Opening research is not enough. Inclusive Open Science also requires attention to who shapes the questions, makes decisions, receives recognition and benefits from the results. 

Open Science is often described through access: open publications, reusable data, transparent methods, shared educational resources and accessible research infrastructures. These elements are essential, but openness cannot be reduced to making research outputs publicly available. 

The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science places open engagement of societal actors alongside open scientific knowledge, open infrastructures and dialogue with different knowledge systems. This broader understanding shifts attention from access to participation: not only whether people can see the results of research, but whether they can meaningfully contribute to its production. 

However, participation does not necessarily mean influence. A project may recruit a diverse group of participants while keeping all significant decisions in the hands of the professional research team. Participants may collect data without helping to define the problem, interpret the findings or decide how the results will be used. 

Gender-inclusive Open Science therefore requires a more demanding question: Who holds power within the research process? 

As FEMLEAD moves from training and institutional strategy towards the implementation of STEM-related Open Science projects, this question becomes particularly relevant. The project’s implementation phase includes at least 15 Open Science projects involving women students, early- and mid-career researchers and women from minority communities. These activities are intended not only to increase participation, but also to develop more inclusive and participatory research practices. 

The following five questions can help research teams examine whether participation is meaningful in practice. 

1. Who defines the research question?

The research question determines what will be investigated, which knowledge will be treated as relevant and which outcomes the project is likely to produce. If participants are invited only after the question, method and expected results have been established, their influence is necessarily limited. 

This does not mean that every Open Science project must be fully co-created. Contributory projects, in which participants collect or classify data, can produce valuable scientific and educational outcomes. The important requirement is transparency. Researchers should clearly explain which aspects of the project participants can influence and which have already been decided. 

Research on decision-making power in citizen science describes public participation as a promise made to participants. If a project presents itself as collaborative, participants should be told what forms of influence collaboration includes. Expectations should be explicit from the beginning rather than negotiated only after disagreement occurs. 

Where possible, research teams should involve intended participants when identifying problems, defining priorities or adapting questions to local contexts. Women researchers and community members may identify concerns, forms of evidence or practical consequences that are less visible from within established institutional structures. 

The question is therefore not simply whether women are present in the project, but whether their knowledge influences what the project considers worth investigating. 

2. Who can realisticallyparticipate?

An open invitation does not create equal access. Participation is shaped by time, income, language, confidence, digital access, professional status, disability, mobility and care responsibilities. A technically open project can remain socially selective if participation requires unpaid time, specialised knowledge, travel or continuous access to digital tools. 

Evidence from inclusive citizen science initiatives indicates that barriers to participation can reproduce the exclusionary processes already present in wider society. Groups facing economic, social or institutional disadvantages may be formally welcome but practically unable to participate. 

Research teams should therefore examine the conditions of participation: 

• Are activities organised at times that exclude people with teaching, employment or care responsibilities? 

• Is specialist terminology explained? 

• Can participants contribute remotely or asynchronously? 

• Are materials available in appropriate languages and accessible formats? 

• Is training provided before participants are expected to use unfamiliar methods or technologies? 

• Is travel, childcare or other participation costs recognised where resources allow? 

These are not secondary logistical details. They determine whose knowledge enters the project and whose absence remains unnoticed. 

An intersectional approach is particularly important. Women do not form a homogeneous group, and barriers may differ according to career stage, socio-economic position, disability, migration background, ethnicity, geographical location or family responsibilities. The current European Research Area Policy Agenda consequently emphasises inclusive Gender Equality Plans, intersectionality and the integration of the gender dimension into research and innovation content. 

3. Who makes the decisions?

Participation can occur at several stages of a research project: defining questions, selecting methods, collecting data, analysing findings, interpreting results and communicating conclusions. A project may be inclusive at one stage and highly centralised at another. 

Research teams should identify where decision-making authority lies. Who decides which data are valid? Who resolves disagreements about interpretation? Who determines whether results are published, shared with policymakers or returned to participating communities? Who controls access to the data after the project ends? 

There is no single model suitable for every project. Some decisions require specific scientific, ethical or legal responsibilities. Nevertheless, decision-making processes should be visible and justified. Participants should understand how their recommendations will be considered and what happens when the research team does not follow them. 

This is particularly important when participants contribute personal, local or experiential knowledge. Asking people to share their experiences without giving them any influence over interpretation can reproduce an extractive research relationship: knowledge moves from the community to the institution, while authority remains unchanged. 

Projects can address this through participant advisory groups, joint interpretation workshops, shared data-governance arrangements, regular feedback sessions or clearly documented decision procedures. The appropriate mechanism depends on the scale and purpose of the project, but the underlying principle remains the same: participation should have a traceable relationship to decisions. 

4. Whose work is recognised?

Open and participatory research depends on many forms of labour. Alongside data collection and analysis, participants may recruit others, translate materials, explain community contexts, moderate discussions, test tools, maintain relationships, communicate results or identify ethical risks. 

These contributions are often less visible than traditional academic outputs. They may also be disproportionately performed by women and early-career researchers. If only publications, grants or formal leadership positions are recognised, projects can benefit from inclusive labour while leaving existing systems of recognition unchanged. 

The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment developed through the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment calls for recognition of a broader range of research contributions. These include teamwork, collaboration, openness, public engagement, leadership, mentoring, training and technical roles, rather than publications alone. 

Recognition should be discussed at the beginning of the project rather than added as an acknowledgement at the end. Depending on the nature and scale of a contribution, recognition may include: 

• authorship or contributorship statements; 

• formal acknowledgements; 

• payment or reimbursement; 

• certificates and documented skills; 

• invitations to present findings; 

• visible profiles on project websites; 

• opportunities for training, mentoring or further collaboration. 

Not every contribution meets the criteria for authorship, but every substantial contribution should be made visible in an appropriate form. Recognition is not only a symbolic reward. It affects career development, professional credibility and participants’ willingness to engage in future research. 

5. Whobenefitsfrom the results? 

Projects usually define scientific outcomes: datasets, publications, reports, methods or policy recommendations. Inclusive projects should also ask what participants and communities receive in return. 

Benefits may include new knowledge, research skills, professional networks, educational resources, community visibility or evidence that can support local action. Yet these benefits should not be assumed. Researchers need to discuss them with participants and assess whether they are actually realised. 

The European Citizen Science Association’s Ten Principles state that citizen science projects should produce genuine scientific outcomes, provide benefits to both professional and citizen participants, acknowledge participants and give them feedback about how their data and contributions are being used. 

Returning results is therefore a core part of participation. A journal article that participants cannot access or understand is rarely an adequate form of feedback. Results may also need to be communicated through workshops, brief summaries, visualisations, community meetings, educational materials or recommendations addressed to relevant institutions. 

Recent research on co-created citizen science further suggests that value can be generated throughout the participatory process, not only through final scientific outputs. Participants may develop confidence, skills, community relationships and a stronger sense of agency when they are involved in research that addresses issues relevant to them. 

The relevant question is not whether a project produced benefits in the abstract, but who received them, in what form and according to whose definition of value. 

From a participation count to a participation design 

The number of women participating in an Open Science project remains an important indicator. It can reveal patterns of representation and show whether recruitment strategies are reaching their intended audiences. But participation numbers alone cannot demonstrate that a project is inclusive. 

A project may meet its numerical target while participants have little influence, receive limited feedback and remain invisible in its outputs. Conversely, a smaller project may create meaningful opportunities for shared decision-making, skills development and recognition. 

For this reason, project evaluation should combine quantitative indicators with questions about the quality of participation. Before launching an activity, research teams can ask: 

1. Who contributed to defining the research problem? 

1. Which barriers to participation have been identified and addressed? 

1. Which decisions can participants influence? 

1. How will different contributions be recognised? 

1. How will results and benefits be returned to participants and communities? 

These questions do not provide a universal formula. They provide a way of making design choices explicit and open to evaluation. 

Open Science as institutional change 

Gender-inclusive Open Science cannot depend entirely on the commitment of individual project leaders. Institutions influence whose work is rewarded, which activities receive resources, how workloads are distributed and which contributions count in career assessment. 

Projects can test new participatory approaches, but lasting change requires these practices to be incorporated into institutional procedures, Gender Equality Plans, research assessment, training, ethics, data governance and community-engagement policies. 

FEMLEAD addresses this connection between project practice and institutional change. Its Open Science implementations provide opportunities to explore how inclusive participation can operate in concrete settings. The lessons generated through these activities can subsequently inform Open Science fairs, action plans, policy laboratories and recommendations for higher education institutions. 

The central principle is straightforward: participation should not be treated as the endpoint of inclusion. It is the starting point for examining voice, influence, recognition and benefit. 

Open Science becomes more inclusive when women and underrepresented communities are not only invited into existing research structures but are given meaningful opportunities to help shape how knowledge is produced, interpreted and used. 

References and further reading 

Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment: The Commitments. 

Eleta, Irene, Gemma Galdon Clavell, Valeria Righi and Mara Balestrini. 2019. “The Promise of Participation and Decision-Making Power in Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4(1): 8. 

European Citizen Science Association. Ten Principles of Citizen Science. 

European Commission. Gender Equality in Research and Innovation and ERA Policy Agenda 2025–2027. 

Robinson, Danielle, Jane Delany and Heather Sugden. 2024. “Beyond Science: Exploring the Value of Co-created Citizen Science for Diverse Community Groups.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 9(1): 13. 

UNESCO. 2021. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. 

Varga, Dorottya, Carolina Doran, Beatriz Ortega and Mabel Segú Odriozola. 2023. “How Can Inclusive Citizen Science Transform the Sustainable Development Agenda?” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 8(1): 29. 

The FEMLEAD project is co-funded by the European Union under the Erasmus+ programme. Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency.