Caring to know and make a difference

The third cycle of the Feminist Internet Research Network (FIRN) occurred when protests, wars, conflicts and genocides plagued the world. More than ever, it has become evident that justice is as much an illusion as our sense of freedom. The ongoing armed conflict and humanitarian crisis in Myanmar following the climate crisis and devastating earthquake are among the crises on our radar. Although the establishment of the network, similar to the other two cycles, was designed to facilitate technology research through intersectional feminist practices with ethics of care, knowledge building and activism, we find ourselves asking, “What does it mean to conduct research at this time of crisis?”, “How useful is our work in this historical period?”, “How does research contribute to our collective liberation and transformation?” These questions are not unique in the sense that “since when have we not been in crisis?” Perhaps what makes this different for the network is that most of our researchers are conducting research that is directly affecting them; and some while they are going through the painful crisis witnessing genocide, conflict and war, gross and persistent human right violations, criminalisation of sex work and LGBTQIA+ communities and intensification of anti-gender mobilisation, as well as operating under spectacularly failed international law, solidarity and transnational feminist movements. So yes, in a way, it feels even more critical this time.

FIRN’s lead, Tigist recalls her discussions with our partners at the inception meeting regarding research and the framing of research topics. One partner stated, "No matter how we frame the topic, people are still dying, bodies are buried under the rubble, people are starving to death, and we are witnessing all international and national systems crumbling beneath us.” Another partner remarked, “We are here because we are tired of being research subjects, with our experiences narrated by detached and unaffected individuals who use us for their professional growth." Yet another partner expressed, “It's time we document what has been done to us through narrative building and archive these cases properly." Although these comments originated from different local and regional contexts, they share a common value, ethical rooting, request, and expectation from the network: to actively shape the network, their space and stories, and to have the autonomy to articulate how they experience technology-facilitated violence in their own words. They desire their words to be respected as embodied experiences without being caught up in the complexities of elitist language codes. For many, the work is not “output oriented” but a process of retaliation and resistance. There is also an appeal for solidarity, active listening, and observation of processes as they unravel despair, resist writing within the structure, and push back against packaging narrative in a digestible way, instead of merely communicating violence in an unfiltered manner – why should the most marginalised also bear the responsibility of shaping narratives to appease oppressors?

This is precisely what happens as we work through this edition. We have attempted to offer a different perspective on who gets recognition as a knowledge producer and how research can be a political act that disrupts knowledge formation, serving as an entry point for networking, connecting and movement building.

A common value, ethical rooting, request, and expectation from the network: to actively shape the network, their space and stories, and to have the autonomy to articulate how they experience technology-facilitated violence in their own words. They desire their words to be respected as embodied experiences without being caught up in the complexities of elitist language codes. For many, the work is not “output oriented” but a process of retaliation and resistance.

Third phase of FIRN: Deeper application of intersectional feminist analysis

Partnering with 10 new research partners from a diversity of locations in Africa (Ethiopia, South Africa), Asia (India, Tajikistan), Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) (Brazil, Uruguay) and the Southwest Asia and North Africa (SWANA) (Egypt, Palestine), the third phase of FIRN was launched in early 2024, alongside a renewed sense of urgency to tackle technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) by governments, civil society organisations, activists, donors, researchers and advocates. Despite the growing interest in research to unravel the magnitude of violence experienced by women, the scope and discourses of TFGBV remain narrowly heteronormative, perceiving women as a monolithic group and as victims without any agency, which is symptomatic of a broader power asymmetry and structural inequalities in the politics of knowledge. Such a fixated gaze on the subject matter has the effect of producing knowledge that perpetuates the othering and essentialisation of an already marginalised group and poses a considerable obstacle to policy making that could bring lasting change for victims/survivors of TFGBV.

FIRN centres on a deeper application of intersectional feminist analysis. This approach emphasises bringing together the various historical contexts and current political realities that reinforce the lasting effects of coloniality in our daily experiences and interactions with technology-facilitated violence. The intersectional feminist lens, therefore, offers essential insights into how these dynamics function, enabling us to grasp the complexities of lived experiences in a world where technology both empowers and oppresses individuals in nuanced ways. The overarching research questions are:

1. How does TFGBV profoundly shape the experience of women and LGBTQIA+ people and how does it limit their access to human rights, expression, pleasure and play on the internet? How pervasive is this phenomenon that affects access to human rights for more than half the population in the world?
2. How does TFGBV take place in varied contexts across the world, and what forms does it take depending on regional and contextual differences, race, caste, ethnicity, class and diverse identities of women and LGBTQIA+ people?
3. What policy reform can and should be made by state actors in relation to TFGBV and what are the potential/actual impacts of proposed technological solutions towards ending TFGBV?
4. What are the problems and issues (legal, cultural, social, technological, etc.) that arise at the level of implementation of legal and policy reforms that attempt to address TFGBV (while making a complaint, investigation by police, judiciary etc.)? and last but not least,
5. What are the emerging areas of concern such as the growing power of multinational tech giants and companies’ vis-à-vis international entities, national governments and institutions; design and exclusions embedded in technological infrastructure; the changing nature of social media platforms; extended reality (augmented, virtual), and so on.

These research questions were reinterpreted, improved, changed and shaped to fit into the regional and national context that our partners hoped to explore. In this edition, we reflect on our experience conducting feminist research through an intersectional lens and what it was like to do fieldwork. We address questions about intersectional power relations, participants' autonomy over their own narratives, and their role as co-knowledge producers, along with the security of research data, ethical considerations, and our accountability to the community.

[FIRN's intersectional feminist] approach emphasises bringing together the various historical contexts and current political realities that reinforce the lasting effects of coloniality in our daily experiences and interactions with technology-facilitated violence. 

Holding the line open: Building and sustaining a network of feminist tech researchers 

The FIRN team has grown to a team of three today – each bringing their uniqueness, dreams and quirks to the mix. Along with us are the APC Women’s Rights Programme (WRP) managers, the APC communications team, a team of peer advisors, our research partners from different parts of the world, and our funders[1] who have grown and shaped FIRN to what it is today. In all our diversity, we believe that one way to build a movement is through evidence-based narrative building and archiving knowledge that can contribute to activism and policy advocacy. In this process, employing feminist research methodologies helps us understand that our knowledge about a specific topic is deeply connected to how much we care about the subjects we are exploring and the communities we work with rather than for. To this end, we have been advocating for feminist practices on knowledge building to address the power dynamics and social inequalities shaping individual and collective experiences. Starting from the process of selecting research applications, the FIRN team has used a care-based lens with the conviction that our ways of knowing are directly linked to the ethical care we implement in our inquiry process.

This continuous evolution of care and ethics is fundamentally rooted in establishing a critical voice that resonates within various domains of the Global South. However, this effort faces significant challenges, particularly questioning the core principles of feminist ethics of care in research and knowledge production. We have been advocating that by embracing the inherently social nature of knowing;[2] researchers should be encouraged to integrate their experiences and positionality into the research context and methodology. This approach acknowledges that personal and political experience and the socio-political context significantly influence data collection, interpretation and knowledge construction. This shift towards a more subjective understanding is critical in how care and ethics are articulated, shaped and enacted in practical scenarios, enriching our comprehension of the complexities surrounding knowledge production and epistemic inquiries.[3] Ultimately, “How researchers care about research is evident in the stories they tell about their work, the emotional connection that comes through when researchers explain how the area became of interest to them, and what transformations were achieved (or not) through research projects.”[4] 

The FIRN team sought to determine how to implement the network's sustainability and feminist research engagement effectively. All our current and previous partners are well-invested in the technology research sector. They are feminist activists and advocates in their regional geopolitical and translational contexts. As such, network partners are a collective of experts, not only in the professional sense of the word “expert” but also in the closeness and embodied experience of the topic, in the specific research subjects they care to explore. Yet, we are aware that there is a difference in how the world progresses concerning technological advancement, law and policy regulation, access to human rights, etc. This inequality is highly pronounced within the Global South, as a category. As we are located in the Global South, often racialised bodies, we understand the risks associated with rooted historical differences that render individuals and collectives unrecognisable.[5] Therefore, our ethics of care are demonstrated in our deliberate attempt to weave the different experiences and feminist perspectives of our partners while at the same time criticising unchecked and invisible power dynamics that emanate from universalising attempts, globalising all experiences in a measure of what is recognised.

Given how power is often practised and conceived, especially in the tech world, highlighting the divide between the haves and the have-nots, to assert and uphold hierarchical control over those who have less negotiating power, feminist researchers are determined not to mimic power hierarchies or to ignore the proximity they have to power dismissively. It is somewhat paradoxical that the work we do is about dismantling power hierarchy, while simultaneously recognising that we are not at all powerless and that we do possess power through the various social categories and interactions in which we participate. These agencies we hold have an implication as to how we relate with our research participants, collect data, interpret and produce knowledge. In this edition, partners have reflected on the messiness of research while navigating multiple forms of power relations with participants, institutions, cultural practices, patriarchal values, countries, and so on. These dynamics must be negotiated during the research process, sometimes on the spot. In all this, what remains to be held closer is the sense of responsibility to facilitate space for participants to share their stories and do justice for the analysis and writing-up of the stories shared by participants.

Our ethics of care are demonstrated in our deliberate attempt to weave the different experiences and feminist perspectives of our partners while at the same time criticising unchecked and invisible power dynamics that emanate from universalising attempts, globalising all experiences in a measure of what is recognised.

Here, we found Nyx’s argument useful to think about: they argue that power imbalances are inherent and what matters is “how we think about the power we possess and that we come from a space of care when enacting this power.”[6] When care is embedded in the way power is practised and conceptualised, it has the “capacity to empower or transform oneself and others.”[7] In other words, functional power that aims to facilitate access to opportunities and resources, and to support the agenda of the collective, or is applied in service of others, has the ability to contribute to the outcome desired. Here, it is important to recognise how our convictions, assumptions and what we think we know are rooted in particular experiences, belongings, oppression and privileges that are often embodied. Therefore, paying attention to how power shows up, manifests and shifts are integral to our own reflexive work as feminists, researchers and space holders for FIRN. Caring for the network also means caring about the multiple perspectives and interpretations of human experience in the tech world – which is always connected to such contextual experiences, identities and hierarchical structure. 

The FIRN team has been attentive and reflecting on the power hierarchy within the research network and the role of APC as the organisation raising the funds to sustain FIRN from funding organisations, holding the network together and in contact with the research partners but not directly conducting research. We are here both an entity that is reported to and reporting on activities and processes, and hence somewhere on a high-tension wire between the power that we do hold and the power that we lack.[8] However, our priorities have been a partner-centred structure, promoting the voices, work and needs of our partners. Being positioned in the middle means the network is expected to interface between researchers in the Global South and donor organisations, a responsibility and accountability that demands careful attention to geopolitical contexts. Furthermore, APC, as an international network of civil society organisations, plays the role of a mediation structure between donors and founders from the North and the organisations, collectives and activists situated in different local realities of the Global South.[9] As such, compared to other similar organisations, FIRN is in a better position to access funding, resources and opportunities, but in the wider feminist network, resource allocations are still uneven. The limitation of funding means we are only able to support 10 research projects, thereby excluding many other equally important perspectives and experiences. The set-up of a peer advisory committee, consisting of a mix of resource persons from different disciplines, was an intentional step to decentralise decision making, ensure cohesiveness, seek balance in research topics, and promote collective responsibility and oversight.

As we recognise the power that we hold through being associated with APC, it is equally important to locate the FIRN team outside of APC, in our own personal gendered and racialised bodies, and the various hierarchical markers that come with it. Our power is relational in this complex web of interconnectedness, social identities and resources. The roles in APC have given us some form of power in shaping and directing the research network; and yet in our interactions with our partners, we appear as the feminists and students in us, earnestly learning from the experiences and knowledge of our partners and finding resonance and a piece of ourselves through their research and reflections.

Approaching research with care: Diligence, accountability and ethical responsibility

In our introduction, we highlight that care should not be limited to addressing ethical dilemmas in research that reinforces a power imbalance between researchers and participants. Instead, it should inform the epistemological interest, from shaping the research agenda to reporting findings that, even imperfectly, capture the narratives, discourses and insights acquired during the process.[10] Within this context, care should foster a holistic approach that sustains curiosity throughout the research journey.

Through the collaboration with all 10 research partners, we have learned to appreciate how invested each partner is in their research topics and how much they care for the communities they work with. This is seen in the reflection pieces all our partners have contributed to this edition. Each partner appears to prioritise a particular aspect of their journey, and that uniqueness is appreciated as it reminds us of the value of our differences.

The roles in APC have given us some form of power in shaping and directing the research network; and yet in our interactions with our partners, we appear as the feminists and students in us, earnestly learning from the experiences and knowledge of our partners and finding resonance and a piece of ourselves through their research and reflections.

Sharin, Eesha and Joshua from iHear, Sangath Bhopal (India) reflected on the sense of accountability and the power of being insiders to a community or a collective. Identified as peers or people with similar lived experiences to their participants, they disclosed their own experiences of participating in activism, experiencing first-hand TFGBV themselves, and recognising the difficulties of accessing policies and rights for survivors of such attacks. In their writing, they explain that they were intimately aware of the power they hold right from their recruitment strategy, the language and terminology used and the way their positionality shaped the ownership and accessibility of research, to how their subjectivity influenced the questions they pursued during interviews and the subsequent data interpretation process. In their collective attempt to navigate and negotiate power and care, they have included approaches like seeking guidance from community advisors, compensating participants for interviews and learning to be present and authentic in their interactions with participants. While the process was initially disorienting for them, ultimately, it was transformative as they deepened the participatory nature of their research. By dismantling rigid expectations of objectivity and dualism, they tried to practice vulnerability and openness, where participants were also invited to guide the direction of the interviews.

As we read through the reflection piece by MariaLab (Brazil), we gain a deeper appreciation for alternative methods as critical tools to redistribute power to participants, thereby disrupting the power embedded in traditional knowledge-making processes. As part of their research methodology, Carl and Danny from MariaLab brought an actual bag to a meeting and invited each participant to place an item inside that they considered a significant contribution or take-away from the research process. They reflect how much this activity was useful and laid the foundation for an open and collaborative process of knowledge creation. The team firmly believes that knowledge is generated through practical action and everyday work and that academia is not the only place for constructing knowledge. The work of creating and holding a community, as reflected by them, is inherently collective, “built through numerous safe spaces and shaped in many ways,” they write. Such recognition has guided their mindfulness about power hierarchies that can exist even in spaces that are considered to be safe. Additionally, in their practice of a free and open production process, they have seen how ideas circulate, inspire, and are reimagined and reused and continue to flow, feeding back into and enriching the ongoing cycle of creation. This has prompted them to reflect on the concept of authorship given the participatory nature of feminist research.

The reflection from our Uruguay partners, Karina and Analía, explored the shift from being an object of study to telling stories of their own community and leading the process of knowledge production. The project challenged the conception of “who” are legitimate knowledge makers, producing key knowledge grounded in socially constructed negotiation of power in real life. In reading their reflection, we are reminded of this statement by Fricker: “To be wronged in one’s capacity as a knower is to be wronged in a capacity essential to human value.”[11] As a group of researchers who identified as sex workers, cis, trans, local and migrant, living in Uruguayan territory, they are now telling the stories of sex workers from a first-person perspective by leading a process of knowledge production, and refusing to accept knowledge and publications that do not consider their standpoints and are led by sex work abolitionist researchers. In addition, we are seeing that the research process has also led to a translation of knowledge, not just in the literal sense, but an exchange of knowledge and meaning across different settings and power structures, including legal instruments available to the communities to protect their image rights, especially within the context of image-based violence, and the gaps in implementation.

In designing and conducting their research, Bárbara and Ester from Instituto Minas Programam (Brazil) were aware that they are inherently connected to the research and their backgrounds and lived experiences are inevitable influences in the process. Instead of shying away from the connection, they recognise their standpoint, which informs both their research questions and their interpretation of the findings, making reflexivity a crucial part of their process. Even as they research Black Brazilian women, they insist on not making homogenising claims about Black Brazilian women’s experiences with online misogynoir and TFGBV. The consciousness of this inherent subjectivity has led them to be cognisant of the fact that their experiences with TFGBV can and do share similarities without being identical. Reading the snippet of conversations between participants and researchers during a workshop has led us to reflect on the ethics of care as not just a set of codes to adhere to, but very much part of the “why” we do research. In Bárbara and Ester’s reflection, they were committed to not only honour the experiences and voices of Black Brazilian women; rather, the research also encapsulates their ambition to expand the possibilities for Black women in Brazil to engage with digital technologies on their own terms. As outsiders reading the experience of Black Brazilian women from the perspective of Black Brazilian women researchers, it helped us to see and understand that writing opens a different perspective on Brazilian politics, and this again points to the power of research in producing new knowledge when it is conducted with care by those who have lived through different forms of marginalisation.

In their collective attempt to navigate and negotiate power and care, they have included approaches like seeking guidance from community advisors, compensating participants for interviews and learning to be present and authentic in their interactions with participants.

Another similar project that focuses on Black experience is the Hub for Decolonial Feminist Psychologies in Africa, Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town (South Africa). Recognising how Black women and gender non-conforming people are left out of knowledge production and forced to accept knowledge that does not do justice to their realities and causes further harm to them, the research uses a decolonial feminism approach to reassign power to the community. Working as a collective group of researchers, their reflection talks about how decolonial feminism works to counter the production of knowledge about marginalised groups through the colonial gaze, by re-centring the power to research participants to tell their stories from their standpoint. Their intention to retain nuance, and to preserve diversity rather than collapsing individual stories into homogenising themes, has influenced the entire process of their research, from design to data collection to writing. Interestingly, the Hub also invests time and resources to provide care for the researchers themselves alongside the protection of participants. We hope that their practices of care will inspire all of us to think and work around care for researchers, especially those who are continuously investigating violence, particularly gender-based violence. 

Gulbakhor reflected on the challenges in navigating research on TFGBV in Tajikistan, where domestic violence and marital rape are not criminalised,[12] reinforced by a culture of silence, where spaces for women to be heard are almost non-existent. In Gulbakhor’s words, “To be heard, we have to find our voice, but someone needs to be there to listen. When research involves discussion of violence and hardship, the research team needs to be ready to listen.” In this sense, the research process also offers a temporary safe space for women to reclaim their voice and to seek validation. Reading the reflection, we also sense a pressing urgency to include the experience and perspective of Tajikistan to the global discourse around TFGBV. This research is a constant reminder of how research and documentation, especially in a context where there is very little known about, is a form of feminist activism and movement building. To provide researchers, activists and policy advocates with data and evidence that they can start working from is what is needed in Tajikistan. We also recognise the intersectional feminist analysis that Gulbakhor attempted by painting a multilayered picture of the social, cultural and patriarchal factors that contribute to women’s marginalisation. The nuances in which women in Tajikistan experienced technology and violence are important entry points towards building context-responsive policy and to demand accountability from tech companies, governments and the international community.

Other than paying attention to power dynamics, Aya from Egypt has shared how attuning to participants and researchers’ feelings and needs throughout the process is not a form of radical care, but also a method of rigour. Aya reflected on how thoughtful reflection and documentation of both emotional nuances and intellectual insights meaningfully informed the research process and outcome. Our emotions are a form of expression that tells us what matters to us, and what a particular experience means to us. Through Aya’s words, we felt her gentleness and kindness towards the participants, and an intimate connection that she shared with her research, all of which offered a deeper meaning to the research, beyond mere knowledge production. In Aya’s words, “If qualitative research brings together individuals who share a common purpose − a desire and willingness to take action − could it become a fertile ground, whether digital or on-the-ground, for building networks of care, a base, a foundation of an organising project?”

In the face of consistent violence and genocide, Ghiwa and Sabiha from Kohl[13] open the conversation on doing research while grieving for the destruction of lives being wiped out generation after generation by settler colonialists. While the design of the research project was intended as a collective thinking and writing process, despite multiple attempts, the researchers, writers and collaborators in the project found it impossible to transpose the collective thinking and sharing of stories and experiences into research writing that requires a particular structure and modality. The inability and refusal to write in a particular way and coming to a standstill phase in the research, as reflected by Kohl, show a pushback against the idea of “producing knowledge” as if bearing witness and living under continuous genocide is a separated thing. Kohl’s moment of silence in writing was the only thing that can facilitate the continuation of having a collective circle to share and talk about different forms of violence and what it means for the humanity of the world. As Ghiwa and Sabiha write, it was through this process that they realised that in order to break free they had to disobey and resist the “usual” feminist reflective writing and write what is urgent and most important for the collective movement. In reclaiming their grief and “failure” to write, they resist writing within the structure and centre death – of beloveds, of a nation, of a country, of history, of humanity, of solidarity, and of ideologies as they once were – from a queer theoretical perspective unapologetically. We find ourselves resonating and inspired by their radical intervention, and at the same time, it makes us reflect on the purpose of research in times of crisis: if it is not to write about what matters to us, then what?

The research process also offers a temporary safe space for women to reclaim their voice and to seek validation. 

After years of archiving the experiences of LGBTQIA+ communities in Ethiopia, Martha and S. A. set out to explore the multiple ways in which violence is perpetrated against LGBTQIA+ people in the country. Their research shows the extent to which hetero-patriarchal nationalism uses homophobia as a unifying thread and propaganda. Martha and S. A. reflected that while conducting the research, they quickly realised the differences in terms of perspective, approaches and emotional response between the researchers themselves, even though they both identified as feminists with similar backgrounds. This reflection process helped the researchers to create a system of support to each other and teaches us that ethics of care is not one directional – from researchers to participants – but is multifaceted. Particularly, as Kharnita Mohamed argues, researching violence can be debilitating and traumatic, and unfortunately this continues to be overlooked.[14] In processing the data, one emphasises producing rich and contextual data, while the other is always mindful of the narratives. Such collaborative and shared values and ethics to prioritise participants’ wellbeing over the pursuit of data richness is necessary for feminist researchers today. As we read through Martha and S. A.’s reflection, we have seen how being open and honest about differences enriches the research process. For instance, they reflect on how “gender pronouns” were not an urgent matter for research participants, as much as the everyday crisis and constant proximity to violence, and the risk of being outed. Such experience of power dynamics and quick adjustment to what is necessary and important demands an intentional investment to the collective movement building. Building on their expertise and collaboratively addressing the gaps that came along, and care for themselves and their research participants, they have produced a feminist knowledge that is extremely necessary for the LGBTQIA+ movement in the context of Ethiopia.

Last but not least, Aretha from the Independent Institution of Education (South Africa) has offered honest reflection on the multiple challenges that her research team faced throughout the data collection process, in which they received low engagement for their survey questionnaire from their intended participants and a high number of participants dropped out before completing the survey. Despite that, they were able to address this by including students as campus fieldworkers to assist with the data collection process and to include other social media platforms more commonly used by students in their survey. Had Aretha and her team not made these changes to their research design, they would have excluded these key nuances on where and how young people experience online dating in South Africa. Researchers are required to make decisions at every stage of the research process, and these decisions are always situated and influenced by our own subjectivity. In acknowledging that our decisions are limited and rooted in the particular assumptions of our participants and research topics, we open the doors for other ways of doing and knowing. The destabilisation of our assumptions and convictions can be discomforting and painful at times, but ultimately transformative as it grounds our bodies to the lived realities of research participants.

...in order to break free they had to disobey and resist the “usual” feminist reflective writing and write what is urgent and most important for the collective movement. In reclaiming their grief and “failure” to write, they resist writing within the structure and centre death – of beloveds, of a nation, of a country, of history, of humanity, of solidarity, and of ideologies as they once were – from a queer theoretical perspective unapologetically.

Concluding thoughts

As we navigate the complex dynamics between the pressure to adhere to project timelines and the need to remain attuned to the realities and experiences of our partners on the ground, it has become increasingly evident that unravelling the colonial logics entrenched in knowledge production necessitates creating a supportive environment where we can truly listen to one another. This means allowing space for all of us to feel the pain and emotional weight of our collective experiences, to process the often-overwhelming thoughts and feelings that accompany what we witness in the field.

Furthermore, we must embrace alternative, non-linear methods of expression and writing that reflect the multifaceted nature of our work.[15] This journey toward building a network of feminist researchers is not just about creating a repository of knowledge; it is about producing knowledge that is deeply rooted in specific contexts and experiences. This kind of context-specific knowledge is essential, as it allows us to understand the nuances of each situation we encounter and to respond with empathy and insight. It invites diverse perspectives and acknowledges that every story matters, enriching our collective understanding and fostering a more inclusive framework for engaging with our partners.

We genuinely hope this edition offers a new viewpoint for our readers and engages the feminist tech community in impactful ways. Our goal is to motivate individuals to continue establishing a strong feminist research foundation in the tech sector. We believe that by encouraging collaboration and sharing diverse perspectives, data and insights, we can cultivate a more equitable and inclusive technological landscape. Together, we can redefine and reshape narratives and enhance the influence of feminist research within the tech industry.

Happy feminist reading from the FIRN team and research partners.

--

We are grateful to Srinidhi Raghavan for her review of this editorial piece.