Must Open Science Explicitly Claim Feminism?: Reflections Halfway into Our Project

By Anna Vinther & Rebecca Busck, Junior Researchers

 

 “I wouldn’t call myself a feminist”

I (Rebecca) remember sitting in a restaurant during a business trip a few years ago. I was with a female superior, someone I deeply admired for her leadership in ethical tech, open knowledge networks and collaborative problem solving. We were discussing diversity in collaboration when I casually mentioned feminism. Her response stunned me: “I wouldn’t call myself a feminist.”

How could someone whose work embodied feminist principles—collaboration, equity, and ethical technology—reject the term? That moment planted a seed of curiosity and unease. It made me question: Why is feminism so often avoided, even by those who seem to practice it?

 

Before I met Anna, I spent years working in a startup developing AI-driven digital infrastructures for Open Science. In a world of information overload, we focused on cultivating the communication and exchange of knowledge, believing that, if the right knowledge reached the right people, we could collectively solve global challenges like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

I was optimistic about frameworks like the UNESCO Open Science Recommendations (2021), which promote a collaborative and equitable approach to science. But I was never really confronted with deeper questions: Whose knowledge is actually being shared? Who decides what counts as knowledge? These blind spots limited my understanding of Open Science’s potential.

When I met Anna doing our first semester at the MSc Programme in Digital Innovation and Management at ITU this summer, her previous academic work on bias in AI brought these questions into sharp focus. I realized how naïve my techno-optimism had been. Feminist epistemologies—Haraway’s Situated Knowledges⁴, Harding’s Standpoint Theory⁵, and Crenshaw’s Intersectionality¹—offered perspectives in examining the power structures embedded in Open Science.

 

The Promise and the Gap

From the outset, we believed that the UNESCO Open Science Recommendations had the potential to become a global framework for feminist knowledge management. Just as the SDG’s call for global collaboration, these recommendations could push scientific policies toward equity and justice.

Yet, in our experience, Open Science often stops at Open Access. The deeper feminist principles—equity, diversity, and collective benefit—seem to be left behind when Open Science becomes policy. This is why Pastora Martínez Samper’s statement posted on the European University Association resonated so deeply:

“Open Science will be feminist, or it won’t be at all”⁶

 

 

We set out to make a strong case for why Open Science must claim feminism, grounded in feminist theory. We envisioned ending with a call to action for the Open Science community to explicitly embrace the term.

A Shift in Perspective

Our project took a turn after presenting our ideas at an Ethos Lab research pitch. We were encouraged to adopt a “generous” reading approach² for exploring the UNESCO Open Science framework from a feminist perspective, rather than imposing predefined criteria for “Feminist Open Science”—an approach that might reinforce our own privileges.

During a cohort meeting, another realization emerged: the privilege of claiming feminism. As two white, privileged women from Denmark, we can freely call ourselves feminists. For others, however, the term ‘feminist’ carries negative connotations shaped by cultural, political, or religious contexts. Claiming it could involve risks or lead to misunderstanding.

This insight reframed our inquiry. If we, as researchers, are hesitant about how to place feminism within Open Science, might the broader Open Science community feel similarly?

This led to a whirlwind of questions:

• Why is feminism absent from Open Science discourse?
• Is it enough to promote equity, diversity, and justice without using the term “feminist”?
• Does avoiding the term risk erasing the historical struggles that make these values essential?

Framing Feminisms: A Collaborative Exploration

To deepen our understanding, we sought inspiration from others. At the Ethos Lab Play Fair, we invited senior researchers to create collages representing their associations with the word “feminist.” Beyond producing pretty results, the activity revealed the multiplicity of meanings tied to feminism: empowerment, resistance, intersectionality, care ethics.

This exercise underscored the complexity of claiming feminism and the challenges of using the term in a globally inclusive framework like Open Science. With so many interpretations, “feminism” cannot function as a simple, one-size-fits-all concept.

Embracing Critical Optimism

The results from the Play Fair prompted us to reevaluate our approach. During the activity and subsequent discussions, we noticed a pattern: while many researchers were hesitant to use the term “feminism,” they often gravitated toward other concepts, such as “critical optimism” or “ethical research,” when discussing epistemology and equity. These terms seemed to provide a way to engage with feminist principles without invoking the historical and cultural baggage the word “feminism” can carry.

This observation sparked new reflections. Could these alternative framings—while sidestepping the term itself—still align with feminist values in practice? And if so, what opportunities or risks might arise from using these alternative terms?

A critical optimism approach allows us to engage critically with where Open Science falls short—e.g., assuming access equals equity or ignoring power dynamics—while celebrating its successes. This perspective encourages us to imagine futures where feminist values guide Open Science, even if the term “feminist” remains contested.

Instead of forcing alignment with feminist values and principles, we’re exploring the UNESCO Open Science Recommendations through a generous reading², interpreting their neutral language through a critical but optimistic feminist lens.

So where are we now? and next steps

At this halfway point, our project has evolved from a straightforward call to claim feminism to a more nuanced inquiry:

Must Open Science explicitly claim feminism to achieve its transformative potential, or can its values be advanced through broader commitments to equity, diversity, and justice?

 

 

Going back to that conversation on the business trip, we realize that the discomfort around the claiming of the term ‘feminism’ is part of a larger challenge. Our project may not provide a single answer, but by asking the right questions, we hope to open new pathways for a more equitable and just Open Science. And in this endeavour, we invite you to join us in this exploration of what feminism means in the context of Open Science, and whether claiming feminism is really an expression of privilege, a necessity, or both. Ultimately, the bigger question remains: How can we ensure Open Science lives up to its promise of equity and justice? As one Ethos researcher told us:

“It’s not about having the answer—it’s about asking the right questions.”

We’re excited to keep asking—and learning—together.

 

 

Endnotes

1. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), Article 8. Retrieved from http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
2. Dumit, J. (2012). Writing the implosion: Teaching the world one thing at a time. Cultural Anthropology, 27(3), 344–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2012.01149.x
3. Goal 17 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). United Nations. Retrieved December 13, 2024, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal17
4. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
5. Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research (1st ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

1. Samper, P. M. (2023, March 21). Open Science will be feminist, or it won’t be at all. European University Association. https://www.eua.eu/our-work/expert-voices/open-science-will-be-feminist-or-it-won-t-be-at-all.html
2. THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development. (n.d.). United Nations. Retrieved December 10, 2024, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals
3. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved October 4, 2024, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949