Flawed Study Leaves Out The Voices Of Indigenous Fijian Women

Feminist advocates, researchers, and organisations working to end gender-based violence (GBV) in Fiji, are concerned about a recent small-sample study on how iTaukei men view violence against women. While they agree that understanding men’s beliefs is important, this study has serious problems in the way it was done. Its methods negligently leave out the voices of survivors, ignore strong feminist research already done in Fiji, and risk doing more harm than good.

One of the biggest problems is that the study only talks to men—specifically, 31 iTaukei men who all live in urban areas, have higher education, and are Christian. This is not a fair or full picture or even a logical representative sample of the majority of Fijian men. It leaves out rural men, men with less education, men of other religions, and most importantly, the women who have survived violence. Research on GBV must include survivors, because their experiences show us the real impact of abuse and how to stop it.

The study also takes what the men say at face value, without checking if what they say is true or complete. We know from feminist work around the world that abusers often blame the victim or downplay what they’ve done. But this study accepts their words without question. No one checked medical reports, police data, or spoke to the women involved. That is not good research—it is just giving more space to people who cause harm.

Another concern is that the study does not compare violent men to men who are not violent. Without that kind of comparison, it’s impossible to know whether the views shared are common among all men or mostly among those who abuse. Good research must make this distinction so that we know what to target in prevention efforts.

“The study was based on 31 structured interviews, and five conversational anecdotal ones. It was literally a perception survey on the National Action Plan (NAP) for the Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls and iTaukei men, confirming what we already know. The NAP was developed with input from 2,188 Fijians, including 729 men where majority were iTaukei males as many consultations were in the rural areas” said Chair of the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) and academic, Akanisi Nabalarua. She added that “FWRM thanks the researcher, Avelina Rokoduru as the research has some inherent value for that reason, but it brings nothing new to the table. If anything it tapped into the current male mindset which needs to be changed.”

It is also disappointing that the study ignores years of feminist research done in Fiji and the region, where they have collected survivor stories, trained service providers, and led legal and policy changes that protect women. The study unfairly claims that feminist policies “don’t work,” but offers no real evidence. In fact, we know that feminist efforts—like telephone helplines, shelters, education programmes, and stronger laws—have made a difference here and around the world.

Fiji already has a strong national framework in place. The government has developed a NAP for the Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls—the first of its kind in the Pacific and one of only a few globally. The NAP includes an initial component of setting a national baseline on attitudes and behaviours. This will be done through a rigorous, nationwide Behaviour and Attitude Survey that captures a diverse and representative sample of the population. That means there is already a planned and scientifically sound effort to understand masculinities, gender norms, and the root causes of violence. In this context, producing a small-scale, methodologically weak study focused only on male perspectives is not only flawed—it is redundant.

The study also mentions that there is not enough national data on perpetrators of violence, but does not ask why this is the case. Feminist researchers have long pointed out that governments and institutions often fail to take GBV seriously, and that is why this data is missing. We need research that demands change, not just describes problems.

There are also ethical issues. The study gave space to men who admitted to violence, but did not offer them any referral or support. Survivors were not interviewed at all, whilst the study included harmful statements that could blame or shame them. This is not safe or respectful research. Studies about GBV must always protect survivors and follow ethical guidelines.

In the end, this study puts men’s voices at the center and leaves women’s real experiences in the background. It suggests that cultural misunderstandings cause violence, instead of clearly naming the deeper issue: power and control. These choices are not neutral—they reflect a decision to focus on the people who cause harm, instead of those who live with its consequences.

FWRM urges researchers, donors, and policymakers to do better. We need studies that are ethical, inclusive, and based on feminist values. Research should work alongside the NAP for the Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls, center survivors, and demand accountability—not excuses. If we truly want to end violence, we must start by listening to the women who are most affected.

© Scoop Media