Reimagining Inclusive Open Science for Equity, Justice, and Sustainability. A Discussion Paper for the Global Research Council (GRC) 2025 – 2026

Description

Abstract

This discussion paper calls for a fundamental rethinking of how open science is conceptualized, governed, and implemented by research funders globally. Drawing on the principles of epistemic justice, situated openness, and regenerative knowledge systems, the paper argues that open science needs to move beyond the rhetoric of accessibility, productivity, and technical efficiency. Open science should be reimagined as a set of deeply political and ethical practices, a relational, co-created system of knowing that centers care, reciprocity, and the rights of communities to self-determine the terms of their knowledge-sharing.

The paper proposes a shift away from extractive models of knowledge production—rooted in colonial legacies, market logics, and quantifiable outputs—and toward situated, context-responsive approaches that recognize the plurality of knowledge systems and the embeddedness of all research in social and ecological worlds. This means valuing Indigenous and local knowledges not as data points to be “integrated” but as coequal epistemologies with their own protocols, temporalities, and responsibilities. It also means foregrounding the lived realities of researchers in precarious settings, community partners navigating power imbalances, and those in regions historically excluded from the global knowledge economy.

Across four interlinked thematic areas—open science and climate-just transitions, open infrastructure for co-creation and collective governance, equitable policy alignment, and responsible AI—the paper outlines pathways for funders to support a more pluralistic, caring, and just open science ecosystem. These pathways include investments in inclusive infrastructure, transformations of research assessment criteria, sustained relational work, and the adoption of monitoring systems aligned with the UNESCO Recommendation’s core values of equity, diversity, and collective benefit.
Crucially, the paper cautions against the replication of dominant “open science” models that privilege technical efficiency and access over epistemic diversity, and scale over solidarity. A situated open science agenda does not seek universal metrics or prescriptive standards. Instead, it affirms the need for pluriversal pathways, guided by care-based, community-led, and contextually grounded commitments, to reimagine what counts as knowledge, whose voices are heard, and how we govern knowledge for collective flourishing.