Asian Journal of Distance Education Volume 15, Issue 1, 2020

Access as Pedagogy: A Case for Embracing Feminist Pedagogy

in Open and Distance Learning

Suzan Koseoglu

Abstract: While the mainstream discourse around Open and Distance Learning (ODL) centers on
standardization, scalability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, I return to a much more contextual and
humane understanding of teaching and learning in ODL through feminist pedagogy. I begin my inquiry
by discussing women students’ experiences through the notion of access as pedagogy, which
challenges disembodied views of online learners and learning, and a view of access to resources as an
opportunity for equity. My primary focus in this discussion is gender issues; however, I view feminist
pedagogy as an ethical position as well as a pedagogical position that calls attentive ways of looking
into structuring educational services, methods, policies, and legislations that create an inclusive learning
space not just for women, but for all students who are disadvantaged in their education. Within this
context, student participation can be framed as a means for transformation, contributing to one’s well-
being, agency and sense of power. I highlight the need for an intersectional gender analysis in ODL, as
well as openness and transparency in pedagogical processes in order to tackle human and non-human
bias, misrecognition, misrepresentation and unequal participation. Education with an explicit goal for
transformation leads to the use of technology for reflective, imaginative, and critical ends.

Keywords: empowerment, gender, open and distance learning, openness, feminist pedagogy

Introduction

The recent Covid-19 crisis has transformed the delivery of many Higher Education institutions from
solely on-campus to distance education virtually overnight. The pandemic taught us new vocabulary and
new ways of doing things within weeks, with social distancing and the sudden ‘pivot’ to online teaching
having the most impact on millions of students and staff around the world. It is essential that at the time
of such a crisis, the ethical and humane dimensions of online education are our highest priority; that “it
is not distant from people,” and their living situations (FemdEdTech, 2020). The call for a more ethical,
more just, more humane and caring education is, of course, not new. Feminist scholars time and again
called for connectedness (see, for example, Kirkup & von Prümmer, 1990) and the need to “pay attention
to the contexts of women’s learning” in distance education, asking critical questions such as “when and
where are they doing their studies? How do their daily routines, family responsibilities, and socio-
economic status position them as distance learners?” (Patterson, 2009). Yet, addressing such critical
questions can be a secondary concern in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) compared to students’
access to educational content, which is partly fuelled by political and economic desires “to increase the
provision of learning,” and “cut the cost of education while increasing participation levels” (Dhanarajan,
2001, p. 62). Not surprisingly, concerns have been raised as to the promise of ODL as a democratizing
force without effective support and good online pedagogy (Czerniewicz, 2018a; Weller, 2018).
Furthermore, open resources and practices that do not consider issues with unequal participation, and
the misrecognition and misrepresentation of historically disadvantaged groups have increasingly been
criticized (Bali, Cronin, & Jhangiani, 2020; Lambert, 2018).

277
Published by EdTechReview (ETR), New Delhi, India
ISSN 1347-9008 http://www.asianjde.org
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

From a feminist perspective, the lens of access as pedagogy (Ahmed, 2017) is useful to explore what
distance education offers, how and to whom, and to identify entry points for feminist interventions in
ODL. The focal point of my analysis is women [Endnote 1] students, but I draw implications for all
students who may struggle in the system of Higher Education, especially those who are in “isolated,
marginalised, challenged and minority groups” (Dhanarajan, 2001, p. 62). I position feminist teaching as
a form of support for students, where pedagogical resources and tools are aimed for transformative
ends. Such support is needed for good mental health, academic progression and retention, but more
so, it is crucial for working toward a broader ideal of existential equality: equalities in self-development,
autonomy, freedom, dignity, and respect (Therborn, 2013). It is an essential element toward the path to
freedom of action, freedom of being and becoming.

This opinion paper is not on teaching during Covid-19 and the unique challenges that define the current
crisis in education; however, I do hope that the discussion will encourage readers to deeply reflect on
how women students experience distance education. My inquiry begins with a university project in
Turkey, as I explain next.

Background

In 2018, Anadolu University—a giga university in Turkey with almost 3 million students (Bozkurt, 2019)—
conducted a research project to explore the experiences of its distance learning students. The project
began with a simple survey question posed to thousands of distance learning students enrolled in the
university’s Open Education Faculty programs: What is your story leading to Open and Distance
Learning? More than 2700 students from across Turkey and beyond responded to the question with
their stories, some of which were curated in an open access book to inspire prospective students (see
Bozkurt & Büyük, 2018). Despite the fact that the selected stories in the book were inspirational accounts
of student experience, many narratives reflected deep structural issues in society (Bozkurt, Koseoglu,
& Keefer, 2019). Women’s stories, in particular, revealed how socio-economic conditions were barriers
for educational attainment. Many women had financial struggles, experienced oppression in their
communities and families, and were burdened with childcare, housekeeping and other domestic duties
throughout their educational journeys. These students clearly needed guidance prior to and during their
studies; they needed social, academic and financial support to begin and successfully continue their
education, which was evidenced in their self-narratives.

In a subsequent study on gender inequality in ODL, we observed that gender inequality is a shared
problem on a global scale with serious consequences on women’s education (Koseoglu et al., 2020).
This partial observation is confirmed by a recent UNESCO report which shows that there is not a single
country in the world which achieved gender equality (Conceição et al., 2020). There are many reasons
for inequality, which are complex and often related. In the ODL literature, patriarchy and androcentrism,
the exploitation of land and people (modern colonialism), and poverty (as a result of unequal distribution
of resources and opportunities) are noted as some major mechanisms that both cause and perpetuate
gender inequality in education, as well as in the broader society (Koseoglu et al., 2020). One example
of gender inequality would be the gendered division of domestic labor, which is a reality in many parts
of the world, both in the Global South and Global North. Women may be socialized or even indoctrinated
into childcare and housekeeping duties by a number of oppressive structures, such as social norms or
traditions, employment regulations, policy and law. As a result, they may have little opportunities to
access and benefit from educational resources (human and non-human), services and networks. Their
educational gains may not be rewarding or freeing.

Especially in the so-called ‘developing countries,’ access to ODL is often posited as a strategic response
to such barriers to education (Koseoglu et al., 2020), an opportunity to bring education to “where women
live and work [which] enables them more easily to meet their work and family obligations as they study”
(Cragg, Andrusyszyn, & Fraser, 2005, p. 22). However, as many critical scholars have noted time and
again (e.g., Czerniewiczc, 2018b; Demiray, 2014; Faith, 1988; von Prümmer, 2015), access to education

278
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

does not guarantee critical outcomes such as academic success, career progression, or economic
freedom for women. It does not necessarily lead to social equity. Women may be significantly
disadvantaged in their education by many structural factors such as ableism, racism, ethnic
discrimination, poverty, or sexism. As Ahmed (2017) says, “[a]ccess can be the formal requirements
you might need to meet to enter a world” (p. 109-110), but this does not translate to accessibility, which
I use in a broad sense: the kind of education that gives learners the full capability to reach knowledge
and skills, to understand what they are learning, why and how, and imagine other possibilities. Ahmed
(2017) notes:

“Access is pedagogy. Adjustments have to be made to spaces and building because they
assume certain bodies; streets might have to be adjusted to support the passing through
of those in wheelchairs; podium might have to be adjusted to support those who are not
the right height; a timetable might have to be adjusted to support those with childcare
responsibilities, and so on” (p. 109).

In the context of ODL, there are many adjustments that have to be made to address barriers to women’s
education. Some examples for barriers would be mandatory academic meetings and tutorials scheduled
with little or no consideration of child care and domestic responsibilities or time or travel constraints
(Jung 2012; von Prümmer, 2015). Other examples would be how the ODL curricula are delivered in a
top-down manner with no room for women to bring their everyday experiences to their learning (Chung,
2016) or how the curricula assume certain digital literacies and capabilities for participation (Atan et al,
2002). All of these examples reveal assumptions made in the ODL provision in terms of human and non-
human resources, family and work responsibilities, students’ identities, and their gender. Indeed, von
Prümmer (1994) notes how ODL is often designed for the imaginary self-directed and independent
learner, who is often a male. Much later, Houlden and Veletsianos (2019) note “flexibility [in online
education] is neither universal nor neutral,” yet the mainstream discourse on online education assumes
the presence of “autonomous learners that are self‐reliant and individualistic” (p. 1006). Similarly, but
without an explicit reference to gender, Knox (2019) argues how in open education learners are
imagined as “straightforwardly utilising networks for personal enhancement” (p. 363).

But the reality for students, in the context of my discussion, for women students, can be quite different.
Houlden and Veletsianos (2019) in their careful analysis of flexibility and gender note how women often
have to “[work] through shared space and time” (p. 1013) to be able to pursue their education from a
distance. Indeed, research shows that women students often experience “physical and emotional
pushes and pulls when balancing demands on their time and energy” when taking distance education
courses (Cragg, Andrusyszyn, & Fraser, 2005, p. 35). Kramarae (2001) in a seminal research report
published by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, illustrates this
tension using the metaphor of Third Shift:

[Women] serve a first shift at work outside the home and a second shift as primary
caretakers of family members. The only way they can accomplish a third shift—their
education—is to fit it in when and where they can. ... While DL allows women to squeeze
in their studies around the seemingly immovable barriers of family and work life, this evades
any general social discussion of how time and responsibilities, both in the workforce and
the home, might be reconfigured to make fulfillment of educational goals a more humane
and less taxing process. Instead, women make individual compromises and choices—as
family members, workers, and students—to fit all of these activities into short days. While
an insomniac lauds late-night studying as ‘“the beauty of online education,’” other women
accustomed to more regular hours report that the third shift of education cuts into their
already-scarce hours of leisure or sleep time (2001, p. 16-19).

Low-income students, students with caring responsibilities, minorities; in other words, students from any
socially disadvantaged group, including women, are particularly vulnerable in online learning, just as

279
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

they would be in traditional learning. These are the students who need the most support and
encouragement to fully benefit from formal education; who need to see themselves recognized and
accurately represented in course content, activities and resources, who need good role models and
effective mentoring in their education. For example, while black students in the US face racial bias in
textbooks (Louie & Wilkes, 2018), Syrian refugees in Turkey face language and cultural barriers in their
education (Taskin & Erdemli, 2018). All of these examples, including Kramarae’s (2001) observation of
the Third Shift, show that access to resources does not always lead to equal opportunity. How does a
student create a productive study space after a busy day with work and/or childcare responsibilities? In
what ways, and through which technologies, does she pursue her education? What makes her feel
connected and motivated? Is she disadvantaged in her education because of her background, the way
she looks, the way she uses her body, her political views? Does she know her capabilities; is she aware
of both educational and social possibilities? What brought her to ODL? What is her story?

Addressing such critical questions calls for attentiveness to how students experience online learning
and educational outcomes in the context of students’ lives. It calls for a two-way relationship between
the learner and educational provider to avoid assumptions and provide intentional support. Burge (1988)
notes:

“In order to ascertain the sorts of education and support appropriate to women's needs it
is necessary to understand and know more about their experiences. We need to know
about their education and learning, self-image, personal changes and growth and
relationships of importance to them. We also need to know their perceived catalysts for
change and impediments to growth (Belenky et al 1986: 12). There needs to be a consistent
approach so that it is not simply left to chance whether or not support is available” (p.vii).

Feminist pedagogy encourages the formation of such mutual relationships for personal development
and social change. I would like to make it clear here that with feminist pedagogy, I refer to a broad
orientation to teaching rather than the application of specific methods, such as group learning or role
sharing, as depending on the subject matter and immediate context these methods may nor may not
take place. I see feminist pedagogy as an ethical position as well as a pedagogical position that calls
attentive ways of looking into and structuring educational services, teaching, policies, and legislations
to create an inclusive and empowering learning space not just for women, but for all students who are
disadvantaged in their education. The particular focus on gender is important, but feminist pedagogy is
more meaningful and has more impact when multiple forms and manifestations of inequality are
considered in relation to one another in learning and teaching. Feminist interventions can take place to
encourage students to think deeply about inequality throughout a program or a course (e.g., in Women’s
and Gender Studies programs) or at certain points in their education. For example, an illustration in a
textbook can lead to a discussion, challenging “stereotypes about who does and who doesn’t do different
subjects, like science and math” (Campbell & Storo, 1996, p. 287). I elaborate on feminist pedagogy
next with implications for ODL practice.

Feminist Pedagogy and Implications for ODL

Allen, Walker, and Webb (2002) note six core principles of teaching central to the feminist orientation to
education: reformation of the relationship between professor and student, empowerment, building
community, privileging [student] voice, respecting the diversity of personal experience, and challenging
traditional pedagogical notions. I will critically discuss these principles with a particular emphasis on
empowerment to illustrate the ethos of feminist education and highlight implications for ODL.

Empowerment, sometimes appearing in the literature as agency or developing a sense of power, is a

central concept in feminist pedagogy. Stromquist (2015) defines empowerment as “a set of knowledge,
skills, and conditions that women must possess in order to understand their world and act upon it” (p.
308). Furthermore, according to Stromquist, “[e]mpowerment is based upon individual self-discovery,

280
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

self-assertiveness, and critical learning about one’s world, as well as upon collective organization”
(2015, p. 308). On the other hand, Drydyk (2013) argues that empowerment and agency cannot be used
interchangeably: “agency ... refers either to a given person’s degree of involvement in a course of action
or to the scope of actions that a person could be involved in bringing about ... while ‘empowerment’
refers to a process of change” (p. 251) that contributes to well-being. The concept of empowerment
translates into feminist education in two ways. First, as Walker (2008), drawing from the human
capabilities approach by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, argued, “[l]earning and learning
achievements in higher education ought ... to contribute to well-being and quality of life in some way”
(p. 479). Furthermore, there is a communal dimension to empowerment: “[t]he quality of what graduates
learn and what they take to be valuable in and through learning ought to contribute substantially to
improved lives during and after the period of higher education study, their own and that of others (Walker,
2008, p. 477). Perhaps because of the strong emphasis on individual and collective well-being and
transformative change, some common principles of feminist pedagogy significantly overlap with the
student capabilities identified by Walker (2007; 2008), in particular: being able to form social relations,
being able to practice and develop critical thinking, being able to “understand the lives and worlds of
others,” “being able to respond to human need and suffering,” “have respect for oneself and for other”
(2008, p. 483-484), and “to have one’s opinions valued and to be heard” (Loots & Walker, 2015). All of
these capabilities, borrowing from the Open University UK’s unique mission statement, require an
openness to people, ideas, and different ways of doing things. This takes me to my second point, that
there needs to be “supportive institutional environments and cultures [and] appropriate curricula and
learning and teaching strategies” (Czerniewicz, 2015) to create a space for positive change. Similarly,
Lambert (2019) and Jung (2012) note support as a crucial dimension for widening participation,
academic success and quality in ODL. This means access to ODL, as a mode of educational provision,
is not necessarily a path for empowerment in and of itself, “equity of opportunity and outcomes”
(Czerniewicz, 2015) requires hard work from pedagogical and organizational perspectives; it requires
significant human resources.

Equally important, embracing empowerment as an educational aim requires a “nuanced analysis of

power” (Parpart, Rai, & Staudt, 2003) on many different levels, for example, in learning cohorts, in
curricula, institutional services and policies, and societies in general. Ahmed (2017) says,
“[i]ntersectionality is a starting point, the point from which we must proceed if we are to offer an account
of how power works” (p. 5); however, it is important to note that many studies who advocate for the
adoption of ODL to tackle gender inequality in education and the broader society fail to provide an in-
depth analysis of how identity markers such as disability, color of skin, class, ethnicity, etc., may shape
the lives of women in connection with their gender (Crenshaw, 1989). An intersectional gender analysis
of educational content, activities and resources is crucial for feminist ODL educators to begin asking
ethical questions about how to create a better educational experience. As a starting point, drawing from
Nancy Fraser’s works (see, for example, Fraser 1998) and Lambert (2018), a study of lack of
representation and recognition of one’s identity in the curricula (misrepresentation and misrecognition)
can be a strong pedagogical tool for both students and teachers to reflect on how knowledge is
constructed from a historical and socio-cultural perspective and challenge its form and nature, while
exploring other/future possibilities to achieve participation parity.

An in-depth analysis of power within and beyond the educational context brings the recognition that
feminist education takes place within many structural constraints (Parpart, Rai, & Staudt, 2003). To what
extent can educators realistically aim for transformation if they are limited by their life experiences, the
resources they have, if they don’t receive support from their institutions and colleagues, if they cannot
exercise free will due to political powers, if their aims do not align well with student expectations or
experiences? But as Manicom (1992) notes, such tensions should not paralyze teaching. Rather, they
are useful starting points for reflection, to ask: “Is what I am doing as a teacher enhancing our capacity
for transformative practice? In my particular circumstances, what kind of teaching and learning has the
most potential to develop a collective capacity to engage in transformative feminist practice?" (1992, p.
383). This view aligns with Ahmed (2017) who said:

281
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

“Living a feminist life does not mean adopting a set of ideals or norms of conduct, although
it might mean asking ethical questions about how to live better in an unjust and unequal
world (in a not- feminist and antifeminist world); how to create relationships with others
that are more equal; how to find ways to support those who are not supported or are less
supported by social systems; how to keep coming up against histories that have become
concrete, histories that have become as solid as walls” (2017, p. 1) [Endnote 2].

Similarly, Lawrence (2016) notes three tenets of feminist pedagogy: resisting hierarchy, using
experience as a resource, transformative learning,” but warns that as feminist pedagogy “originat[es]
from and belong[s] to different people and places,” it is a continually developing, evolving approach with
no dogmatic or pre-defined set of methods.

In feminist pedagogy, it is these kinds of reflections and subsequent pedagogical actions that challenge
traditional or top-down pedagogical notions, which typically are not very open or welcoming to critical
questioning. Note in Ahmed’s definition, the emphasis on ethics, equality in relationships and support
for those who have been disadvantaged by structural issues in the society (such as racism or patriarchy).
Feminist pedagogy is also a pedagogy of care (hooks, 2003), characterized by mutual empathy,
affection, and emotional/psychological support in the learning ecology (Bali, 2020; Robinson, Al-Freih,
& Kilgore, 2020). Feminist pedagogy is also a pedagogy of hope (hooks, 2003), as it is hopeful for
personal and social transformation. These issues are critical for a feminist analysis of ODL teaching,
some of which I discuss next through the lens of access as pedagogy (a critical look into what education
offers, how and to whom).

A view of feminist teaching as student support: Feminist education is more likely succeed in formal
education if students are recognized and supported in their learning as a whole person, with all the
experiences, emotions, relationships, knowledge and skills that shape them as a human being. As many
critical theorists across different fields have argued, learning is not just a cognitive process; any formal
learning experience is situated in a socio-cultural and political system, and how learners develop their
knowledge, skills, and attitudes is tightly connected to the way they position themselves in their learning;
in other words, how they see themselves in relation to other people, tools and resources. This view
challenges the traditional separation of academic and non-academic support in Higher Education (see,
for example, Sánchez-Elvira Paniagua, & Simpson, 2018). Rather feminist pedagogy views education
from a holistic perspective, taking affective, social, cognitive, reflective, systemic and gender-specific
dimensions of learning and the support coinciding with those (for the noted dimensions of support see
Jung & Hong, 2014).

The framing of feminist teaching as support does not mean that feminist educators should work like
counsellors or undertake the roles of professional services. Rather, a holistic view of teaching and
support means how students learn is not only a psychological or motivational matter, learning is situated
in societal expectations, upbringings, cultural norms and traditions, hidden or explicit biases, or
privileges. To understand that such barriers exist, and to overcome such barriers individually and/or
collectively, it is important that students are guided well throughout their education with ample support
built both around and within content, activities and resources. For example, without modeling and
coaching, or working alongside students as a co-learner or facilitator, key pedagogical concepts
underlying feminist teaching such as critical thinking, building connections with personal and local
experiences, student voice or dialogue often stay in the abstract. If, for example, the goal is critical
thinking, students need to learn how to think critically through issues or problems that are relevant to
them and need to understand why it is important to work towards recognizing their and others’
misconceptions and biases (Bali, 2019). If the goal is student voice, students need to be able to listen
and contribute in ways that elevate others' presence. It might take a village to achieve these—by which
I mean the educational institution as a whole—because many students need time and a lot of support
to switch from a top-down traditional model of education to horizontal or variable structures. If access is

282
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

pedagogy, if adjustments should be made to improve the student experience as a whole, then all
programs of education and all services supporting disciplinary teaching and activities, such as Library,
Careers, Mental Health, Academic Skills, IT services need to have a shared vision of an egalitarian
society.

Affinity spaces and networked learning: Traditionally, feminist educators, akin to the popular
rhizomatic slogan “community is curriculum” (Cormier, 2008), have seen community building as a central
concept in teaching, but research shows community is a problematic concept in networked learning
(Bell, Mackness, & Funes, 2016)—who decides what a community is, its rules, its members? In
response to widely recognized theories of community-building, Gee (2005) said, “If we start with the
notion of a “community” we cannot go any further until we have defined who is in and who is not, since
otherwise we cannot identify the community. Yet it is often issues of participation, membership and
boundaries that are problematic in the first place” (p. 215). If community is a problematic notion, then
the student voice in a community is a problematic notion as well: whose voice is heard in a group of
students and how? Instead, Gee (2005) proposes affinity spaces to describe learning spaces or
networks “where people relate to each other primarily in terms of common interests, endeavours, goals
or practices, not primarily in terms of race, gender, age, disability or social class” (p. 225). This is a
theory that originated from the study of computer games but has important implications for formal
education. Gee notes:

“Classrooms tend to encourage and reward individual knowledge stored in the head, not
distributed knowledge. They do not often allow students to network with each other and
with various tools and technologies and be rewarded for doing so, rather than to be
rewarded for individual achievement. Further, classrooms tend to narrowly constrain where
students can gain knowledge, rather than utilise widely dispersed knowledge.” (2005, p.
230-231)

Affinity spaces and networked learning are helpful for learners to (i) bridge formal and informal learning,
(ii) have connections with others across different cohorts, programs, departments, (iii) utilize learning
networks outside of formal education, (iv) build relationships with supportive mentors and peers in and
outside of the formal institution. A good example for the latter would be the Open University UK’s Global
OER Graduate Network (GO-GN) network, “which is a global network supporting PhD researchers in
the area of OER” (Weller, Farrow, & Pitt, 2019). A central inquiry in ODL feminist education is then, to
what extent does the curriculum support social networking and mentoring with or without digital
technology, and to what extent are students supported in the formation of safe and meaningful
relationships within and beyond institutional learning?

Student participation as a means for transformation: Bali, Cronin, and Jhangiani (2020) note that
open educational practices can be considered along three broad dimensions: from content-centric to
process-centric; from teacher-centric to learner-centric; and from primarily pedagogical to primarily
social justice focused. In terms of social justice, they note that open practices “can support social justice
from economic, cultural and political dimensions;” however, caution is needed as they can “do so in
transformative, ameliorative, neutral or even negative ways.” Transformative action “refers to addressing
systemic/structural roots of injustice, affirmative/ameliorative refers to addressing surface injustice,
neutral refers to not having a social justice impact, and negative means reproducing or even
exacerbating injustice” (2020). In the context of my discussion, transformative action could be
understood in terms of learner empowerment, which can be defined as a process of change that
contributes to one’s well-being and sense of power through agency, critical reflection and shared
learning in a climate of dignity and mutual respect.

In feminist pedagogy, the dimensions of empowerment, student participation and process-oriented

education are interdependent. As student participation increases and as the focus of education shifts
from product (e.g., resources and outputs) to educational processes (e.g., skills, attitudes, and activities

283
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

that shape resources and outputs) (Bali, 2019), it is more likely that teaching will draw from students’
life experiences and “shift their thinking in new directions” (Lawrence, 2016). It is also likely that
resources, activities and assessment, even the tone of voice in educational content, will be adjusted
with student participation, increasing the likelihood of positive change. But ODL as a mode of education,
just like traditional Higher Education, is increasingly becoming distributed, for example with the use of
MOOCs, OERs, and for-profit educational technology tools and services (Czerniewicz, 2018a). This
means the nature and rhythm of student participation may not be uniform across different ODL
provisions. In this sense, participation can mean different things in different ODL contexts, such as
regular student contributions in online classes, the design of curricula with student representatives, or
working with a group of current or prospective students as partners in research and evaluation.

Openness and transparency in educational structures and processes: Transparency and

openness in pedagogy together form a significant mechanism to foster student agency and motivate
students in their education. Students should be able to understand the processes of education, with a
recognition that they too can have a voice in the pedagogical design (hooks, 1994). With the rise of for-
profit educational technology and the rapid advance of systems like artificial intelligence and data
surveillance and analytics, there is a pressing need for both teachers and students to understand and
to be able to critique the pedagogical processes in ODL. As an emerging field of inquiry, data feminism,
for example, critiques issues with power and binary thinking in big data collection and analysis (D'Ignazio
& Klein, 2019). A feminist orientation to data analysis is important because many institutions use learning
analytics to understand where students are in their learning and design interventions for underprivileged
or at-risk groups (Sclater, Peasgood, & Mullan, 2016). Learning analytics is also increasingly used on a
smaller scale by educators to track students’ progress and the extent to which they engage in certain
activities (e.g., watching a video, participating in a forum on the VLE/LMS). First, there is an urgency for
educators to critique the ethics of data surveillance and implications on disadvantaged groups (Gilliard,
2017). Second, student data must be shared with those who own the data—students themselves—both
for transparency and as a pedagogical tool for students to understand how systems work and how they
can have more agency in those systems. One example would be teaching students how to analyze their
data traces or how to make sense of their learning analytics to help them reflect on their education and
educational systems and tools, both as a learner and as a citizen.

Use of educational technology for reflective, imaginative, and critical ends: This theme perhaps
is the heart of this opinion paper, the final theme that encapsulates all the other themes I noted up to
this point. In what ways could technology be used so that the ODL curricula and teaching are ethical,
support the whole person, and speak to learners’ interests, aspirations, goals, and needs? In what ways
could it contribute to people’s well-being and quality of life? I would like leave these as open-ended
questions for the readers, for finding ways, new ways, to “reconcile distance education with feminist
pedagogy” (Aneja, 2017, p. 850) and help learners transcend cultural, technical, and social distances in
ODL platforms, spaces, services and tools (Aneja, 2017; Bozkurt, Koutropoulos, Singh, & Honeychurch,
2020).
Conclusion

hooks (1994) says, “Our work is not merely to share information but to share in the intellectual and
spiritual growth of our students. To teach in a manner that respects and cares for the souls of our
students is essential if we are to provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and
intimately begin” (p. 13). If we embrace hook’s vision in ODL (and why shouldn’t we), then it is clear that
ODL curricula, teaching and services should be orientated toward learners (not just the delivery of
content and resources), to their everyday experiences, feelings, aspirations, and needs. Such an
orientation moves us away from a blind focus on issues like standardization, scalability, efficiency, or
cost-effectiveness to a much more contextual and humane understanding of teaching and learning in
ODL. In the current climate of ODL, I argued for a need to:

284
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

● place an explicit emphasis on intersectional gender analysis in the curricula and tools with a
recognition that educational resources and activities may lead to transformative, ameliorative
or even negative experiences (Bali et al., 2020);
● reframe student participation as a means for transformation;
● design for networked learning experiences, by which I mean the meaningful connections
students build with others through formal and informal networks;
● embrace a holistic understanding of student learning, combining affective and cognitive
dimensions of teaching and learning;
● embrace open and transparent educational structures and processes;
● use technology for reflective, imaginative, and critical ends.

Going back to the current situation with Covid-19, there have been numerous calls to shift the focus of
teaching during this crisis from teaching educational content to how to share, collaborate and support
others (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). A distinction between remote teaching (content-driven, focused on
technology) and online distance education⁠—defined as a learning process that provides learners
agency, responsibility, flexibility and choice (2020, p. ii)⁠—is made to avoid a limited understanding of
online education, especially for those who are new to online teaching. These are very fitting calls in the
current crisis we are facing; however, as I argued here, we need to recognize that not all ODL provisions
lead to learner agency and enhanced responsibility, and flexibility and choice are debatable concepts
depending on who offers them, how and why they offer, and how they are perceived by the learner. In
addition, trauma, stress and psychological pressure are not new for many learners; they are part of
everyday life. Caution is needed to avoid the “unsettling disconnection” that often occurs between
“symbolic commitment of institutions and a lived reality” (Ahmed, 2017, p. 90). One way to connect
ideals with reality is through contextualized learning and contextualized support, which can only be
possible with a system of education that puts not just the student, but the whole person in its center.
Feminist pedagogy is one method that brings us closer to that ideal. It is also promising that the
pedagogies of care have surfaced as a strong response to remote teaching with the current crisis
(Bozkurt et al., 2020).

Going forward, I call for a need to examine feminist teaching in ODL from a multidirectional perspective,
in particular on issues around support: How can institutions better support their staff so that they can
better support their students, especially those who are not in a position to fully exercise their capability?
This is a pressing issue in the current climate of Higher Education where employing precarious staff
(post-doctoral researchers, PhD students, adjunct lecturers, zero-hour contract workers) is increasingly
becoming common practice. Furthermore, how can students better support their peers or have access
to support networks outside of formal education, and how could those networks further feed into
education? These are important questions to consider, so that little bumps on the way won’t become
walls for our vulnerable students [Endnote 3].

Notes

1. I refer to “woman” or “women” as a gender identity, not as a biological category.

2. An example for “a history that has become as solid as walls” (Ahmed, 2017, p.1) would be racial
discrimination in modern day US, which is rooted in the histories of colonialism, slavery and white
privilege.
3. In reference to Ahmed (2017) who wrote, “I learned how disability is worldly because I came up
against the world; the different ways you are treated, the opening of doors, concerned faces, the
closing of doors, rigid indifference. But most of all, I came to feel the little bumps on the street, little
bumps I had not even noticed before. Those little bumps became walls that took a huge amount of
energy just to get over or to get around” (2017, p. 180-181).

285
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

References

Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.

Allen, M., Webb, L. M., & Walker, K. L. (2002). Feminist pedagogy: Identifying basic principles.
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 6(2002), 67-72.

Aneja, A. (2017). Blending in: Reconciling feminist pedagogy and distance education across cultures.
Gender and Education, 29(7), 850-868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1237621

Atan, H., Azli, N., Rahman, Z., & Idrus, R. (2002). Computers in distance education: Gender differences
in self perceived computer competencies. Journal of Educational Media, 27(3), 123-135.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165020270304

Bali, M. (2019). Reimagining digital literacies from a feminist perspective in a postcolonial context. Media
and Communication, 7(2), 69-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1935

Bali, M. (April 16, 2020). Care is not a fad: Care beyond COVID-19 [Web log post]. Reflecting Allowed.
https://blog.mahabali.me/pedagogy/critical-pedagogy/care-is-not-a-fad-care-beyond-covid-19/

Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing open educational practices from a social justice
perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), 10.
http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.565

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing:
The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books.

Bell, F., Mackness, J., & Funes, M. (2016). Participant association and emergent curriculum in a MOOC:
Can the community be the curriculum? Research in Learning Technology, 24.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.29927

Bozkurt, A. (2019). The Historical Development and Adaptation of Open Universities in Turkish Context:
Case of Anadolu University as a Giga University. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4086

Bozkurt, A., & Büyük, K. (2018). Benim hikayem. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
http://ekitap.anadolu.edu.tr/#bookdetail162516

Bozkurt, A., Koseoglu, S., & Keefer, J. (2019). My story: A found poem reflecting the voice of women
studying in open education programs in Turkey. Presented at OER19: Recentering Open:
Critical and global perspectives, 10-11 April. National University of Ireland, Galway.
https://oer19.oerconf.org/sessions/my-story-a-found-poem-reflecting-the-voice-of-women-
studying-in-open-education-programs-in-turkey-o-012/

Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M.,
Pete, J., Olcott, Jr., D. Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, Jr., A. V., Roberts, J., Pazurek,
A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., Shahadu, S., Brown, M., Asino, T. I.
Tumwesige, J., Ramírez Reyes, T., Barrios Ipenza, E., Ossiannilsson, E., Bond, M., Belhamel,
K., Irvine, V., Sharma, R. C., Adam, T., Janssen, B., Sklyarova, T., Olcott, N. Ambrosino, A.,
Lazou, C., Mocquet, B., Mano, M., & Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption
of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian
Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572

286
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

Bozkurt, A., Koutropoulos, A., Singh, L., & Honeychurch, S. (2020). On Lurking: Multiple perspectives
on lurking within an educational community. The Internet and Higher Education, 44(2020),
100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100709

Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to
CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i-vi.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083

Burge, W. (1988). Preface. Foreword Elizabeth Burge. Karlene Faith (Ed.), Toward New Horizons for
Women in Distance Education (pp. vii-xiv), International Perspectives (First Ed). Routledge.

Campbell, P. B., & Storo, J. (1996). Reducing the distance: Equity issues in distance learning in public
education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(4), 285-295.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01677125

Chung, Y. A. (2016). A feminist pedagogy through online education, Asian Journal of Women's Studies,
22(4), 372-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2016.1242939

Conceição, P., Hall, J., Hsu, Y. -C., Jahic, A., Kovacevic, M., Mukhopadhyay, T., Ortubia, A., Rivera, C.,
& Tapia, H. (2020). Tackling Social Norms: A game changer for gender inequalities [UNESCO
Report]. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hd_perspectives_gsni.pdf

Cormier, D. (June 3, 2008). Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum [Web log post].
http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community-as-curriculum/

Cragg, C. B., Andrusyszyn, M. A., & Fraser, J. (2005). Sources of support for women taking professional
programs by distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education,
20(1), 21-39.

Crenshaw, K. (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, 139–168. University of Chicago Law School.

Czerniewicz, L. (20 May 2015). Going online in Higher Education: An inequality and inclusivity
perspective. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/xTalks/Laura-Czerniewicz-xTalk-5-20-15.pdf

Czerniewicz, L. (2018a). Unbundling and rebundling higher education in an age of inequality.

EDUCAUSEReview, 10(24). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/-
/media/files/articles/2018/10/er186100.pdf

Czerniewicz, L. (2018b). Inequality as higher education goes online. In N. Bonderup-Dohn, S. Cranmer,

J.A. Sime, M. de Laat & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Networked Learning: Looking Back - Moving Forward
(pp 95-106). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Demiray, E. (2014). Education of women and women’s expectations from distance education on the
issues concerning them. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(4): 332-349.
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.0f4893

Dhanarajan, G. (2001). Distance education: Promise, performance and potential. Open Learning: The
Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 16, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510124465

D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2019). Data feminism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

287
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

Drydyk, J. (2013). Empowerment, agency, and power. Journal of Global Ethics, 9(3), 249-262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2013.818374

Faith, K. (1988). Gender as an issue in distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), 75-79

Fraser, N. (1998). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, participation,
WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS I 98-108, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung
(WZB), Berlin.

FemEdTech (March 28, 2020). Feminist Pedagogy in a Time of Coronavirus Pandemic [Web log post].
Retrieved from femtechnet.org.

Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the Age of Mythology to today’s
schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power
and social context (pp. 214-232). Cambridge University Press

Gilliard, C. (2017). Pedagogy and the logic of platforms. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(4). Retrieved from
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/7/pedagogy-and-the-logic-of-platforms

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress. Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge

hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Routledge.

Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime
anyplace” claims. British Journal of Education Technology, 50, 1005–1018.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12779

Jung, I. (2012). Asian learners’ perception of quality in distance education and gender differences. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1159

Jung, I., & Hong, S. (2014). An elaborated model of student support to allow for gender considerations
in Asian distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1604

Kirkup, G., & von Prümmer, C. (1990). Support and connectedness: The Needs of women distance
education students. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 5(2): 9-31.
http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/381/271

Knox, J. (2019). What does the ‘postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical perspectives on the
digital, with implications for educational research and practice. Postdigit Sci Educ,1, 357–370.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y

Koseoglu, S., Ozturk, T., Ucar, H., Karahan, E., & Bozkurt, A. (2020). 30 Years of gender inequality and
implications on curriculum design in open and distance learning. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 2020(1), 5. http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.553

Kramarae, C. (2001). The third shift: Women learning online. Washington, DC.: American Association
of University Women Educational Foundation.

Lambert, S. R. (2018). Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open
education. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3), 225-244.

288
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

Lambert, S. R. (2019). Six critical dimensions: A model for widening participation in open, online and
blended programs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 161-182.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5683

Lawrence, K. (2016). Feminist pedagogy [Web log post].

http://www.genderandeducation.com/issues/feminist-pedagogy/

Louie, P., & Wilkes, R. (2018). Representations of race and skin tone in medical textbook imagery. Soc
Sci Med., 202, 38‐42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.02.023

Loots, S., & Walker, M. (2015). Shaping a gender equality policy in higher education: which human
capabilities matter? Gender and Education, 27(4) 361-375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1045458

Manicom, A. (1992). Feminist pedagogy: Transformations, standpoints, and politics. Canadian Journal
of Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation, 17(3), 365-389.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1495301

Parpart, J. L., Rai, S. M., & Staudt, K. A. (2003). Rethinking empowerment: Gender and development
in a global/local world. Routledge.

Patterson, N. (2009). Distance education: A perspective from women’s studies. Third Space, A journal
of Feminist Theory and Culture, 9(1), 1-14.

Robinson, H., Al-Freih, M., & Kilgore, W. (2020). Designing with care: Towards a care-centered model
for online learning design. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(3),
99-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-10-2019-0098

Sánchez-Elvira Paniagua, A., & Simpson, O. (2018). Developing Student Support for Open and Distance
Learning: The EMPOWER Project. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2018(1), 9.
http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.470

Sclater, N., Peasgood, A., & Mullan, J. (2016). Learning analytics in higher education. A Review of UK
and International Practice. JISC. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/learning-analytics-in-
he-v3.pdf

Stromquist, N. P. (2015). Women’s empowerment and education: Linking knowledge to transformative

action. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12137

Taskin, P., & Erdemli, O. (2018). Education for Syrian refugees: Problems faced by teachers in Turkey.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 75, 155-177.
https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.75.9

Therborn, G. (2013). The killing fields of inequality. Policy Press.

von Prümmer, C. (1994). Women-friendly perspectives in distance education. Open Learning: The
Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning, 9(1), 3-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051940090102

von Prümmer, C. (2015). Women and distance education: Challenges and opportunities. Routledge.

289
Asian Journal of Distance Education: 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1, 277-290 Koseoglu, S.

Walker, M. (2007). Selecting capabilities for gender equality in education. In: Walker M., Unterhalter E.
(Eds.), Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education (pp. 177-195).
Palgrave Macmillan.

Walker, W. (2008). A human capabilities framework for evaluating student learning. Teaching in Higher
Education, 13(4), 477-487, https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802169764

Weller, M. (May 31, 2018). Navigating the open education landscape. Edtech 2018 "TEL Quality Matters
- People, Policies and Practices" keynote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gpYYJJG7P8

Weller, M., Farrow, R., & Pitt, R. (2019). GO-GN: Lessons in Building an Open Research Community.
In: Pan Commonwealth Forum 9 (PCF9), 9-12 Sep 2019, Edinburgh, Scotland, Commonwealth
of Learning.

About the Author

Suzan Koseoglu; s.koseoglu@gold.ac.uk; Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom;

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8918-2714

Suggested citation:
Koseoglu, S. (2020). Access as pedagogy: A case for embracing feminist pedagogy in open and
distance learning. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 277-290.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3893260

290