Aida Gallego-Márquez (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) & Pablo Soto-Casás (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)
Abstract
This article examines the epistemological and ethical challenges involved in conducting digital ethnographies within gaming communities on Discord. Despite its mainstream status, the platform’s culture often reproduces hegemonic masculinities and antifeminist technocultures. This forces women and dissident identities into a ‘diaspora of otherness’, a flight from hostile public servers to private, safe refuges. We argue that traditional ethnographic methods of ‘occupying’ space are inadequate; instead, researchers must ‘inhabit’ these environments, recognising how the features of the platform co-construct social reality. The study contrasts the methodological requirements of two distinct environments. In hostile environments, the protection of researchers is key to observing rigid gender performances. Conversely, studying safe spaces presents an ethical paradox, as an external academic perspective could violate the community’s intimacy. To address this issue, we propose Critical Digital Participatory Action Ethnography [CDPAE]. Rather than infiltrating existing refuges, this method advocates the co-construction of new digital infrastructures with participants. This approach transforms research from an extractivist practice into an act of social repair, prioritising dynamic consent and the creation of autonomous, care-centred communities. Ultimately, we posit that the design of methodology constitutes a political stance, with the aim of repairing the digital diaspora by fostering environments based on radical trust and mutual support.
1. Introduction: Living in Gaming Communities
Accessing the study of gaming communities presents specific epistemological challenges that require methodological re-evaluation. This involves examining how we observe and inhabit the field, precisely defining which community we analyse, and determining how our interaction with it will take shape.
Historically, the creation of these communities arose from the absence of software capable of mediating communication across platforms. In the realm of video games, applications such as TeamSpeak and Discord have enabled the existence of spaces where individuals can meet based on common interests, play together, and communicate more effectively, making gaming communities predominantly multi-platform. Moreover, the architecture of these platforms incorporates rituals, routines, and norms that configure social relations and roles, shaping what is called gaming culture.
This culture reproduces much of the socialisation of young populations on the internet. Currently, the most used application among gaming communities is Discord, which boasts over 200 million active monthly users (Discord Inc, 2025). According to Resourcera (2025), a statistical analysis portal, in 2025, 66.3% of Discord users identified as male, and 69.94% were aged between 16 and 34. Regarding active servers, Discord hosts 19 million, compared to 6.7 million recorded in 2020.
Although this platform is part of the mainstream within gaming culture, marked gender disparities are evident. Gaming communities, like offline social reality, mirror the socio-cultural values of their time, and advances associated with the fourth feminist wave have generated resistances rooted within contemporary masculinities. This phenomenon includes both the incel turn within internet culture and the current state of masculinities, which, according to Whitehead (2021), are on the brink of collapse. In this context, categories underpinning the myth of masculinity weaken active sexuality becomes unmanageable for a subject who is not the object of desire dictated by patriarchal standards, and identity performance demands adherence to hegemonic mandates in opposition to feminist deconstruction. This tension is intensified by the difficulty in acquiring social skills related to caregiving, necessary for repairing the gender debt generated by the mandates of masculinity’s genealogical lineage.
This resistance to gender progress also manifests within the gaming sphere. As Discord data indicate, these environments have historically been configured as spaces of cis-heterosexual male homosociality (Puente and Lasén, 2015). In this context, Discord functions as a private connected room (Zafra, 2010), a concept resonating with Pearce’s idea of diaspora (2009). This diaspora is understood as the perpetual journey of otherness within these communities, resulting from their constant expulsion due to the prevailing homosociability among men.
Furthermore, Discord is not only a platform where gamer identities are located. Its role includes facilitating communication within the game and creating a shared space organised through platform reappropriation (Davis, 2020). The functioning of these spaces aligns with Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 2011), shifting technology from a passive role to one of active agency. Discord’s algorithmic design and affordances (Cirucci, 2017) -ephemeral voice channels, hierarchical permission systems, moderation bots- possess agency: they influence who can speak, who is visible, and how authority is structured.
This technical mediation compels a reconsideration of access to the field under a new ethical and epistemological framework. Confronted with polarised spaces -hostile environments where exclusions are (re)created and safe spaces where care dynamics are maintained- there emerges the necessity to shift from a logic of occupying to one of inhabiting. An approach based on occupying ignores how software co-constructs social reality and how these spaces are part of users’ daily life. Conversely, inhabiting entails that the researcher adapts to the same technical mediations as participants, recognising that, in gaming culture, the community’s dynamics are inseparable from its digital infrastructure and design, and it also functions as a meeting place where users construct, situate, and embody their digital selves (Agustin, 2018).
To illustrate this methodological proposal, this article outlines the epistemological and methodological differences between inhabiting both types of spaces. Through presenting two Discord-based studies, we will analyse how interaction dynamics and tool usage vary depending on whether the researcher inhabits a community governed by hostility or one built on trust and care.
2. Living in Communities (II): Hostile Places
In arguing this, we do not assert that all masculinised gaming environments are intrinsically toxic (Maloney et al., 2019). We acknowledge the long-standing pejorative treatment of video game culture (Kowert et al., 2014); however, our objective is not to promote this stereotype, but to identify and contextualise the communities that sustain this social imaginary through toxic technocultures linked to antifeminism (Massanari, 2017). We therefore vindicate Discord as a locus of onlife socialisation (Soto-Casás et al., 2026), where the online-offline dichotomy becomes negligible (Floridi, 2015). It serves as a site for imagination, readaptation and, crucially, as a venue to find others with whom to share a space, a journey, and a place.
Nonetheless, living in and researching masculinised gaming spaces from a feminist perspective involves intrinsic complexity. The gender resistances inherent in geek masculinities (Maloney et al., 2019) rest on the premise that gender is an exclusive construct of women and that, from an antifeminist perspective, feminism instrumentalises this construct as a lens through which to judge male identity performance. This phenomenon permeates gaming spaces, as masculinities therein are constructed and identified more easily under the shelter of heteropatriarchal culture (Butler, 2007). This construction does not substantially differ from the articulation of hegemonic masculinities proposed by Connell (1987), grounded in work, sexuality, and fatherhood, but adapts its markers: geek masculinities are defined by skill acquisition in gaming, demonstration of active sexuality, and assimilation of misogynistic values (Massanari, 2015, 2017; Braithwaite, 2016), elements operating as a masculine structural framework (Hearn, 2004; Lugones, 2014).
It is pertinent to contrast this framework with groups associated with the manosphere (Ging, 2019). In the current social context, where the fourth feminist wave has advanced propelled by social media movements, reactive resistances arise against such progress. This is an internet culture shaped by algorithmic drift, nourished by mechanisms of hate and the popularisation of the incel subculture through meme dissemination. Comparing the evolution of values between hegemonic masculinities and geek and incel masculinities reveals an alignment grounded in the impossibility of fulfilling traditional masculine mandates. These identities solidify through policing compliance with incel imperatives, which stipulate a hegemonic bodily ideal and emotional non-management linked to the figure of the GigaChad, validated through homosocial peer processes. This interaction culminates in generating an antifeminist worldview, intrinsically linked to the phenomenology of the Blue Pill, Red Pill, and Black Pill.
Consequently, researching such spaces requires rethinking access strategies and the nature of data to be gathered. From a digital ethnographic perspective, engaging with hostile, hidden, or legally marginal contexts represents a considerable challenge. Faced with online communities exhibiting aggression and rejection towards social studies from a gender perspective, it is imperative to reconsider who constitutes the vulnerable group. Following recommendations from the Association of Internet Researchers [AOIR] (AOIR, 2025) for research in environments presenting risks to researchers, it becomes necessary to adopt and implement specific, appropriate protection mechanisms for the space to be inhabited.
In this respect, maintaining some degree of concealment or discretion is recommended to ensure research viability; rather than avoiding this practice, it is crucial to constructively reflect on its implications. Participant observation of behaviour in digital communities causes minimal harm provided anonymisation practices are rigorously respected and the sample is not traceable. In accordance with General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR], (2016) verifying traceability of data is essential, ensuring that subjects remain unidentifiable post-anonymisation.
Participant observation is an ethnographic approach bearing significant ethical dilemmas, especially when accessing controversial groups like antifeminist cultures. Engaging with difficult or hidden contexts constitutes an arduous path for ethnography (Meneses-Falcón & Urío, 2021). Under this premise, covert and overt participant observation exist in constant dialectical tension, with neither prevailing as a superior option due to ethical complexities (Strudwick et al., 2018). On one hand, covert observation allows researchers to conceal their identity, minimising impact on the environment; on the other, overt observation requires participants’ awareness and understanding of study purposes. Additionally, some researchers highlight the extreme difficulty, or even impracticality, of guaranteeing total anonymity in a complex and evolving digital environment (Hennell et al., 2020).
Nonetheless, when accessing contexts characterised by a growing antifeminist current, prioritising researcher protection is imperative. This aims to minimise harm arising from exposure of personal data and mitigate risk of the research team’s identity being instrumentalised by participants to generate violent social media content. Simultaneously, guaranteeing sample integrity regarding personal data and sensitive content dissemination is essential, ensuring proper recognition of participants’ narratives in analysis without compromising anonymity.
3. Living in Communities (III): Safe Places
The study of safe spaces compels us to reconfigure and rethink field access, necessarily positioning ourselves within feminist epistemology. Merely observing a specific environment is insufficient; it is imperative to recognise that we produce knowledge from embodied and situated positions (Haraway, 1991), which entails radically questioning where we conduct research and who we are in that place. Within the videogame ecosystem, the traditional figure of the researcher often resonates with the sociological archetype of the stranger (Simmel, 2014): one who attempts to decipher foreign cultural codes from an aseptic distance. However, for women and dissident identities, the experience of being strangers, intruders, or impostors—pejoratively labelled casual gamers in gamer identity terms (Muriel, 2018)—is normative within a hegemonic culture marked by structural violence that systematically expels gender otherness.
In response to this environmental hostility, what we term the diaspora of otherness emerges: a strategic retreat from the public square (large, open servers) towards the privacy of non-mixed servers or those created amongst acquaintances. In contrast to the noise, aggression, or fear elicited by generalist spaces, digital safe spaces arise: rear guard, invisible, and communal places where networks of care and resistance are woven beyond the gaze of the hegemonic cis-heteronorm (Butler, 2007). In these environments, users engage in what Davis (2020) would term a deviation of platform affordances: tools originally serving exclusionary purposes—such as rigid hierarchies or voice use as gender indicators and focal points of hostility (Gallego-Márquez, 2023)—are reinterpreted by users to design violence-free spaces. Thus, infrastructure designed for gaming’s competitive efficiency is repurposed to construct, instead, architectures of affection and mutual support.
However, studying these environments poses a fundamental ethical paradox: researching a pre-existing safe space carries the inherent risk of violating it. Academic access cannot be approached from extractivist curiosity, as entering a closed community with a notebook renders the researcher an external agent whose objectifying gaze may shatter the circle of trust. It is vital not to taint the space; the mere presence of an external analytical perspective can alter the climate of intimacy that defines the community, transforming a sanctuary into a laboratory. As researchers, we acknowledge that we are fallible subjects, bearers of biases and power dynamics that can irreversibly cloud the group’s naturalness.
Faced with this dilemma, we propose a methodological framework that crystallises in what we define as Critical Digital Participatory Action Ethnography inspired by Paño Yáñez’s (2022) methodological confluence proposal. We understand that to study a safe space ethically and respectfully towards its native dynamics, the approach cannot be limited to passive description. However, we do not seek simply to digitalise the technique (Rogers, 2013); the objective is to adapt its ontological and epistemological principles to digital nativity in order to apply a situated method designed specifically for the interaction and sociability logics of online gaming environments.
Under this premise, the most honest approach is not to seek a community to infiltrate—thereby perpetuating extractivist dynamics in trust-based environments—but to construct an ad hoc infrastructure for research. We abandon the logic of occupying to embrace that of social change and empowerment (Zapata and Rondán, 2016). Following Blanco-Ávila et al. (2025), we understand participation not only as collaboration but as a risk management strategy: just as vulnerable communities organise to mitigate physical threats, we create a digital space where participants can empower themselves, generating an asynchronous and digital dialogue of knowledge that persists even without the researcher’s presence. Thus, we ensure that the study is governed by principles of horizontality and de-hierarchisation of knowledge, inherent to feminist research (Gallego-Márquez, 2026). The researcher abandons the lurker position to become a facilitator (Zapata and Rondán, 2016) who helps sustain a space designed for speech and safety to circulate freely. Ultimately, we do not study safe spaces by invading them; we learn about them by building them collectively.
In the specific case of Discord, operationalising this method entails co-designing the server’s digital architecture from its foundations. It is not about delivering a turnkey space but inviting participants into the construction from its genesis. Moderation dynamics, crucial for securing the environment, are not imposed top-down but proposed based on prior interviews with expert moderators and refined collectively, transmuting punitive norms into coexistence agreements. Similarly, the space’s symbolic identity—the server image, naming, and taxonomy of text and voice channels—is decided through assembly dynamics that combine the synchronicity of voice chat with the asynchronous reflection of text threads. In this process, dialogic consensus is prioritised over simple democratic voting, preventing majorities from silencing minority sensitivities within the group itself.
This entire process is framed within informed and ongoing digital consent, where it is made explicit that user agency prevails over research interests, allowing participants to revoke their participation at any time without penalty. This consent transcends the bureaucratic formalism of a static document—the traditional fine print—to articulate itself as a living, negotiated conversation. The aim is to enable an environment where the capacity to establish boundaries or exercise refusal is explicitly validated as part of the space’s safety. Consent is thus understood as a dynamic, reversible, and bidirectional process, permanently sustained by communication, horizontality, and mutual trust.
Through creating this environment, we seek not only to conduct ethical, rigorous research adapted to the medium’s reality but also to cultivate a space with potential for autonomy and life of its own. We aspire for the server to endure beyond academic timescales, sustaining itself as a place that, whilst straddling the public and private, remains safe, self-managed by conscious individuals, and based on radical trust. Ultimately, this is about erecting a refuge where gaming dynamics do not expel those who do not identify with the cis-heteronorm; a space where methodology ceases to be an end in itself and becomes a tool for social repair, demonstrating that another way of inhabiting and playing on the internet is possible.
4. Methodological Reflections
The methodological proposal emerging from this research is not merely instrumental; it constitutes a political and ethical stance towards the field of study. When engaging with digital communities on platforms such as Discord, we immediately encounter complex issues of selection and field access that transcend logistics. Following the most recent ethical guidelines for internet research (AoIR, 2025), researchers must question not only how to obtain data but also the impact their intrusion has on the ecosystem. In this regard, research ceases to be an extraction and is instead conceived as a repair of the diaspora: an attempt to understand the expulsion of otherness and to contribute, through academic praxis, to the visibility or construction of habitable alternatives.
By observing these two case studies—the hegemonic community and the dissident refuge—we can see radical differences in the methodological, epistemological, and ethical approaches required, even if similar research methods are used at their base. The nature of the space dictates the ethics of access.
In hostile spaces, it is necessary to understand that vulnerability lies within user interactions. Paradoxically, these are spaces where individuals, by virtue of their socially privileged positions (cis-heterosexual men), who are not subject to concrete or physical danger, voluntarily expose themselves to a very particular form of performing gender. This constant performance of hegemonic masculinity ultimately becomes a corset: a rigid structure of virile validation that stifles the possibility of alternative forms of relationship and care (Messerchmidt, 2018). Methodologically, this involves observing how the platform’s architecture incentivises such rigidity by analysing power dynamics without intervening, so as not to alter the manifestation of systemic toxicity.
Conversely, in safe spaces, the logic is reversed. We face the treatment of a space to which, initially, access may be denied due to its strict privacy and protective exclusion norms. However, the greater challenge is ethical: our mere presence as external observers would disrupt the trust and intimacy dynamics that constructed the place. Entering a digital coven with the researcher’s gaze inevitably profanes it.
This is where the repair proposal gains methodological significance. If studying a pre-existing safe space threatens its integrity, the ethical response is not to force entry but to facilitate the creation of a new one. Thus, research becomes an act of service: we build the infrastructure for the community to gather, and it is in that process of joint construction and habitation that knowledge is produced, respecting participants’ safety and freeing ourselves, as researchers, from the extractivist role.
Therefore, we situate methodological reflection on a power scale, where depending on how we see ourselves reflected relative to the space we are to inhabit, we must act accordingly but always respecting the ethical principles of digital research and maintaining empathy towards everyone potentially involved.
5. Conclusions
Research in contemporary gaming communities, mediated by platforms of high technical complexity such as Discord, requires a profound revision of our epistemological and methodological instruments. As argued throughout this article, accessing the field of study is neither a neutral nor purely logistical act; it requires recognising that technology holds agency and that software architecture—its affordances—co-constructs the social reality of subjects. Accordingly, the methodological approach cannot overlook that these digital environments are not mere containers of interaction but actors that shape the possibilities of being and existing online.
This work has shown that structural violence and masculine hegemony in gaming culture generate a diaspora of otherness, compelling women and dissident identities to retreat to private spaces for protection. Facing this polarised reality, we conclude that the ethics of access vary radically according to the nature of the inhabited space. In hostile spaces, methodology should focus on observing how hegemonic masculinity’s performance becomes a rigid corset for its own users, advising against direct intervention to preserve safety. Conversely, in safe spaces, the traditional extractivist approach is ethically unsustainable, as the mere presence of an external gaze taints the intimacy of the refuge. Therefore, we maintain that to research safe spaces without violating them, the most honest path is to abandon the logic of inhabiting a pre-existing space and instead approach the situation by constructing an ad hoc infrastructure. By co-designing the Discord server from its foundations, research ceases to be data extraction and becomes joint knowledge creation and a means to facilitate spaces and connections with people who may relate.
This methodology entails a radical reconfiguration of consent, moving from a static bureaucratic process to understanding it as a living, negotiated, reversible, negotiable, and situated conversation. Thus, we propose that ethics should not be located in signing a paper or ticking a box but rather understood as a dialogical process involving power dynamics that must be constantly reviewed, from methodological design to publication and dissemination.
Finally, we conclude that the ultimate aim of this methodological proposal transcends academic production: we aspire to the repair of the diaspora. By nurturing a space with potential for autonomy, we seek for the server to endure beyond research as a self-managed refuge. In so doing, we demonstrate that inhabiting the internet from care is possible, erecting digital architectures where exclusion is not the norm, but mutual support against the cis-heteronorm.
References
Agustin, S. M. (2018). Digital Body: Horcrux of Extended Self in Post-Human Era. Journal Komunikasi Indonesia, 7(3), Artículo 2. https://doi.org/10.7454/jki.v7i3.10111
Association of Internet Researchers. (2025). Risky research: An AoIR guide to researcher protection and safety. https://aoir.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AoIR-Risky-Research-Report_2025.pdf
Blanco-Ávila, D. M., Ortíz-Suárez, C. & Sáenz Montoya, X. (2025). Empoderando comunidades: investigación-acción-participativa en gestión de riesgos y desastres en Tausa, Colombia. Cultura de los Cuidados, (70), 261–276.
Braithwaite, A. (2016). It’s about ethics in games journalism? Gamergaters and geek masculinity. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672484
Butler, J. (2007). El género en disputa: El feminismo y la subversión de la identidad. Paidós.
Cirucci, A. M. (2017). Normative Interfaces: Affordances, Gender, and Race in Facebook. Social media and society, 3(2), 205630511771790. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117717905
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Polity Press.
Davis, J. L. (2020). How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. MIT Press.
Discord Inc. (2025, November 28). About Discord: Our mission and story. https://discord.com/company
Floridi, L (2015). The Online Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04093-6
Gallego-Márquez, A. (2023). La performatividad de género en los videojuegos de roleplay: Ser mujer en GTA RP [Master Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid]. https://docta.ucm.es/entities/publication/ab04d32d-8dd0-4b98-8dbd-cd9ce1fceda6
Gallego-Márquez, A. (2026). Etnografía digital feminista: reflexiones epistemológicas y técnicas desde una etnografía encuerpada. García Mingo, E., Puente Bienvenido, H., Sádaba Rodríguez, I. & Santiago Prieto, M. (Eds.), Metodología de la investigación social digital. Miradas, técnicas, desafíos. Tirant Lo Blanch
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (n.d.). Art. 4 GDPR – Definitions. General Data Protection Regulation. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/
Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory, 5(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700104040813
Hennell, K., Limmer, M., & Piacentini, M. (2019). Ethical Dilemmas Using Social Media in Qualitative Social Research: A Case Study of Online Participant Observation. Sociological Research Online, 25(3), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780419888933
Kowert, R., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). Unpopular, overweight, and socially inept: Reconsidering the stereotype of online gamers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0118
Latour, B. (2011). Networks, societies, spheres: Reflections of an actor-network theorist. International Journal of Communication, 5, 796–810.
Lugones, M. (2014). Rumbo a um feminismo descolonial. Revista Estudos Feministas, 22(3), 935–952. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-026X2014000300013
Maloney, M., Roberts, S., & Graham, T. (2019). Gender, Masculinity and Video Gaming: Analysing Reddit’s r/gaming Community. Palgrave Pivot Cham.
Markham, A. (2012). Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in ambiguous internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 334-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.641993
Massanari, A. L. (2015). Participatory culture, community, and play: Learning from Reddit. Peter Lang.
Massanari, A. L. (2017). #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807
Meneses-Falcón, C & Urío, S. (2021). Trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation in Spain: Estimates and reality. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 173, 89–108.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2018). Hegemonic masculinity: Formulation, reformulation, and amplification. Rowman & Littlefield.
Muriel, D. (2018). Identidad gamer: Videojuegos y construcción de sentido en la sociedad contemporánea. AnaitGames.
Paño Yáñez, P. (2022). Etnografías críticas de acción participativa. Propuesta por la confluencia de la etnografía y las metodologías de investigación acción participativa. Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales, 12(2), e114. https://doi.org/10.24215/18537863e114
Pearce, C. (2009). Communities of Play: Emergent Cultures in Multiplayer Games and Virtual Worlds. MIT Press.
Puente Bienvenido, H. & Lasén, A. (2015). Coreografías de género en espacios de juego online. Jugadoras, fans y conflictos en videojuegos. Revista de Estudios para el Desarrollo Social de la Comunicación, (11), 154-183. https://doi.org/10.15213/redes.n11.p154
Resourcera. (2025, November 17). Discord Users Statistics 2025. https://resourcera.com/data/social/discord-users/
Rogers, R. (2013). Digital Methods. Amsterdam University Press.
Soto-Casás, P., Gallego-Márquez, A. & Bedate-Rayo, Y. (2026). From Digitalised to Digital Ethics: A Feminist Paradigm Proposal. In Mbinjaba, A. and Adebayo, J (Eds), Cyber-Ethics, Techno-Ethics and Digital Media. Palgrave Macmillan.
Simmel, G. (2014). Sociología: Estudios sobre las formas de socialización. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Strudwick, G., Kuziemsky, C, Booth, R. G., Collings, S., Chyjek, A., Sakal, M., Harris, A. & Strauss, J. (2018). Engaging patients and family members in the evaluation of a mental health patient portal: Protocol for a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open, 8(8), e025508
Whitehead, S. M. (2021). Toxic Masculinity: Curing the virus: Making Men, Smarter, Healthier, Safer. AG Books.
Zafra, R. (2010). Un cuarto propio conectado:(Ciber)espacio y (auto)gestión del yo. Fórcola.
Zapata, F. y Rondán, V. (2016). La Investigación Acción Participativa: Guía conceptual y metodológica del Instituto de Montaña. Instituto de Montaña.
Authors’ Info
Aida Gallego-Márquez
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
aigalleg@ucm.es
Pablo Soto-Casás
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
pablosot@ucm.es
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.