Open Science and Feminist Ethics: Promises and Challenges of Open Access

Abstract

Open science advocates argue that making data sets, studies, methodologies, and other aspects of research free from publication fees and available to scholars will increase collaborations, access, and dissemination of knowledge. In this article, I argue that open access policies and practices raise both feminist and ethical issues. I reflect on the five themes of feminist ethics identified 20 years ago by a task force of the Society for the Psychology of Women. I update the themes with recent scholarship of feminist philosophers and ethicists, and I use the themes to raise questions about the promises and challenges of open access. Throughout, I offer suggestions for all who seek to make knowledge of human psychology more complete and more accessible to more people. I conclude by offering recommendations informed by feminist ethics to those building the policies and practices of open access. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843211030926

Keywords

feminist ethics open science open access power subjectivity diversity social justice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albornoz

Hillyer

Posada

Okune

Chan

(2019). Principles for an inclusive open science: The OCSDNet manifesto. In Chan, L., Okune, A., Hillyer, B., Posada Hillyer, B., Albornoz, D., & Posada, A. (Eds.), Contextualizing openness: Situating open science (pp. 23-50). University of Ottawa Press. https://www.idrc.ca/sites/default/files/openebooks/Contextualizing-Openness/9781552506110.html#ch2.

Albornoz

Huang

Martin

Mateus

Touré

Chan

(2018). Framing power: Tracing key discourses in open science policies. ELPUB. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01816725.

American Psychological Association . (2017a). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/.

American Psychological Association . (2017b). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological approach to context, identity, and intersectionality. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf.

American Psychological Association Ethics Task Force (2020). Initial draft principles. July 31, 2020. [Unpublished paper]. http://apps.apa.org/commentcentral2/default.aspx?site=61&_ga=2.87031192.1058472696.1600019180-1043907340.1593695144.

Apuzzo

Kirkpatrick

D. D

(2020 April 1). Covid-19 changed how the world does science, together. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/world/europe/coronavirus-science-research-cooperation.html.

Association of Black Psychologists Ethics Committee (2019). The ethical standards of Black psychologists. http://www.abpsi.org/pdf/EthicalStandardsofBlackPsychologists2019.pdf.

Beard

(2017). Women & power: A manifesto. Liveright Pub. Corp. https://doi.org/10.1515/fs-2018-0021.

Beauvoir

S. D.

(1974). The second sex. Vintage Books. https://doi.org/10.1093/litthe/frn030.

10.

Betz

C. L.

(2016). Authors beware: Open access predatory journals. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 31, 233-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2016.02.006.

11.

Boler

(2015). Feminist politics of emotions and critical digital pedagogies: A call to action. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 130, 1489-1496. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2015.130.5.1489.

12.

Boler

Davis

(2018). The affective politics of the “post-truth” era: Feeling rules and networked subjectivity. Emotion, Space and Society, 27, 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2018.03.002.

13.

Brabeck

M. M.

(ed.) (2000). Practicing feminist ethics in psychology. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10343-000.

14.

Brabeck

Brown

. (1997). Feminist theory and psychological practice. In Worell

Johnson

(Eds.), Shaping the future of feminist psychology: Education, research and practice (pp. 15-35). American Psychological Association.

15.

Brandusescu

Nwakanma

(2019). Gender equity. In Davies

Walker

(eds.), The state of open data: Histories and horizons. (pp. 287-299). African Books Collective. Project MUSE. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/67112.

16.

Chan

Okune

Hillyer

Posada Hillyer

Albornoz

Posada

(2019). Contextualizing openness: Situating open science. University of Ottawa Press. https://press.uottawa.ca/contextualizing-openness.html.

17.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1086/229850.

18.

Collins

P. H.

(2011). Piecing together a genealogical puzzle: Intersectionality and American pragmatism. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 3, 88-112. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.823.

19.

Combahee River Collective (1977). The Combahee River Collective Statement. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/.

20.

Coyne

J. C.

(2016). Replication initiatives will not salvage the trustworthiness of psychology. BMC Psychology, 4, 1-11. https://doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0134-3.

21.

Crenshaw

(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 1, 139-167. https://10.4324/9780429500480-5.

22.

Cribb

Sari

(2010). Open science: Sharing knowledge in the global century. CSIRO Pub. https://doi.10.1071/9780643097643.

23.

Denhart

(2013 August 7). How the $1.2 trillion college debt crisis is crippling students, parents and the economy. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/08/07/how-the-college-debt-is-crippling-students-parents-and-the-economy/#70a39a902e17.

24.

DOAJ . (2021). Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved from. https://doaj.org/

25.

Domenech Rodríguez

M. M.

Gallardo

M. E.

Delgado-Romero

E. A.

Field

L. D.

Field

L. D

. (2020). Ethical guidelines of the National Latinx Psychological Association: Background. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 8, 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000150 .

26.

Düwell

(2019). Editorial: Open science and ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22, 1051-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10053-3.

27.

Foster

Traynor

(2018) Principles and practice of open science. Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network. https://ocsdnet.org/principles-and-practice-in-open-science-addressing-power-and-inequality-through-situated-openness/.

28.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Women’s conception of self and morality. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.47.4.

29.

Ging

Siapera

(2018, Special issue on online misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 18, 515-524. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447345.

30.

Google Scholar Blog (2021 April 1). Track and manage your public access mandates. https://scholar.googleblog.com/2021/03/track-and-manage-your-public-access.html.

31.

Grahe

J. E.

Cuccolo

Leighton

D. C.

Cramblet Alvarez

L. D.

(2020). Open science promotes diverse, just, and sustainable research and educational outcomes. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 19(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725719869164.

32.

Hailes

H. P.

Ceccolini

C. J.

Gutowski

Liang

(2020). Ethical guidelines for social justice in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 52(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000291.

33.

Hamati-Ataya

(2014). Transcending objectivism, subjectivism, and the knowledge in-between: The subject in/of ‘strong reflexivity. Review of International Studies, 40, 53-175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210513000041.

34.

Harding

(1986). The instability of the analytical categories of feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11, 645-664. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3174137?seq=1.

35.

Harding

(1995). Strong objectivity?: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104, 331-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064504.

36.

Harding

(2009). Standpoint theories: Productively controversial. Hypatia, 24, 192-200. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20618189.

37.

Harding

(2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.10.7208/chicago/9780226241531.001.0001.

38.

Health and Human Services (1991). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects or the “Common Rule”. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html.

39.

Hesse

B. W.

(2018). Can psychology walk the walk of open science? American Psychologist, 73, 126-137. https://doi.10.1037/amp0000197.

40.

Holdren

J. P

. (2013 February 22). Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. Memorandum from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf.

41.

Hunter

Alessandrini

Williams

(2012). Editorial: Why we oppose Gold Open Access. https://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/view/59.

42.

Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences (2019). Gender action: Report on strategic advice for enhancing the gender dimension of open science and innovation policy. https://genderaction.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GENDERACTION_Report-5.1_D11_OSOI.pdf.

43.

Jaggar

A. M.

(1989). Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology. Inquiry, 32, 151-176. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00201748908602185.

44.

Jaggar

A. M.

(2002). A feminist critique of the alleged Southern debt. Hypatia, 17, 119-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2002.tb01076.x.

45.

Jaggar

A. M.

(2013). Does poverty wear a woman's Face? Some moral dimensions of a transnational feminist research project. Hypatia, 28, 240-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12022.

46.

James

V. D.

(2014). Musing: A Black feminist philosopher: Is that possible? Hypatia, 29, 189-195. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24541961?seq=1.

47.

Jenkins

Narayanaswamy

Sweetman

(2019). Introduction: Feminist values in research. Gender & Development, 27, 415-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2019.1682311.

48.

Katz

(2019). On the ethics of open science. SageBionetworks. https://sagebionetworks.org/in-the-news/on-the-ethics-of-open-science-2/.

49.

Kleinberg

Mozes

van der Toolen

(2017). NETANOS- named entity-based text anonymization for open science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/w9nhb.

50.

Levitt

H. M.

(2019). A psychosocial genealogy of LGBTQ+ gender: An empirically based theory of gender and gender identity cultures. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(3), 275-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319834641.

51.

Levitt

H. M.

Bamberg

Creswell

J. W.

Frost

D. M.

Josselson

Suárez-Orozco

(2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73, 26-46. https://doi.apa.org/fulltext/2018-00750-003.html.

52.

Lindemann

(2019). An invitation to feminist ethics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190059316.001.0001.

53.

Lugones

(2014), Musing: Reading the nondiasporic from within diasporas. Hypatia, 29, 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12073.

54.

Macleod

C. I.

, Bhatia

, Liu

(2020). Feminisms and decolonising psychology: Possibilities and challenges. Feminism & Psychology, 30, 287-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353520932810.

55.

Masum

Rao

Good

B. M.

Todd

M. H.

Edwards

A. M.

Chan

Bourne

P. E.

(2013). Ten simple rules for cultivating open science and collaborative R&D. PLoS Computational Biology, 9, e1003244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003244.

56.

Matsick

J. L.

Kruk

Oswald

Lindsay

(2021 current issue). Bridging feminist psychology and open science: Feminist tools and shared values inform best practices for science reform. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 412–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211026564.

57.

McKiernan

E. C.

Bourne

P. E.

Brown

C. T.

Buck

Kenall

Lin

McDougall

Nosek

B. A.

Ram

Soderberg

C. K.

Spies

J. R.

Thaney

Updegrove

Woo

K. H.

Yarkoni

(2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.001.

58.

Meyers

D. T.

(2010). Introduction. Hypatia, 25, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01081.x.

59.

Mirowski

(2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science, 48, 171-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086.

60.

Moher

Srivastava

(2015). You are invited to submit.... BMC Medicine, 13, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0423-3.

61.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research , (1979). The Belmont report. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf.

62.

Nelson

(2009). Data sharing: Empty archives. Nature, 461, 160-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461160a.

63.

Norlock

(2019). Feminist ethics. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/feminism-ethics/.

64.

Nosek

(2017). How can we improve diversity and inclusion in the open science movement? https://www.cos.io/blog/how-can-we-improve-diversity-and-inclusion-open-science-movement.

65.

Nosek

B. A.

Alter

Banks

G. C.

Borsboom

Bowman

S. D.

Breckler

S. J.

Buck

Chambers

C. D.

Chin

Christensen

Contestabile

Dafoe

Eich

Freese

Glennerster

Goroff

Green

D. P.

Hesse

Humphreys

Yarkoni

(2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422-1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374.

66.

Pearce

Smith

A. H.

(2011). Data sharing: Not as simple as it seems. Environmental Health, 10, 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-107.

67.

Pederson

(2000). Multiculturalism as a fourth force. Brunner/Mazel. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1201_05.

68.

Rainie

S. C.

Kukutai

Walter

Figueroa-Rodríguez

O. L.

Walker

Axelsson

(2019). Indigenous data sovereignty. In Davies

Walker

(Eds.), The state of open data: Histories and horizons (pp. 300-319). African Books Collective. Project MUSE.

69.

Richtig

Berger

Lange-Asschenfeldt

Aberer

Richtig

(2018). Problems and challenges of predatory journals. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 32, 1441-1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15039.

70.

Roberts

S. O.

Bareket-Shavit

Dollins

F. A.

Goldie

P. D.

Mortenson

(2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 1295-1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709.

71.

Rodgers

J. L.

Shrout

P. E.

(2018). Psychology's replication crisis as scientific opportunity: A précis for policymakers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217749254.

72.

Sabik

N. J.

Matsick

J. L.

McCormick-Huhn

Cole

E. R

. (2021). Bringing an intersectional lens to “open” science: An analysis of representation in the reproducibility project. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211035678

73.

Santa Cruz Feminist of Color Collective (2014). Building on “the edge of each other's battles”: A feminist of color multidimensional lens. Hypatia, 29, 23-40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24541951?seq=1.

74.

Scaltsas

P. W.

(1992). Do feminist ethics counter feminist aims? In Cole

E. B.

Coultrap-McQuin

(Eds.), Explorations in feminist ethics: Theory and practice (pp. 15-29). Indiana University Press.

75.

Shen

Björk

B-C.

(2015). “Predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.

76.

Smith

(2005). Does reflexivity separate the human sciences from the natural sciences? History of the Human Sciences, 18, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695105058468.

77.

Snodgrass

S. E.

(1985). Women's intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 146-155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.146.

78.

Sosa-Provencio

M. A.

(2016). Seeking a Mexicana/Mestiza critical feminist ethic of care: Diana's revolución of body and being. Journal of Latinos and Education, 15, 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2015.1134537.

79.

Steyl

(2019). The virtue of care. Hypatia, 34, 507-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12481

80.

Straits

K. J. E.

Bird

D.M.

Tsinajinnie

Espinoza

Goodkind

Spencer

Tafoya

Willging

the Guiding Principles Workgroup (2012). Guiding principles for engaging in research with Native American communities, Version 1. UNM Center for Rural and Community Behavioral Health & Albuquerque Area Southwest Tribal Epidemiology Center. https://hsc.unm.edu/vision2020/common/docs/guiding_principles_research_native_communities2012.pdf.

81.

Tenopir

Allard

Douglass

Aydinoglu

A. U.

Read

Manoff

Frame

(2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions, PLOS ONE, 6, e21101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101

82.

Tessman

(2009). Introduction. In Tessman

(Ed.), Feminist ethics and social and political philosophy: Theorizing the non-ideal (pp. xiii-1). Springer.

83.

Tessman

(2017). When doing the right thing is impossible. Oxford University Press.

84.

Thalmayer

A. G.

Toscanelli

Arnett

J. J.

(2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? The American Psychologist, 76, 116-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622.

85.

Van den Bos

Jenny

Wulff

(2014). Open minded psychology. Issues in Open Research Data. In Moore

(Ed.), Issues in open research data (pp. 107-127). Ubiquity Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t5rd3.10.

86.

Van der Zee

Reich

(2018). Open education science. AERA Open, 4, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418787466.

87.

Vasquez

M. J. T.

(2012). Psychology and social justice: Why we do what we do. American Psychologist, 67, 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029232.

88.

Villum

(2014). “Open-washing”––The difference between opening your data and simply making them available. Open Knowledge Foundation. https://blog.okfn.org/2014/03/10/open-washing-the-difference-between-opening-your-data-and-simply-making-them-available/

89.

Walker

M. U.

(2001). Seeing power in morality: A proposal for feminist naturalism in ethics. In DesAutels

Waugh

(Eds.), Feminists doing ethics (2nd ed, pp. 29–39). Rowan & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00570.x.

90.

Walker

M. U.

(2002a). Moral contexts. Rowman & Littlefield.

91.

Walker

M. U.

(2002b) Morality in practice: A response to Claudia Card and Lorraine Code. Hypatia, 17, 174–182. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/14234.

92.

Walker

M. U.

(2007). Moral understandings: A feminist study in ethics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315394.001.0001.

93.

Wigginton

Lafrance

M. N.

(2019). Learning critical feminist research: A brief introduction to feminist epistemologies and methodologies. Feminism & Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519866058.

94.

Wilson

(2019). Civil society. In Davies

Walker

(Eds.), The state of open data: Histories and horizons (pp. 355–366). African Books Collective. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/book/67112.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.61 MB