This study evaluates the impact of Literature and Male Violence: A Guide for Academic Research (Iribarren et al., 2023) on university students’ self-perceived access to relevant resources, knowledge of key gender studies concepts and forms of violence, and ability to identify male violence in literature. The study employed a longitudinal design with pre- and post-test surveys administered to students enrolled on a contemporary literature course. A secondary aim was to assess students’ perceptions of the innovativeness and usefulness of selected teaching exercises described in the Guide. The findings revealed a significant increase in access to resources on male violence, particularly among male-identifying students. Students also reported improved understanding of gender-related concepts and greater confidence in identifying violence in literary texts. Collaborative exercises were perceived as more innovative, while individual tasks were considered more useful for recognising violence. These results suggest that targeted educational resources can effectively promote resistant reading and enhance students’ gender awareness and analytical skill in literature courses. However, the limited sample size constrains the generalisability of the findings and underscores the need for further research across broader educational contexts.
Article Details
How to Cite
Serrano-Muñoz, J., & Iribarren, T. (2025). Promoting resistant reading in university classrooms: Teaching resources and methodologies. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2026.25.1.560
Serrano-Muñoz and Iribarren: Promoting resistant reading in university classrooms: Teaching resources and methodologies
Introduction
In recent years, the gender perspective has become an increasingly prominent feature
of academic curricula. At the same time, feminist movements such as #MeToo have generated
substantial social and cultural momentum. Together, these trends have encouraged a
growing body of research into the literary depiction of male violence (; ; ; ). Several of these studies provide valuable guidance for critically engaging with
canonical texts (), including works such as Nabokov’s Lolita ().
This phenomenon has made its way into our classrooms, where students are more eager
than ever to pursue work in this area. However, many lack the foundational knowledge
and skills required to analyse literary texts depicting male violence. Due to their
underdeveloped critical awareness, they often find it difficult to identify and interpret
such depictions. This is reflected in their limited familiarity with feminist theoretical
frameworks, their imprecise use of key concepts and their lack of practice with close
reading from a gender perspective. Without these tools, their analyses tend to be
superficial and fall short of academic standards.
This article outlines our approach to addressing this challenge. On one front, we
argue for the importance of integrating literary studies into the broader effort to
eradicate violence against women and girls, focusing particularly on the practice
of resistant reading (). On another, we describe four actions undertaken in support of this aim, promoting
the use of feminist pedagogies in writing to help turn the classroom into a space
of care and liberation (). These actions have been carried out from the 2020/2021 academic year to the present,
as part of our teaching in the virtual classrooms of Themes in Contemporary Literature,
an optional course within the Bachelor’s Degree in Humanities at the Universitat Oberta
de Catalunya (UOC).
Our approach is grounded in the conviction that literature offers a powerful medium
for promoting equality and respect for women and girls. In the regard, we draw particular
inspiration from seven actions set out by the United Nations in 16 ways you can stand against rape culture (): (1) speak out against the root causes; (2) know the history of rape culture; (3)
take an intersectional approach; (4) listen to survivors; (5) get involved; (6) educate
the next generation; and (7) start —or join— the conversation. We argue that critical
reflection on the literary depiction of male violence (in all its forms) is a core
competency of humanities education. This process involves the oral and written exchange
of diverse interpretations, as well as the construction of meaning around narratives
of violence and the emotions they evoke. We believe that this practice fosters self-awareness,
attentive and empathetic listening, and an engaged, rigorous approach to a complex
phenomenon shaped by ideological tensions and intense emotional responses.
We contend that adopting an intersectional approach () to resistant reading can transform literary texts into meaningful spaces for life
learning around gender equality. Resistant reading challenges us to let go of preconceived
notions and uncritically reproduced androcentric reading patterns. As notes, it seeks to ensure that “the will and agency of women readers are taken into
account, leading us to consider a form of reader empowerment that arises from the
realisation that we have been educated to think like men and to identify with the
male point of view” (pp. 115–116). This approach is deepened by an intersectional
perspective, which considers how gender intersects with other dimensions of identity,
such as background, economic and social status, and cultural and linguistic capital.
Through vicarious experience, literary texts can convey forms of knowledge imbued
with ethical values such as recognition and respect ().
We also recognise that the nature of literary texts can help us to better understand
real-world accounts of violence. This can be achieved by exploring aspects such as
narrative structure, point of view, symbolism, stereotypes and discursive ambiguity.
Literature shows that identities are constructions shaped by ideology, and that language
and narrative strategies influence our perceptions of violence, victims, survivors
and perpetrators. Furthermore, literary texts can provide innovative visions and methods
of resisting violent structures by depicting subversive female characters who foreshadow
more equitable and just post-patriarchal futures. This kind of critical reading enables
us to imagine new forms of reparative coexistence.
In line with these principles, we carried out the following four actions:
1. In Narratives of Violence (), we provided models for the literary analysis of texts by female authors that address
male violence.
2. We equipped the academic community with Literature and Male Violence: A Guide for Academic Research () (hereafter the Guide), which offers a theoretical framework, a methodology for carrying out hermeneutic
analysis, proposals for teaching innovation, a glossary, and a corpus of texts for
study.
3. We created the website Lectures resistents [Resistant readings] (https://lecturesresistents.cat), which provides a range of content, tools and educational resources for the critical
reading of works that depict male violence.
4. We implemented an innovative practicum that equipped students with the Guide, while also adopting a methodology designed to foster resistant reading.
After several years of promoting resistant reading, it is imperative that we analyse
the educational potential of the actions set out in points 2 and 4. First, we will
evaluate the impact of an educational resource designed to support the interpretation
of literary texts depicting male violence (i.e. the Guide). Second, we will measure the innovativeness and usefulness of the teaching exercises
included in the Guide, which primarily involve collaborative group activities within the context of literary
studies. Access to new resources and concepts has been essential to this pedagogical
work. In this regard, we have drawn on previous research emphasising the importance
of combining methodological innovation with enhanced knowledge acquisition (). These two aims form part of a broader effort to strengthen the transformative potential
of literature to help build a safe and equitable society for all.
Method
Objectives and hypotheses
This study aims to explore and measure one primary objective and one secondary objective:
— Primary objective: To evaluate the impact of an educational resource addressing
gender-based violence —specifically, the Guide— on bachelor’s degree students’ self-perceived knowledge and ability to identify
forms of male violence in literary texts.
— Secondary objective: To measure the innovativeness and usefulness of the teaching
exercises included in the Guide, which primarily involve collaborative group activities within the context of literary
studies.
In order to investigate these objectives, the following hypotheses are proposed:
— Primary hypothesis: The Guide significantly impacts students’ self-perceived knowledge of violence against women
and ability to conduct literary analysis.
— Secondary hypothesis: Including innovative teaching exercises that foster social
and collaborative group learning is useful for students on literary and/or gender
studies courses.
Study design
Drawing on , this research is defined as a selective study based on survey sampling, aimed at
collecting empirical data through self-report techniques. As it follows the same cohort
at two points in time to observe and measure changes, the design is selective, non-probabilistic
and longitudinal in nature (). To minimise the limitations inherent in self-report studies () and in line with Brutus et al.’s () recommendations, a pre- and post-test design was chosen over a post-test-only model.
This decision was made to reduce the risk of distortion in accurately measuring change,
which is particularly important when dealing with a topic as ethically and politically
charged as male violence.
One limitation of the study is the absence of a control group. This was not a viable
option, as university regulations prohibit the creation of differentiated pedagogical
conditions that could result in students being treated unequally. To mitigate this,
reference was made to the findings of an earlier study (), conducted with students from the same course prior to the introduction of the educational
resource under investigation. That study assessed the capacity of the proposed teaching
interventions to improve academic performance and yielded positive results. Insights
from this initial research informed the design of the present study.
The macrostructure of the study was adapted from Meza and González’s () model and organised into four stages:
1. Proposal: The objectives of the study were defined, the necessary tools were identified,
and the resource to be tested (i.e. the Guide) was selected.
2. Preparation of the theoretical-methodological justification: This stage built upon
work carried out for the teaching innovation project “INDOVIG 2021. Violencias contra
las mujeres en la literatura. Debates teóricos, lecturas y propuestas de trabajos
de investigación” [INDOVIG 2021. Violence against women in literature: Theoretical
debates, readings and research proposals], which forms the conceptual foundation of
this research. The resource at the core of this study originated from that project.
3. Design and implementation of the final instrument: The first survey was conducted
during the first week of the course, before the resource was made available to students
in the sample. The second took place during the final two weeks, after the teaching
programme had concluded. The initial survey, comprising seven questions, was administered
between 28 February and 7 March 2024. The second, carried out between 19 and 30 June
2024, included eight questions —six repeated from the first survey and two additional
items designed to gather feedback on students’ experience of the course. (For further
details on survey design, see the section “Units of analysis and parameters”.) The
surveys were created using Google Forms and distributed to all participants via the
virtual classroom and their university email accounts.
4. Data analysis: Once the data collection period had ended, the responses were organised
and structured for comparative analysis. As this was a pre- and post-test study involving
post-intervention data collection, the analysis focused on comparing baseline and
final scores. Particular attention was paid to the potential for regression to the
mean, as this can make it difficult to measure the resources’ impact (; ).
Participant profile
Participants were selected from the defined total population using a purposive sampling
method (). This approach was based on the understanding that the sample was bounded, equally
accessible through the same measurement instrument, had an equal hypothetical level
of prior knowledge, and could be reached and quantified given its relatively small
size. The potential sample consisted of 84 students, representing all students enrolled
on the Themes in Contemporary Literature course during the 2023/2024 academic year.
Because the UOC is an online university, its student profile is diverse in terms of
geographic origin, age and socioeconomic background. According to its transparency
portal, nearly 60% of students reside in Catalonia, 34% in other parts of Spain, and
6% elsewhere in the world ().
A total of 78 students participated in the first survey, resulting in an excellent
margin of error for a sample of this type (2.98%). Of these respondents, 50% identified
as female, 47% as male, and 3% as non-binary. Participation in the second survey,
conducted at the end of the course, dropped slightly to 67 students. Nevertheless,
this still produced a relatively low margin of error (5.98%), supporting the validity
of the study (; ). The Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.87 confirmed the study’s internal consistency.
In the second survey, 52% of participants identified as women, 46% as men, and 2%
as non-binary. Responses from non-binary participants are not discussed separately
in the analysis to avoid misinterpretation, as the small size of this group means
that any variation would result in disproportionately high percentages that are unlikely
to be representative. However, these responses are included in the overall sample
count.
Units of analysis and parameters
The surveys were structured in three sections. The first asked participants to indicate
their self-identified gender, the only sociodemographic variable considered relevant
to the study. The second contained questions about participants’ self-perceived theoretical
and methodological knowledge of violence against women, designed to assess the impact
of the resource. The third section —more fully developed in the second survey— aimed
to evaluate participants’ perceptions of the teaching exercises. The structure of
both surveys is outlined below:
Table 1Structure of Survey 1
Domain
Question
Responses
Sociodemographics
What is your gender identity?
Female / Male / Non-binary
Potential impact of educational material on violence against women
How would you rate the depth of your knowledge about violence against women?
7-point Likert scale ranging from “Superficial” to “In-depth”
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Gender identity]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Feminicide]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Patriarchy]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Intersectionality]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Resistant reading]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Mansplaining]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Smurfette principle]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Purplewashing]
Yes / No
At any point in your education or personal experience, have you accessed materials
that help you to identify male violence in literature?
Yes / No
How confident are you in your ability to detect and distinguish different types of
violence against women in literature?
7-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all confident” to “Very confident”
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Physical violence]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Psychological violence]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Symbolic violence]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Institutional violence]
Yes / No
Educational experience and exposure to innovative teaching exercises
Have you ever undertaken any of the following exercises? [Reading diary for a novel]
Yes / No
Have you ever undertaken any of the following exercises? [Staged essay]
Yes / No
Have you ever undertaken any of the following exercises? [Real-time debate with a
peer]
Yes / No
Have you ever undertaken any of the following exercises? [Peer review of an essay
draft]
Yes / No
Table 2Structure of Survey 2
Domain
Question
Responses
Sociodemographics
What is your gender identity?
Female / Male / Non-binary
Potential impact of educational material on violence against women
Now that you have taken the course, how would you rate the depth of your knowledge
about violence against women?
7-point Likert scale ranging from “Superficial” to “In-depth”
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Gender identity]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Feminicide]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Patriarchy]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Intersectionality]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Resistant reading]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Mansplaining]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Smurfette principle]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define the following concepts? [Purplewashing]
Yes / No
At any point in your education or personal experience, have you accessed materials
that help you to identify male violence in literature?
Yes / No
How confident are you in your ability to detect and distinguish different types of
violence against women in literature?
7-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all confident” to “Very confident”
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Physical violence]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Psychological violence]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Symbolic violence]
Yes / No
Would you be able to define these types of violence? [Institutional violence]
Yes / No
Educational experience and exposure to innovative teaching exercises
Rank the following exercises according to how useful you found them for identifying
violence against women in literature. [Reading diary for a novel]
Rank from 1 to 4
Rank the following exercises according to how useful you found them for identifying
violence against women in literature. [Staged essay]
Rank from 1 to 4
Rank the following exercises according to how useful you found them for identifying
violence against women in literature. [Real-time debate with a group of peers]
Rank from 1 to 4
Rank the following exercises according to how useful you found them for identifying
violence against women in literature. [Peer review of an essay draft]
Rank from 1 to 4
Rank the following exercises according to how innovative you found them in your experience
of studying literature. [Reading diary for a novel]
Rank from 1 to 4
Rank the following exercises according to how innovative you found them in your experience
of studying literature. [Staged essay]
Rank from 1 to 4
Rank the following exercises according to how innovative you found them in your experience
of studying literature. [Real-time debate with a group of peers]
Rank from 1 to 4
Rank the following exercises according to how innovative you found them in your experience
of studying literature. [Peer review of an essay draft]
Rank from 1 to 4
Results
Impact of access to material on violence against women
The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the impact of using the Guide as an educational resource on gender-based violence, with a particular focus on students’
ability to identify forms of male violence in literature. To this end, it was first
necessary to establish the sample baseline.
In response to the question about whether they had previously accessed material addressing
violence against women, 70.5% of respondents answered “yes” in the first survey. There
was a significant gender difference: 69% of women reported prior contact with material
on male violence, compared to 37.5% of men. Asking the same question again in the
second survey, after the course had been completed using the Guide, yielded very positive results regarding new access. Overall, 92% of respondents
reported accessing such material (+22%), rising to 93% among women (+24%) and a notably
high 90% among men (+53%).
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare self-perceived knowledge of
violence against women in literary works, comparing scores obtained before (n = 96,
mean = 4.88, standard deviation = 1.21) and after (n = 67, mean = 5.82, standard deviation
= 0.95) the educational intervention. The results revealed statistically significant
differences, (t(161) = 5.35, p < .001), with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.85,
95% CI [0.53, 1.18]). The 0.94-point increase on a 1–7 Likert scale indicates that
the intervention significantly improved students’ self-perceived knowledge with regard
to identifying and analysing male violence in literature.
Table 3Changes in self-perceived knowledge of violence against women
Gender identity
Mean score in the first survey (7-point Likert scale)
Mean score in the second survey (7-point Likert scale)
Change between the first and second survey
Female
5.3
6.02
+0.74
Male
4.6
5.53
+0.91
Total
4.9
5.8
+0.91
Changes in self-perceived knowledge were also assessed by measuring variations in
students’ ability to define relevant concepts. These were categorised as either definitions
of different types of violence (physical, psychological, symbolic and institutional)
or definitions of key concepts associated with gender studies. Regarding the ability
to define types of violence, no significant changes were observed in any group for
the definitions of physical or psychological violence, which suggests a pre-existing
familiarity with these concepts. However, knowledge levels clearly increased for the
other two types —symbolic and institutional violence— which is a positive outcome
given that gender studies aim to raise awareness around these forms of violence (; ). Knowledge of symbolic violence increased from 65% to 98% among all respondents,
with a particularly notable rise among male students (from 62.5% to 100%).
Eight concepts were included in the survey, selected for their varying levels of presumed
familiarity among participants: “gender identity”, “feminicide”, “patriarchy”, “intersectionality”,
“resistant reading”, “mansplaining”, the “Smurfette principle”, and “purplewashing”.
As the Guide features a glossary defining all of these terms, it was hypothesised that access
to this resource would result in observable improvements in students’ knowledge, particularly
for the more specialised concepts. The results support this hypothesis, as outlined
below:
Table 4Changes in students’ knowledge of key concepts
Concept
Female students
Male students
Total
Change
First survey
Second survey
First survey
Second survey
First survey
Second survey
Female students
Male students
Total
Gender identity
100%
100%
97.5%
100%
98%
100%
0%
+3%
+2%
Feminicide
94.5%
100%
97.5%
100%
94.5%
100%
+5%
+3%
+5%
Patriarchy
100%
100%
97%
100%
98.5%
100%
+0%
+3%
+2%
Intersectionality
74.5%
100%
64.5%
100%
70.5%
100%
+26%
+36%
+30%
Resistant reading
21.5%
78%
11%
67%
15.5%
73%
+56%
+56%
+57%
Mansplaining
65.5%
87%
59.5%
81%
61.5%
83%
+21%
+21%
+22%
Smurfette principle
34%
59.5%
13%
43.5%
21.5%
58%
+26%
+31%
+37%
Purplewashing
55%
78%
37.5%
68%
47%
74%
+23%
+31%
+27%
This table shows that the resource did not significantly alter students’ understanding of concepts
with which they were already familiar. However, it did support a notable improvement
in knowledge of more specialised terms. Particularly striking were the increases for
“intersectionality” (+30%) and “resistant reading” (+57%), the latter being a key
concept in feminist literary criticism. This variation was relatively consistent across
gender identities, though more pronounced among male students, indicating a greater
impact within this subgroup.
Finally, the study sought to assess the resource’s impact on students’ self-perceived
ability to identify violence against women in literary texts through a feminist critical
lens. The aim was to gather data on their prior familiarity with techniques and methods
for reading literature critically from a feminist perspective, and to determine whether
the Guide, as a course resource, had contributed to strengthening their competence in this
area. To this end, the same question was included in both the first and second surveys,
using a 7-point Likert scale.
Table 5Changes in students’ confidence in their ability to identify violence in literature
Gender identity
Mean score in the first survey (7-point Likert scale)
Mean score in the second survey (7-point Likert scale)
Change between the first and second survey
Female
5.42
6.05
+0.62
Male
4.61
5.70
+1.09
Total
4.97
5.88
+0.90
Acknowledging that this is an observed correlation rather than a direct causal link,
the results indicate a significant increase in students’ confidence in their ability
to detect violence in literature. The most pronounced change is observed among male
students, aligning with the patterns seen across other parameters.
Perceived innovativeness and usefulness of the proposed exercises
The Guide proposes three teaching exercises: peer review of literary interpretation essays,
reading diaries, and the collaborative creation of Wikipedia entries (). A secondary objective of this project was to assess students’ perceptions of the
innovativeness and usefulness of these exercises within the context of literary studies
education.
As these exercises are independent of one another, and considering the course’s workload
and assessment demands, two of the three were selected for implementation: peer review
and the reading diary. These were combined with two additional graded exercises not
included in the Guide: the staged development of an interpretive essay (comprising a proposal, draft and
final version) and the organisation of a real-time group debate. The chronological
order of the four exercises implemented in the course was as follows:
1. Reading diary [Exercise 1]
2. Group debate [Exercise 2]
3. Preparation and presentation of the essay proposal and draft [Exercise 4]
4. Peer review of the draft essay [Exercise 3]
5. Presentation of the final version of the essay [Exercise 4]
6. Second peer review of the final essay [Exercise 3]
As shown, Exercise 4 partially overlaps with Exercise 3, as it is divided into multiple
stages. Students receive feedback and assessment only after completing all parts,
specifically at Step 5. Similarly, Exercise 3 includes two rounds of peer review —one
for the draft essay and another for the final version— both carried out using the
same student pairings. Further details on the specific methodology of this exercise
can be found in the relevant chapter of the Guide ().
The two parameters under study were innovativeness and usefulness. To assess the degree
of change within the sample, the first survey asked whether students had previously
completed any of the four proposed exercises. The table below shows the percentage
of students who were familiar with each exercise prior to the start of the course.
The two teaching exercises described in the Guide are marked with an asterisk.
Table 6Students with prior experience of the proposed exercises
Gender identity
Reading diary*
Group debate
Peer review*
Staged essay
Female
58%
32%
25%
31%
Male
33%
38%
35%
22%
Total
46%
33%
28%
26%
The exercises selected for this course demonstrate a high degree of innovativeness.
Only around a quarter of respondents had previously completed a staged essay or participated
in a peer review. By comparison, nearly half had previously worked with a reading
diary, indicating that this exercise was more familiar to those in the sample.
The second survey —administered at the end of the course— asked participants to rank
the four exercises from 1 to 4 according to two criteria. These items were included
on the assumption that all students were now familiar with the exercises, as they
were required for assessment. First, students were asked to indicate how innovative
they found each exercise within their educational experience. Second, they were asked
to rate how useful each exercise was for identifying violence against women in literature
—the analytical and theoretical focus of the course. For the analysis, responses were
processed to calculate the mean ranking for each exercise and the percentage of responses
assigned to each position, in order to identify patterns of consensus, divergence
or even distribution. Table 7 presents the results for the innovativeness criterion. The highest values in each
column are highlighted in bold. The final row displays the mean ranking, where a value
closer to 1 indicates a higher perceived level of innovativeness.
Table 7Ranking of exercises according to perceived innovativeness
Ranking
Reading diary*
Group debate
Peer review*
Staged essay
1
34%
27%
36%
14%
2
15%
38%
21%
26%
3
24%
20%
21%
30%
4
26%
16%
23%
32%
Mean
2.44/4
2.77/4
2.32/4
2.29/4
No gender breakdown is provided for this table, as the variables show no significant
differences and are very similar across all groups. Several observations can be drawn
from the data. First, the results are relatively uniform, with a general tendency
towards a mid-point consensus in the mean rankings. Nevertheless, the peer review
exercise stands out as the most innovative, followed by the group debate. Both exercises
encourage social interaction and, despite being less commonly encountered (as shown
by the familiarity data in table 6), are associated with positive effects on participation and academic performance
(; ). Notably, the findings also suggest that a lack of prior familiarity with an exercise
does not necessarily translate into a higher perception of innovativeness. For example,
only 26% of students had previously completed a staged essay, yet it was rated the
least innovative of the four exercises. The results for the usefulness criterion are
presented in table 8 below.
Table 8Ranking of exercises according to perceived usefulness
Ranking
Reading diary*
Group debate
Peer review*
Staged essay
1
61%
12%
11%
24%
2
16%
26%
15%
43%
3
9%
38%
32%
14%
4
15%
25%
43%
16%
Mean
1.78/4
2.76/4
3.06/4
2.25/4
In this case, we observe greater variation in the rankings, with a clear polarisation
between the first exercise (the reading diary), rated as the most useful for identifying
violence against women, and the third exercise (peer review), rated as the least useful.
When both criteria are compared, these two teaching exercises reveal two complex realities.
The reading diary shows the strongest correlation between perceived usefulness and
innovativeness, despite being the exercise with which students were most familiar
at the start of the course. Peer review, by contrast, although rated the most innovative,
was considered the least useful in developing the theoretical and methodological ability
to identify male violence in literature—a central aim of the course. The following
section explores possible reasons for this discrepancy, along with final reflections
on the impact of the materials and the scope of the study.
Discussion and conclusions
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an educational resource
designed to foster critical analysis of texts addressing violence against women among
university students. Specifically, it examined how the implementation of Literature and Male Violence: A Guide for Academic Research () could support students in identifying forms of male violence in literary texts.
The research was carried out within the Topics in Contemporary Literature course,
part of the Bachelor’s Degree in Humanities at the UOC, during the 2023/2024 academic
year.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results:
— Access: Exposure to the Guide significantly increases access to critical information on identifying and analysing
forms of male violence in literature. This result is especially striking among male
students. In our sample, only 37.5% reported having previously encountered materials
that helped them recognise male violence in literary texts, whether in their education
or personal experience. After completing the course, this figure rose to 90%. These
findings have important implications for the design of educational programmes in literary
and gender studies. They suggest that integrating targeted materials on male violence
in literature can be highly effective in raising awareness and developing analytical
skills, particularly among male-identifying students. This could inform future curricular
choices and pedagogical strategies in higher education.
— Knowledge: There was a noticeable increase in students’ understanding of specific
concepts, particularly those linked to gender studies (e.g. intersectionality, resistant
reading and purplewashing). These terms were largely unfamiliar at the beginning of
the course but became more widely recognised by its conclusion. By contrast, no significant
improvement was observed in the understanding of more general concepts, where the
Guide appears to have had a lesser impact.
— Methodology: There was also an improvement in students’ self-perceived ability to
identify forms of male violence in literature, especially among male-identifying students.
The secondary aim of the study was to measure the innovativeness and usefulness of
the teaching exercises included in the Guide, which primarily involve collaborative group activities within the context of literary
studies. The findings offer insights into two key areas:
Innovativeness: Activities based on group or collective participation—such as debates
and peer reviews—were identified by the sample as the most innovative. This highlights
their potential value in literature curricula, especially when the goal is to foster
a broader set of skills. Notably, these activities also align closely with the UN’s
guidelines for dismantling rape culture, while contributing to the transformation
of the classroom into a space of care and awareness ().
— Usefulness: The most innovative activities were not necessarily those perceived
as most useful for identifying violence against women in literature. More individual
and less novel exercises —such as the reading diary and the staged essay— were rated
higher in terms of perceived usefulness.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study in order to encourage
further research in this area. The relatively small sample size —limited to students
enrolled on a single course— may diminish the generalisability of the findings. While
participation rates were relatively high and the margin of error supports the study’s
validity, future research would benefit from a larger and more diverse sample, including
students from different academic years, institutions or even countries. This would
allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the Guide or other similar resources. For future analyses using self-report methods, researchers
are advised to incorporate a retrospective pre-course self-assessment alongside the
standard pre/post-test model as a potential control variable. This approach, proposed
by , may help to minimise biases associated with shifts in self-perception or opinion
over the course of the study.
Second, the impact of educational resources designed for this purpose may vary if
we assume a gradual mainstreaming of didactic materials with a gender perspective
or the progressive integration of feminist discourse across different stages and levels
of the educational system. Third, the usefulness criterion adopted for the secondary
objective was naturally constrained by the primary aim of the study and the intrinsic
purpose of the Guide: namely, to support students in identifying male violence in literature. A different
pattern of responses might have emerged had the usefulness criterion been framed around
other factors —such as the degree of social interaction encouraged, or the extent
to which each exercise contributed to developing the interpretive essay. The teaching
exercises taken from the Guide are not limited to gender-focused instruction and could be adapted more broadly to
inform curriculum design in other areas of literary and humanities education.
Funding
This research was made possible by funding from two projects: “INDOVIG 2021. Violencias
contra las mujeres en la literatura. Debates teóricos, lecturas y propuestas de trabajos
de investigación” [INDOVIG 2021. Violence against women in literature: Theoretical
debates, readings and research proposals], funded by the Spanish Ministry of Policy,
Parliamentary Relations and Equality through the State Secretariat for Equality, and
“INDOVIG 2023. Portal de recursos académicos para abordar críticamente la literatura
que representa las violencias machistas” [INDOVIG 2023. Academic resource portal for
the critical study of literature depicting male violence], funded by the Interuniversity
Council of Catalonia.
Contribución de los autores
Jordi Serrano-Muñoz: Project administration; Formal analysis; Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing
- original draft; Writing - review and editing; Research; Methodology.
Teresa Iribarren: Project administration; Writing - original draft; Writing - review and editing;
Research; Methodology; Resources; Funding acquisition.
References
1
Assmann, A. (2013). Civilizing societies: Recognition and respect in the global world.
New Literary History, 44(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2013.0006
Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación
de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Brewster, A., & Kossew, S. (2019). Rethinking the victim. Gender and violence in contemporary Australian women’s writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315107387
6
Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future
directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39(1), 48-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455245
7
Chasteen, S. V., & Chattergoon, R. (2020). A comparison study of pre/post-test and
retrospective pre-test for measuring faculty attitude change. 2019 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Chasteen
8
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. J. Wiley & Sons.
9
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
10
Dowler, L., Cuomo, D., & Laliberte, N. (2014). Challenging ‘The Penn State Way’: A
feminist response to institutional violence in higher education. Gender, Place & Culture, 21(3), 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.802676
11
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2015). Comparison of convenience Sampling
and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
12
Fetterley, J. (1978). The resisting reader. A feminist approach to American fiction. Indiana University Press.
13
Holland, M. K., & Hewett, H. (Eds.) (2021). #MeToo and literary studies. Reading, writing, and teaching about sexual violence
and rape culture. Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501372773
Iribarren, T., Gatell-Perez, M., Serrano-Muñoz, J., & Clua-Fainé, M. (2023). Literatura y violencia machistas. Guía para trabajos académicos. Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-747-0
16
Iribarren, T., Serrano-Muñoz, J., Gatell-Perez, M., & Clua-Fainé, M. (2024). La revisión
por pares síncrona en el aula virtual: Leer críticamente la representación literaria
de violencias contra las mujeres. En S. Urbina, G. Tur, J. Moreno, & J. Munar (Eds.),
Tecnologías digitales para una práctica educativa inclusiva y creativa: Hacia la competencia
digital docente y ciudadana. (pp. 235-248). Dykinson. https://doi.org/10.14679/2688
17
López, M. E., & Hart, S. M. (2022). Gender violence in twenty-first-century Latin American women’s writing. Boydell & Brewer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781800104686
18
Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research
designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208
19
Mann, P. S., & Lacke, C. J. (2010). Introductory statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
20
Meza, P., & González, M. (2020). Construction and validation of the self-efficacy
scale for disciplinary academic writing. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1830464. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1830464
Sevillano-Monje, V., Martín-Gutiérrez, Á., & Hervás-Gómez, C. (2022). The Flipped
Classroom and the development of competences: A teaching innovation experience in
Higher Education. Education Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040248
27
Tamas, J. (2023). Au NON des femmes. Libérer nos classiques du regard masculin. Seuil.
28
Thapar-Björkert, S., Samelius, L., & Sanghera, G. S. (2016). Exploring symbolic violence
in the eEveryday: Misrecognition, condescension, consent and complicity. Feminist Review, 112(1), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2015.53
29
Thomas, D. M., & Kim, J. K. (2019). Impact of literature circles in the developmental
college classroom. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 49(2), 89-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2019.1582371
30
Wilkinson, E. (2025). Feminist pedagogy in the neoliberal university: on violence,
vulnerability and radical care. Gender and Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2471286
31
Zachariah, T. Z., Izahar, M., Elias, Z., & Zabit, M. N. M. (2022). Using group work
to teach literature in an online classroom environment. KnE Social Sciences, 7(7), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v7i7.10657
