workshop, their control of competences and 
content improved but the workshop did not equalize them with women who continued to score higher in 
competences and contents. The three students who participated voluntarily in the SL project indicated 
higher scores in the terms of content but no differences in terms of competences before the workshop. 
After the workshop, they situate slightly below the mean in terms of content. We explain the previous 
content knowledge of the participants in SL by the fact that they already prepared their topic before the 
specific class on DGBV.  
1011
  
Table 2. Acquisition of Class specific Competences and Content. 
 Mean pre N 
Mean 
post N Variation 
I know what DGBV are. 7,69 16 8,94 16 1,25 
The Internet and Relationship, Information and Communication 
Technologies (TRICs) are free of sexism. 
0,80 15 0,31 16 -0,49 
Big technology platforms like Google and Facebook are co-
responsible for DGBV. 
7,44 16 8,44 16 1,00 
I am able to identify DGBV. 6,19 16 8,44 16 2,25 
I can tell the difference between different types of DGBV. 5,38 16 8,06 16 2,69 
I know how to help a friend who is suffering DGBV. 5,31 16 8,38 16 3,06 
I know what to do when I suffer DGBV. 5,20 15 7,67 15 2,47 
I can explain what DGBV is. 6,25 16 8,31 16 2,06 
Table 3 refers to the satisfaction with the workshop. The values show that training on DGBV is useful 
and necessary to Sociology students and that the specific session has been well developed. 
Table 3. Satisfaction with the Workshop at University. 
 Mean N 
I have understood the contents developed. 8,44 16 
I have learned new content on DGBV. 8,38 16 
The training was useful to me. 8,31 16 
The material helped me to understand the contents. 8,31 16 
Overall assessment of the training. 8,38 16 
3.3 Quantitative evaluation of the workshop at the High School 
The High School students’ participation in the questionnaire can be interpreted as an indicator of will to 
collaborate. Before the workshop, the response rate is extremely high, descending a bit after the 
workshop. We explain this, not that much by interest, but by the fact that the workshop lengthened until 
the break and the High School students did not want to spend their break on responding our 
questionnaire. This seems to be even truer for men, than for women. 
Table 4. Participation rate Workshop at University. 
 Total students Response Rate before the workshop 
Response Rate after 
the workshop 
Total students 25 96.00 68.00 
- Men 7 100.00 57.14 
- Women 18 94.74 77.78 
In terms of content and competences, Table 5 underlines that the High School students depart from 
very limited contents and competences on DGBV, but that the workshop increases the score of both 
importantly. These increments are specially accentuated in the case of distinguishing between different 
types of DGBV, knowing what DGBV are as well as being able to help a friend who suffers DGBV. In 
terms of gender, we observed that women score lower in the previous and posterior evaluation of 
competences and contents. The effect of the workshop – that is the variation between previous and 
posterior evaluation – is stronger between women. Considering sexual orientation, non-heterosexuals 
tend to be more conscious of internet as a sexist space, feel more able to identify DGBV as well as 
1012
  
helping a friend, but more often unable to confront DGBV affecting themselves. For future workshops 
there is a need to consider DGBV specifically for LGTBphobia as well as for of same-sex relations. 
Table 5. Acquisition of Class specific Competences and Content. 
 Mean pre N 
Mean 
post N Variation 
I know what are DGBV. 4,92 24 8,33 18 3,41 
The Internet and Relationship, Information and Communication 
Technologies (TRICs) are free of sexism. 
1,92 24 2,39 18 0,47 
Big technology platforms like Google and Facebook are co-
responsible for DGBV. 
5,67 24 6,5 18 0,83 
I am able to identify DGBV. 6,12 24 7,56 18 1,44 
I can tell the difference between different types of DGBV. 3,54 24 7,44 18 3,9 
I know how to help a friend who is suffering DGBV. 4,75 24 7,56 18 2,81 
I know what to do when I suffer DGBV. 5,96 24 7,72 18 1,76 
Table 6 refers to the satisfaction with the workshop. The values show that training on DGBV is useful 
and necessary to High School students and that the specific session has been well developed by our 
University students. The excellent scoring of participatory dynamics underlines that our students 
reached to integrate successfully feminist teaching methodology ([22]) in their workshop.  
Table 6. Satisfaction with the Workshop at University. 
 Mean N 
I have understood the contents developed. 7,56 18 
I have learned new content on DGBV. 7,39 18 
The training was useful to me. 7,72 18 
The material helped me to understand the contents. 8,06 18 
Participatory dynamics have been used. 8,89 18 
Overall assessment of the training. 8,56 18 
3.4 Written reflections of participating University Students 
In their written reflections after the workshop, the University students affirm that their SL experience 
helped them to improve their competences concerning teamwork, communication and especially 
speaking in front of a numerous unknown public, moderating and making dialogue others. In this sense, 
they felt that they put into practice feminist teaching methods, characterised by horizontality and 
positionality. In addition, they had the impression that being back in High School gave them the 
possibility to reflect on themselves. The whole experience also felt as a real-life experience and oriented 
them to take professional choices. They felt that they failed in terms of timing. 
In terms of content, the University students felt that they learnt new content, but more important, that 
they learnt to structure this content and putting it down to earth. They appreciated to work on a real-life 
issue, which affects them personally and which has interested them independently from our Sociology 
of Genders course.  
Overall, they affirm keenly that participation in SL is much better than any other conventional evaluation 
activity (e. g. exams or oral presentations) and that this activity enhanced their effort and motivation. 
They feel grateful that they could impulse a debate and reflection in others and have real-world results 
and impacts. Two of the participants had very clear to participate, while one of them doubted and 
participated first reluctantly, though she finally enjoyed the experience. All the three considered the lack 
of preparation and assessment by the university teachers as well as a lack of time and continuity in 
school the main flaws.  
1013
  
4 CONCLUSIONS 
The quantitative evaluation as well as the University students’ reflection made clear that DGBV 
constitute an important, interesting and new topic. The participants in the SL experience arrived more 
prepared to the session, as they already formed themselves to prepare the workshop. Instead, we 
cannot say that they participated more intensively during the session, nor that they affirmed to have 
learnt more from the workshop given to them than the rest of the matriculated students. 
From their written reflection after imparting the workshop at High School we know that the class content 
helped them to prepare their session at school. However, they felt that the workshop on DGBV they 
received has been timely too closed to their workshop at the Highschool. In this sense they propose at 
least one month between the training on DGBV and their workshop at the High School. From their 
reflection one cannot interpret that they linked their participation in SL to other topics of the course such 
as feminist research methods ([20], [21]) or feminist teaching methods ([22]). All in all, they complain 
about a lack of coordination, planning and backing during the SL experience. 
From the High School students’ evaluations, our observation as well as the students’ written reflections 
we know, that the participation in SL enhanced the University students’ competences, especially in terms 
of communication, including moderating discussions and divulgation of scientific work, as well as 
teamwork. The University students’ written reflection also indicates that competences such as time 
management as well as reflection and empathy had been put into practice. In this sense, the presented 
SL experience reaffirms previous research presented above ([29], [31], [30], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], 
[37], [38]). For the SL intervention our students clearly amplified their specific knowledge on DGBV.  
An often-overviewed aspect concerning the evaluation of SL is the community impact. Here we could 
proof that the topic of DGBV resulted highly interesting to High School students, that they considered 
the workshop imparted by University students useful, acquiring new contents and competences. This 
also reflects the high scores in terms of satisfaction, even higher between non-heterosexuals. 
For future SL projects and the continuity of this project it is important to consider also major flaws 
detected in this project: that is mainly a more intensive accompaniment of the University students by 
their professors; and that implies that the university acknowledges realistically the work SL projects 
imply for the staff. This is especially true for inter-institutional projects with a considerable number of 
working hours for coordination and follow-up.  
In addition, we have seen that at first the interest to participate in SL project is not abundant. Having 
friends who want to participate helped one of the participants to take part of the project. Once our 
university students finished their project and shared their experience with the rest of their classmates, 
the majority affirmed that now they would be interested in participating. In this sense, it seems important 
to us to share the experiences of SL with all the students.  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
This research has been developed with the financial support of the European research project “Tackling 
and responding to online gender based violence through a pioneering ehelpline for reporting GBV online 
and empowering women, girls and LGBTIQ+ persons and professionals (eGBVHelp) – eGBVHelp 
(REC-RDAP-GBV-AG-2020)” led by Jordi Bonet Martí and financed by DG JUSTICE. Justice 
Programme / Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme. It also forms part of a broader Teaching 
Innovation Project of the University of Barcelona “Sharing Ideas. The University goes to High school” 
and the specific Teaching Innovation Project Digital Gender Based Violence: Learning From Feminisms 
(2020PID-UB/045) led by Clara Camps Calvet. 
REFERENCES 
[1] European Commission, What is gender-based violence? Gender-based violence can take different 
forms and mostly affects women and girls. Brussels: European Commission. 
[2] N. Vergés Bosch & A. Gil-Juárez, “A Situated Approach to Online Gender-Based Violence and 
Ways to Counter Them”, Revista Estudos Feministas, 29, pp. 1-15, 2021. 
[3] UN Women, Online and ICT-facilitated violence against women and girls during COVID-19. New 
York: UN Women Headquarters. 
1014
  
[4] D. Woodlock, M. Mckenzie, D. Western, B, Harris, “Technology as a weapon in domestic violence: 
Responding to digital coercive control”, Australian Social Work, p. 1-13, 2019. 
[5] INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA - INE. Encuesta sobre Equipamiento y Uso de 
Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación en los Hogares. Madrid: INE, 2019. 
[6] N. Henry, A. Powell & A. L. G. Flynn, Not just 'Revenge pornography': Australians' experiences of 
image-based abuse: a summary report. Melbourne: RMIT University, 2017. 
[7] D. Felmlee, P. I. Rodis & S. C. Francisco, “‘What a B!tch!: Cyber Aggression Toward Women of 
Color’” in Gender and the Media: Women’s Places (M.T Segal and V Demos, eds.), pp. 105-123, 
Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018. 
[8] M. Duggan. Online harassment. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2017. 
[9] A. Van der Wilk, Cyber violence and hate speech online against women. The European Parliament’s 
Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Brussels: European Parliament, 2018. 
[10] M. J. Díaz-Aguado, R. Martínez Arias & J. Martínez Barbaro, La evolución de la adolescencia 
española sobre la igualdad y la prevención de la violencia de genero. España: Delegación del 
Gobierno para la Violencia de Género. Ministerio de Sanidad, política social e igualdad. Colección 
19. Centro de publicaciones, 2014. 
[11] T. Donoso-Vázquez, M. J. Rubio & R. Vilà, “Investigando sobre violencias de género 2.0.” in 
Violencias de Género 2.0 (T. Donoso Vázquez), p. 29-34, Barcelona: Kit-book, 2014. 
[12] J. Bonet i Martí, “Los antifeminismos como contramovimiento: una revisión bibliográfica de las 
principales perspectivas teóricas y de los debates actuales”, Teknokultura. Revista de Cultura 
Digital y Movimientos Sociales, vol. 18, num. 1, p. 61-71, 2021. 
[13] Bonet-Martí, J., “Análisis de las estrategias discursivas empleadas en la construcción de discurso 
antifeminista en redes sociales”, Psicoperspectivas, 19(3), p. 52-63, 2020. 
[14] I. Crosas-Remón & P. Medina-Bravo, “Ciberviolència a la xarxa. Noves formes de retòrica 
disciplinària en contra del feminisme”. Papers: revista de sociologia, v. 104, n. 1, p. 47-73, 2019. 
[15] E. Kavangah & L. Brown, “Towards a research agenda for examining online gender-based violence 
against women acadèmics”, Journal of Further and Higher Education, p. 1-9, 2020. 
[16] N. Vergés Bosch & Donestech, “KIT against gender-based on-line violence”, Revista Idees, 
FEMINISME(S), n. 47, 2019. 
[17] M. Burawoy, “For public sociology”, American sociological review, 70(1), p. 4-28, 2005. 
[18] S. Walby, “Developing the concept of society: Institutional domains, regimes of inequalities and 
complex systems in a global era”, Current Sociology, 69(3), p. 315-332, 2021. 
[19] S. Bayrakdar & A. King, “LGBT discrimination, harassment and violence in Germany, Portugal and 
the UK: a quantitative comparative approach”, Current sociology, 2021. 
[20] R. Jiménez Cortés, “Diseño y desafíos metodológicos de la investigación feminista en ciencias 
sociales”, Empiria: Revista de metodología de ciencias sociales, (50), p. 177-200, 2021. 
[21] B. Biglia, & N. Vergés-Bosch, “Questioning the gender perspective in research”, REIRE Revista 
d’Innovació I Recerca En Educació, 9(2), p. 12–29, 2016. 
[22] R. O. Monera & A. M. Beltrán, “Guía para la incorporación de la perspectiva de género en la 
docencia en Sociología, Economía y Ciencias Políticas”, Arxius de sociologia, (40), p. 71-76, 2019. 
[23] N. Vergés Bosch, L. Freude & C. Camps Calvet, “Service Learning with a Gender Perspective: 
Reconnecting Service Learning with Feminist Research and Pedagogy in Sociology”, Teaching 
Sociology, 49(2), p. 136-149, 2021. 
[24] N. Vergés Bosch, L. Freude, C. Camps Calvet & A. A. Collado Sevilla, “Service Learning, Gender 
and ICT. From gender inequality in ICT to the generation of technological vocations in the 
education”, Foro de Educación, 2021. 
[25] J. P. Rodríguez & J. M. P. Rovira, “Rasgos pedagógicos del aprendizaje-servicio”, Cuadernos de 
pedagogía, (357), p. 60-63, 2006. 
1015
  
[26] P. Folgueiras, P. Aramburuzabala, H. Opazo, A. Mugarra & A. Ruiz, “Service-learning: A survey of 
experiences in Spain”, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 15(2), p. 162-180, 2020. 
[27] A. Escofet, P. Folgueiras, E. Luna & B. Palou, “Elaboración y validación de un cuestionario para la 
valoración de proyectos de aprendizaje-servicio”, Revista mexicana de investigación educativa, 
21(70), 929-949, 2016. 
[28] R. M. Rutti, J. LaBonte, M. M. Helms, A. A. Hervani, & S. Sarkarat, “The service learning projects: 
Stakeholder benefits and potential class tòpics”, Education+ Training, 2016. 
[29] A. J. Curtin, D. C. Martins, & D. Schwartz-Barcott, “A mixed methods evaluation of an international 
service learning program in the Dominican Republic”, Public Health Nursing, 32(1), p. 58-67, 2015. 
[30] S. M. Hildenbrand & S. M. Schultz, “Implementing service learning in pre-service teacher 
coursework”, Journal of Experiential Education, 38(3), p. 262-279, 2015. 
[31] L. Garoutte, “The Sociological Imagination and Community-based Learning: Using an Asset-based 
Approach.”, Teaching Sociology 46(2), 148–59, 2018. 
[32] S. Young & T. Karme, “Service learning in an indigenous not-for-profit Organization”,  Education+ 
Training, 2015. 
[33] T. R. Jr. Hochschild, M. Farley, & V. Chee. “Incorporating Sociology into Community Service 
Classes.”, Teaching Sociology 42(2), p. 105–18, 2014. 
[34] J. Winans-Solis, “Reclaiming power and identity: Marginalized students’ experiences of service-
learning”, Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), p. 604-621, 2014. 
[35] N. Mtawa, S. Fongwa & M. Wilson-Strydom, “Enhancing graduate employability attributes and 
capabilities formation: a service-learning approach” Teaching in Higher Education, 26(5), p. 679-
695, 2021. 
[36] D. Rooks & C. Winkler, “Learning Interdisciplinarity: Service Learning and the Promise of 
Interdisciplinary Teaching.”, Teaching Sociology 40(1), p. 2–20, 2012. 
[37] E. H. Fletcher & N. M. Piemonte, “Navigating the Paradoxes of Neoliberalism: Quiet Subversion in 
Mentored S-L for the Pre-Health Humanities.”, Journal of Medical Humanities, 38(4), p. 397–407, 
2017. 
[38] K. Huisman, “Developing a Sociological Imagination by Doing Sociology: A Methods-based S-L 
Course on Women and Immigration.”, Teaching Sociology 38(2), p. 106–18, 2010. 
[39] T. Walker, “A Feminist Challenge to Community Service: A Call to Politicize S-L,” in The practice of 
change: Concepts and models for S-L in women’s studies (B.J. Baliet and K. Heffernan, eds), p. 25-
45, Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education, 2000. 
[40] J. L. Martin & J. A. Beese, “Girls Talk Back: Changing School Culture through Feminist and S-L 
Pedagogies.”, The High School Journal 99(3), p. 211–33, 2016. 
[41] E. M. Novek, “S-L is a feminist issue: Transforming Communication Pedagogy.”, Women's studies 
in communication, 22(2), p. 230–40, 1999. 
[42] S. Y. Evans, J. Ozer & H. Hill, “Major Service: Combining Academic Disciplines and Service-
Learning in Women's Studies.”, Feminist Teacher 17(1), p. 1–14, 2006. 
[43] R. Bach & J. Weinzimmer, “Exploring the Benefits of Community-based Research in a Sociology of 
Sexualities Course.”, Teaching Sociology 39(1), p. 57–72, 2011. 
[44] P. K. Shukla & M. Shukla, “An Analysis of Gender and Major Differences upon Undergraduate 
Student Attitudes about Community Service Learning.”, Contemporary Issues in Education 
Research (CIER) 7(1), p. 39–44, 2014. 
[45] G. B. Stahl, Gender identity, equity, and violence: Multidisciplinary perspectives through service 
learning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2007. 
[46] J. Hauver & S. V. Iverson, “Critical Feminist Service-Learning: Developing Critical Consciousness.” 
in The Wiley International Handbook of Service-Learning for Social Justice (D.E. Lund, ed.), p. 97–
121, Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2018. 
1016
  
[47] T. D. Mitchell, F. J. Schneider & K. M. Soria, “Community Engagement Experiences of College 
Students with Minoritized Sexual and Gender Identities.”, International Journal of Research on S-L 
and Community Engagement 7(1), 2019. 
[48] L. Freude, A. Collado Sevilla & N. Vergés Bosch, Sociology of gender meets pharmacy, university 
meets high school: interdisciplinarity through service learning, ICERI2019 Proceedings, 2019. 
[49] N. Vergés Bosch, L. Freude & C. Camps Calvet, Service-learning to Reflect on Gender in 
Universities and Schools and Boost Women's Presence in ICT, ICERI2019 Proceedings, 2019. 
[50] N. Vergés Bosch, L. Freude, E. Almeda Samaranch & A. M. González Ramos, “Women working in 
ICT: situation and possibilities of progress in Catalonia and Spain”, Gender, Technology and 
Development, p. 1-19, 2021. 
[51] P. López-Roldán & S. Fachelli, Metodología de Investigación Social Cuantitativa (MISC). Bellaterra: 
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 
1017