Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: "We are responsible for the violence, and prevention is up to us": A Qualitative Study 
of Perceived Risk Factors for Gender -Based Violence among Ethiopian University Students  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Nov 2017  
Reviewer: Wilfreda Thurston  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the author s in this box rather than uploading your report as 
an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text 
format.  
 
This paper is we ll written and organized and described a well done study that may become 
important in advocating for better policy in preventing sexual assault of Ethiopian university 
women. There are a few minor suggestions for the methods and conclusions that I have 
identified. The discussion and recommendations drawn, however, require a rewrite based on 
a fuller integration with what is currently known about efforts to prevent sexual assault of 
university women.  
 
In relation to methods, there is a standard of back tr anslating from English to the original 
language by a second interpreter to ensure that translation was accurate and bias free; this 
may have been important here, given the nature of the topics and could simply be mentioned 
as a potential weakness. It might  also be mentioned who did the translations (e.g., 
professional translators, graduate students). Sometimes translators have an unconscious bias 
or don't want their community badly represented.  
 
The analysis method was careful and used verification metho ds. I was pleased to see that 
local investigators were asked to clarify themes as a manner of verification and did not have 
the option, I assume, of vetoing or changing them. It seems to me, however, that a lot more 
information about "the nature of romanti c and sexual relationships among students, including 
student relationships with teachers and individuals not affiliated with the university" would 
have been obtained that would not fit into the four stated themes that all relate to GBV (see 
p.6). If only t he themes relating to GBV are being pulled out of the analysis for this paper, the 
process needs to be explained because in qualitative research all the themes should inform 
each other. Additional explanation of the process is needed and this is not necess arily a flaw 
in methods, but something readers need to know about. I do see some purely relationship data 
in Table 2. In Table 2 I would recommend that qualifying adjectives such as "some" be 
removed as they raise questions of "how many" that are not relev ant to this method. This is 
also cautioned against in the rest of the results. Also, "both male and female participants" is 
only used once in Table 2; if comparison of male and female responses is important there 
may be a need for two columns, or explain l ater why this is stated and explain in methods that 
this analysis was done. A similar caution is required in reviewing all of the results. Again, 
"Only female students and one female faculty member discussed sexual coercion by faculty 
at University B. At U niversity A, male students and one male faculty member agreed with 
female participants that female students indeed face grade manipulation in exchange for sex." 
Here you are comparing by sex/gender of respondent and by university - this is a tricky kind 
of comparison given convenience sampling; either don't do it or explain the logics.  
 
"At University A, many participants reported that males sometimes become violent when 
female students attempt to leave their relationships." Is it important that this was  only 
University A or was it a product of the group dynamics and interview responses? The fact 
that you had two conveniently sampled universities (I assume that is how you chose A & B) 
and conveniently sampled participants increased the confidence in trans ferability of the 
results to other institutions, but is not really enough for comparisons. Research knowledge, 
however, may allow some deductions from the results which is a different matter, so perhaps 
it is a case of wording.  
 
The quote on page 11 doe s not represent a long -term "sugar daddy" relationship but rather a 
typical coercive man willing to rape a drunk woman, and someone justifying that act with the 
fact that he "funded..all the costs." There may have been discourse about finding sugar 
daddies , but this quote doesn't reveal it, rather the quote sounds like a construction of woman 
blaming.  
 
I also had difficulty with the statement, "This lack of perceived respect is likely linked to the 
traditional belief that females must be monogamous". Thi s seems a strange quote given that 
you have already noted that there is widespread belief that women must have sex when it is 
demanded by males. It is a clear dilemma for women, they are wrong either way. Does 
monogamy include not having been raped?  
 
On p.13 I believe the analysis should say, "Male and female participants both reported a 
belief that some males have difficulty controlling..." - as in the quote, only some men are 
pushed - this is both true and common that people don't challenge themselves as to why most 
men can control themselves but a few don't.  
 
The major concern I have is with the discussion of the results and recommendations. Given 
the complexity of misogyny that these university women and men are living and dealing 
with, what eviden ce is there that behavioural interventions on healthy dating would have any 
impact? I believe there is no evidence base in the literature for this assumption. There is also 
no evidence that bystander interventions work although the development and evaluati on of 
these programs is progressing and such programs can be an important part of a 
comprehensive university policy. It is also noteworthy that a culture where misogyny and 
rape are still well known and gotten away with by faculty is very difficult, and a major policy 
gap. In most North American settings, for instance, university policies and structures have 
made the power relationship between professor and student obvious and the set up systems 
where a professor could lose their job for much less than rape  or forced sex. I am not 
suggesting that North America has solved the problem of GBV but that the context for 
bystander interventions in Ethiopia is more fragile. Also, on p 18, the paragraph beginning 
"negative reports" unsatisfactorily mixes at least 4 i ssues: 1) quid -pro-quo relationship 
dynamics - help with course material and forced sex are not equal demands; 2) the fact that 
women have little choice of who to ask for help given their low numbers in the student body 
is both pedagogical and about rape p revention; and 3) Bringing in opposition to affirmative 
action as though "under -qualification" was an objective factor. Finally, women's unequal 
power in decision -making is a symbol of attitudes towards women and female inferiority. 
There is no question th at lack of decision -making power and poor economic security leave 
women open to GBV and IPV; decades of literature is quite clear on this so "may leave them" 
is too weak.  
 
In reference to P. 18, the literature is quite clear that first year (freshman) un iversity women 
are more at risk for rape. What comes first, however, being raped or low self -confidence? 
You have actually reported that people say women may experience GBV if they act in a way 
that exhibits self -confidence, so would promoting this behavio ur actually help them? Those 
upper classmen who are willing to rape women actually would not attend sessions aimed at 
male students -according to the research.  
 
Since your recommendations do not meet the standards for evidence -based practice I would 
suggest they should not be published. There is an evidence -based intervention for first year 
university women reported in the literature that may be of interest to you - search for 
Charlene Senn or EAAA. She is a colleague and I am involved in her program of research  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following  questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of 
this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content o f 
the manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any  non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be 
included  on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my 
named report  including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the 
authors'  responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 
Commons  CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that 
any comments  which I do not wish to be included i n my named report can be included as 
confidential comments  to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal