OSINT: Improving equality to increase impact

A new study by CIR reveals that open source research is a field defined by innovation but also imbalance when it comes to gender equality. It presents concrete recommendations for how to strengthen gender sensitivity and inclusion as essential for relevant, accurate, and ethically grounded investigations.

The Arab Spring was a turning point – not just politically, but in how conflicts were documented. As protests swept the Middle East in the early 2010s, platforms like X (formerly Twitter) became vital tools for capturing real-time footage of state violence and civil resistance.

This flood of digital content did not just inform the world – it empowered a new wave of investigators. Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) emerged as a powerful method for analysing conflicts, allowing individuals to verify events, expose human rights abuses, and challenge official narratives – disrupting traditional hierarchies of expertise in the process.

Today, OSINT’s decentralised structure continues to enable researchers from diverse backgrounds to drive high-impact investigations. In doing so, it fosters a more democratised field than traditional political or academic research. However, many of OSINT’s leadership models, funding pathways, training systems, methods, and tools still reflect the entrenched hierarchies of traditional research sectors.

To assess OSINT’s current inclusivity through the lived experience of those working in the field, CIR conducted a qualitative study drawing on a comprehensive literature review, 20 key informant interviews, and a focus group discussion. CIR used purposeful sampling techniques to find the interviewees; directly reaching out to open-source researchers from the authors’ network and posting a call-out on several OSINT-specific LinkedIn group pages.

The outcome? 

A dynamic but unevenly inclusive space – positioned to empower women and global majority researchers, but in reality often privileging Western voices and lacking intersectional perspectives. A clear tension emerged between the field’s inclusive ideals and persistent power imbalances, influencing who conducts research, whose expertise is valued, and which issues gain visibility. 

However, momentum in the space is positive, with growing awareness of gender inequality and the value of intersectionality. CIR’s study offers recommendations for realising this potential, concluding that inclusive research design is not only an issue of equity but crucial for producing accurate, ethically sound investigations.

Biggest voices are ‘white and male’

While data on gender representation in open-source is limited, studies in related fields like defence and journalism found that inequalities in leadership and decision-making have impacted women’s participation, shaping who is hired, mentored and promoted and has access to high-profile investigations.  

Accordingly, several respondents in CIR’s study stated that the dominance and higher visibility of white men in open source leadership reinforces the exclusion of women, since the individuals setting standards for best practices, designing tools, and leading training sessions tend to be Western white men. One remarked: “with the kind of lead voices being white and male, it inherently has a tendency to skew that way when it comes to folks doing that research, […] getting interested in this area, and […] getting hired into positions of influence.”

Representation can be ‘tokenistic’

Participants acknowledged progress in improving representation. Some participants shared examples of inclusive team dynamics, with one outlining how they’d seen “many female colleagues” either collaborating with them or leading projects.

However, several described an uncomfortable dynamic where even when women are represented on research teams, they can feel like a ‘token’ hire – pressured to prove themselves and work harder to belong. 

Feelings of tokenism were particularly felt by researchers from global majority countries, who noted that in many cases, they do not have real influence over research design, authorship, or dissemination. One researcher in particular highlighted that appearing inclusive “on the surface” does not necessarily translate into researchers feeling “empowered enough to talk about their stories” and research within their communities.

Gender considerations siloed and seen as a female concern

Despite broad outreach, 99% of responses to the study’s open call came from women, with the authors facing difficulty in recruiting men to participate. 

This reflects the broader perception, highlighted in the literature and interviews,  that gender-focused research is often considered to be primarily for female audiences, and outside of the remit of male practitioners – due to fear that by participating they would be taking space from female colleagues. 

One participant explained that women may be more likely to work in gender-based and human rights investigations because men dominate cyber, military, and geospatial investigations, which require skills often acquired in male-dominated fields like computer science and tech.

OSINT’s gender imbalance in leadership positions affects not only who conducts research but what is researched. Participants observed that funding decisions are often still mostly made by men, whose tendency not to partake in gender research shapes outcomes. 

Consequently, several participants lamented that gendered or politically sensitive topics are often deprioritised in research, with organisations “self-censoring” to maintain funding relationships. 

Teams lacking diversity render some violence invisible

A lack of representation in the backgrounds and nationalities of teams can lead to limitations at the information-gathering stage.

For instance, a lack of cultural and linguistic competence can limit the ability to detect crimes like sexual and gender-based violence, which are often more hidden in conflict zones. As one participant noted: “you also have to learn about local language, coded language, things like that” to avoid “blind spots that are skewing findings”.

Biases can also determine which information is deemed most relevant to an investigation. This means particular crimes, regions and groups of people are more likely to be overlooked in research by teams lacking diversity. For example, open source research tends to prioritise visible acts of violence – such as armed conflict and public demonstrations – while neglecting less visible harms, including domestic and sexual violence, which disproportionately impact women.

Moreover, most participants had no formal training in gender-sensitive methodologies, cultural competence, or reflexivity (the critical examination of your potential assumptions and biases as a researcher and how these might influence your work). Many felt that analysts lacked the training to navigate the sociopolitical or gendered nuances of the regions they study, particularly in work involving gender-based violence (GBV), thus impacting research outcomes.

Intersectional exclusion

OSINT’s emphasis on information gathering using user-generated content (UGC) means that the most visible narratives often come from digitally connected young, urban, and male users. Meanwhile, the experiences of women and other underrepresented groups can be poorly captured as they may communicate in ways that are less recognised by mainstream OSINT tools. 

Countries with greater technological access often experience higher online engagement from women, which then impacts research outcomes because the diversity in experiences is more easily captured. This results in an incomplete picture of the security threats and violence patterns impacting women. 

Many participants remarked that recognising perspectives from marginalised groups, who may communicate in alternative ways, is key for expanding work and challenging assumptions. As one participant stated, “Many of the platforms that are the easiest to collect data from are dominated by male voices. Understanding this is critical to creating a holistic picture when conducting research.”

OSINT tools are often not neutral

Even when researchers make efforts to use intersectional approaches, OSINT can be hindered by gender biases embedded in the tools themselves.

Data collection tools mirror historical power structures that prioritise mainstream narratives, embedding societal biases and excluding critical gendered perspectives. For example, AI-driven tools, which are increasingly used in OSINT investigations, can reinforce existing power hierarchies and deprioritise non-English or non-male data sources.

Notably, all participants flagged that many open source research tools are designed by Western, male-dominated teams, hindering the ability of researchers to capture gendered experiences and contributing to the invisibility of certain types of violence.

Looking to the future

The interviews made clear that while OSINT is often seen as a democratised alternative to traditional intelligence and investigative work, it still reflects gendered, geographic, and institutional hierarchies, with disparities in access to tools, leadership, funding, and training, particularly for women and researchers from the global majority. 

While the risks of omitting a gender lens are significant, participants expressed optimism about the field’s potential to serve as a more responsive research space. Many reflected on a growing recognition that inclusive approaches are essential for robust investigative outcomes. 

Structural barriers – deep-rooted in systems of power, exclusion, and inequality – shape access and authority and require long-term reform. The report recommends tackling gendered and geographic exclusion in leadership and funding, expanding definitions of expertise to include lived experience and non-traditional career paths, moving beyond tokenistic inclusion, addressing algorithmic bias in research tools, and embedding intersectional approaches into research design.

To tackle ‘operational barriers’ in the short term, the report recommends developing gender-sensitive frameworks, standardising ethics and safety training, expanding mentorship support,  enhancing digital safety protocols, strengthening partnerships with affected communities, expanding training on cultural competence and coded language, and promoting reflexivity as a research standard.

Investing in inclusive structures should not just be a matter of ethics or surface-level representation – it directly strengthens the quality, accuracy, and relevance of open source investigations, moving the field closer to its ideal as a democratic space for equity-driven, high-impact research.

This project was funded by UK International Development. The views expressed are CIR’s own and do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.