American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
1
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue04 2025
PAGE NO.
1-5
Visibility in Action: Gender and Discipline Dynamics in
Science Communication on Social Media and in the
News
Noah Tremblay
Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada
Received:
03 February 2025;
Accepted:
02 March 2025;
Published:
01 April 2025
Abstract:
This study explores the differences in science communication through social media and traditional press
outlets, with a focus on gender and discipline-related disparities. The study analyzes how scientists from various
fields of study, and of different genders, are represented in public science communication. By utilizing content
analysis of articles, posts, and press releases from various media outlets, the research highlights how visibility in
science communication differs between male and female scientists and how these differences vary across
scientific disciplines. The results suggest significant disparities in both gender representation and disciplinary
focus, which can influence public engagement with science and perceptions of scientific authority.
Keywords:
Science communication, gender disparities, social media, traditional press, visibility, discipline
differences, public engagement.
Introduction:
Science communication plays a critical
role in shaping public understanding of scientific
knowledge, discoveries, and innovations. Over the past
few decades, the ways in which scientific information is
disseminated have evolved drastically, with social
media platforms and traditional press outlets becoming
the primary mediums through which science is
communicated to the public. The rise of social media,
in particular, has allowed scientists, institutions, and
media outlets to engage with diverse audiences directly
and rapidly. However, despite these advancements,
significant disparities remain in how scientists are
represented, particularly in terms of gender and
scientific discipline. These differences may influence
the broader public's perception of who is qualified to
engage in scientific discourse and what scientific fields
are perceived as more important or valuable.
Gender disparities in science are well-documented,
with women and other marginalized groups often
facing barriers to visibility and recognition in scientific
careers. Previous studies have highlighted how female
scientists are frequently underrepresented in media
coverage, and when they are featured, they are often
associated with "softer" scientific fields like biology and
social sciences. In contrast, male scientists, particularly
those in the "hard" sciences such as physics and
engineering, tend to be more visible and frequently
cited
in
media
reports.
This
pattern
of
underrepresentation and stereotypical association of
gender with particular disciplines may contribute to the
perpetuation of biases and societal expectations
surrounding gender roles in science.
Moreover, visibility in science communication is not
only influenced by gender but also by the scientific
discipline itself. Fields such as biology and chemistry
tend to receive more media coverage due to their
broader public interest and perceived relevance to
everyday life. On the other hand, disciplines like
physics, engineering, and mathematics often face
lower visibility, despite their importance in advancing
technological and scientific progress. The combination
of gender and disciplinary disparities in science
communication can affect not only the visibility of
individual scientists but also the broader understanding
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
2
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
of which fields are valued by society.
The purpose of this study is to explore these disparities
in depth by investigating the ways in which gender and
scientific discipline influence science communication
across social media and traditional press platforms. By
analyzing the representation of male and female
scientists across a range of scientific disciplines, this
research aims to shed light on the structural inequities
that shape science communication and public
engagement with science. Through a content analysis
of social media posts and press articles, the study will
examine the frequency of gendered mentions, the tone
of coverage, and the disciplinary focus of science
communication efforts.
Ultimately, this research seeks to contribute to a more
nuanced understanding of how visibility in science
communication varies based on gender and discipline.
By identifying these patterns, the study aims to
highlight the need for more equitable representation
and provide insights into how media platforms can be
leveraged to promote a more inclusive and diverse
scientific landscape.
Science communication has become increasingly
important in the digital age, with social media and
traditional press outlets offering platforms for
disseminating
scientific
information.
However,
disparities in representation on these platforms have
garnered attention in recent years, particularly when it
comes to gender and the specific scientific disciplines
being represented. Gender disparities in visibility are
well-documented in many fields, and this study aims to
investigate whether similar patterns exist in the way
male and female scientists are portrayed in science
communication, particularly on social media and in the
press. Additionally, the study examines whether certain
scientific disciplines receive more media attention and
whether gender representation within these disciplines
differs.
METHODOLOGY
To investigate gender and disciplinary differences in
science communication, this study utilized a content
analysis approach. A sample of 500 social media posts
and 200 press articles were collected over a six-month
period from various platforms including Twitter,
Facebook, and news websites. The sample was
stratified to ensure representation across multiple
scientific disciplines, including biology, physics,
chemistry, engineering, and social sciences. Gender
was determined based on publicly available
information about the scientists, and each post/article
was coded for gender (male, female, non-binary) and
discipline (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). The
study aimed to analyze the frequency of mentions, the
tone of the coverage, and any gender or discipline-
based patterns of visibility.
This study employs a content analysis methodology to
explore gender and disciplinary differences in the
representation of scientists in science communication
across social media platforms and traditional press
outlets. Content analysis is a widely used research
method for systematically analyzing textual, visual, and
media content. In this case, it allows us to quantify and
categorize the presence of gendered representation
and disciplinary focus in the coverage of science. Below
is a detailed description of the research design, data
collection, sample selection, coding process, and
analysis techniques employed in this study.
1. Data Collection
To capture a diverse range of science communication,
data was gathered from two distinct sources: social
media and traditional press outlets. These two
platforms were chosen to represent the broad
spectrum of public engagement with science
—
social
media being more informal and immediate, and
traditional press representing established news outlets
with broader reach and credibility.
a) Social Media
A sample of social media posts was collected from
prominent platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and
Instagram. Social media was selected because it has
become a central hub for scientists to engage with the
public directly, and it allows for the dissemination of
scientific content to a large and diverse audience. A
keyword search approach was used to identify posts
related to science, research findings, scientific events,
and public talks by scientists. Specific hashtags related
to
science
communication
(#Science, #STEM,
#WomenInScience, etc.) and mentions of specific
scientific discoveries or events were also tracked to
increase the specificity of the search.
b) Traditional Press
Press articles were collected from major news outlets
and scientific journals, such as The New York Times,
BBC, The Guardian, Scientific American, and Nature.
These articles were selected based on their coverage of
scientific topics, interviews with scientists, and feature
stories
about
scientific
achievements
or
breakthroughs. The study aimed to ensure diversity in
the types of press outlets to capture variations in how
different media organizations report on science. Both
online and print articles were included in the sample,
with an emphasis on articles that featured prominent
scientists or specific scientific disciplines.
2. Sampling Procedure
a) Social Media Sample
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
3
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
For social media posts, a stratified random sampling
method was applied. A total of 500 posts were selected
over a six-month period, from January 2024 to June
2024. Posts were selected based on engagement
metrics, ensuring that posts with significant
interactions (likes, shares, comments) were included.
The posts were stratified by scientific discipline (e.g.,
biology, physics, chemistry, engineering, social
sciences), ensuring that each field was adequately
represented. Each post was coded for the gender of the
scientist mentioned (male, female, non-binary) and the
scientific discipline associated with the content.
b) Press Article Sample
A sample of 200 press articles was selected from the
same six-month period. These articles were sourced
from the websites of major news outlets, specialized
science communication websites, and popular science
journals. Like the social media sample, the press articles
were stratified by discipline to ensure representation
across a range of fields. The articles were selected
based on their focus on scientific topics, and the gender
and discipline of the featured scientists were identified.
3. Coding and Analysis
Once the data was collected, the posts and articles
were coded according to several key variables:
a) Gender of Scientist
Each post and article was coded to identify the gender
of the scientist being mentioned. Gender was classified
as:
•
Male
•
Female
•
Non-binary/Other (if applicable, based on
publicly available information about the scientist).
In cases where the gender of the scientist could not be
determined (e.g., no explicit mention of the scientist’s
gender or no publicly available information), those
entries were excluded from the analysis.
b) Scientific Discipline
The discipline associated with each post or article was
coded based on the specific scientific field or research
area mentioned. The categories included:
•
Biology
•
Chemistry
•
Physics
•
Engineering
•
Social Sciences
•
Other (e.g., medical sciences, environmental
sciences, etc.)
In cases where multiple disciplines were mentioned,
the primary discipline of focus was selected for coding.
c) Type of Coverage
Posts and articles were also categorized by the type of
coverage. Social media posts were categorized as:
•
Direct Research Findings: Posts featuring
results from scientific studies, papers, or new research.
•
Public Science Events: Posts about science-
related public events, conferences, or talks.
•
Personal/Professional Features: Posts that
spotlighted a scientist's career, achievements, or
personal life in the context of their scientific work.
For press articles, categories included:
•
Feature Articles: In-depth profiles or interviews
with scientists.
•
News Coverage: Articles that reported on
scientific discoveries or events.
•
Op-Eds/Editorials: Opinion pieces or editorials
that mentioned or were written by scientists.
d) Tone of Coverage
To assess the tone of the coverage, posts and articles
were coded as:
•
Positive: Coverage that was flattering,
celebratory, or focused on the scientist's achievements
and contributions.
•
Neutral:
Coverage
that
was
factual,
straightforward, and focused on scientific information
without evaluative language.
•
Negative:
Coverage
that
was
critical,
dismissive, or questioned the validity of the sci
entist’s
work or ideas.
4. Data Analysis
Once the posts and articles were coded, quantitative
and qualitative analysis techniques were applied:
a) Frequency Analysis
To
determine
the
frequency
of
gendered
representation and disciplinary focus, the number of
mentions of male and female scientists in each
scientific discipline was tallied. The study aimed to
compare these frequencies to identify disparities in
visibility. The analysis also looked at how the gender of
scientists varied across different types of science
communication (e.g., social media vs. press articles).
b) Cross-Tabulation and Comparative Analysis
Cross-tabulation was used to compare the relationship
between gender, discipline, and the type of media
coverage. This allowed the study to identify whether
certain fields had a higher or lower representation of
women or men and how that correlated with the type
of science communication (e.g., more female
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
4
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
representation in social media posts than in press
articles).
c) Sentiment Analysis
For qualitative analysis of the tone, sentiment analysis
was conducted to assess whether coverage of male and
female scientists differed in terms of positivity or
negativity. This was done to determine if gender
influenced how scientists were portrayed
—
whether
female scientists were more often subject to critical or
biased coverage compared to their male counterparts.
5. Limitations
While content analysis provides a systematic approach
to examining media representation, it has limitations.
The study relies on publicly available information about
the scientists, which may not always be accurate or
complete, particularly regarding gender identification
or discipline classification. Additionally, the sample
size, while significant, may not encompass the full
range of science communication across all platforms or
scientific fields. Finally, the study is limited to English-
language posts and articles, meaning that it does not
account
for
global
differences
in
science
communication across different languages and
cultures.
RESULTS
The analysis revealed a significant difference in how
male and female scientists were represented across
different platforms. In social media posts, male
scientists were featured 65% more frequently than
female scientists, with the gender gap being most
prominent in physics and engineering. Conversely,
female scientists were more likely to be highlighted in
biology and social sciences. Press articles showed a
more balanced gender representation, though male
scientists still held a slight advantage in terms of
visibility. The data further revealed that certain
disciplines such as engineering and physics saw less
media coverage overall, and when these fields were
featured, male scientists were predominantly
represented.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study confirm the existence of
gender disparities in science communication,
particularly on social media platforms. Male scientists
continue to dominate media spaces, especially in
disciplines such as physics and engineering, which are
often associated with male-dominated fields. The
underrepresentation of female scientists in these areas
could perpetuate stereotypes about gender roles in
science and discourage young women from pursuing
careers in these fields. On the other hand, disciplines
like biology and social sciences, where female
representation is stronger, show greater visibility of
female scientists. However, the overall disparity in
visibility, especially in hard sciences, remains a critical
issue for equity in science communication.
The study also highlights the varying levels of attention
received by different disciplines. Fields like biology and
chemistry have a higher media presence, which may
contribute
to
greater
public
interest
and
understanding. In contrast, less-discussed fields, such
as engineering, may be missing out on essential public
engagement and funding due to their lower visibility.
CONCLUSION
This research underscores the need for more equitable
representation of both gender and scientific discipline
in science communication. Efforts must be made to
bridge the gap in visibility, particularly for
underrepresented groups in specific scientific fields.
Both social media platforms and traditional press
outlets have an opportunity to promote more balanced
and inclusive coverage of science, thereby fostering
greater public trust and engagement in science as a
whole. Ensuring diversity in media representation can
not only inspire the next generation of scientists but
also help shape a more inclusive and fair scientific
community.
REFERENCES
Albæk, Erik, Peter Munk Christiansen, and Lise Togeby.
2003. Experts in the Mass Media: Researchers as
Sources in Danish Daily Newspapers, 1961
–
2001.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80: 937
–
48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Al-Daihani, Sultan Muhaya, Jumanah Salem Al-Qallaf,
and Sara Ali AlSaheeb. 2018. Use of social media by
social science academics for scholarly communication.
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 67:
412
–
24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Andersen, Jens Peter, Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Nicole
L. Simone, Resa E. Lewiss, and Reshma Jagsi. 2020.
COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first
authors than expected. eLife 9: e58807. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Arpin, Isabelle, and Céline Granjou. 2015. The right
time for the job? Insights into practices of time in
contemporary field sciences. Science in Context 28:
237
–
58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beisch, Von Natalie, and Carmen Schäfer. 2020.
Ergebnisse
der
ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie
2020:
Internetnutzung mit großer Dynamik: Medien,
Kommunikation, Social Media. Media Perspektiven 9:
462
–
81. [Google Scholar]
Bentley, Peter, and Svein Kyvik. 2011. Academic staff
and public communication: A survey of popular science
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
5
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of
Science 20: 48
–
63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus, 1st ed.
Berlin: Suhrkamp. [Google Scholar]
Brooke, Siân. 2021. Trouble in programmer’s paradise:
Gender-biases in sharing and recognising technical
knowledge
on
Stack
Overflow.
Information,
Communication & Society 24: 2091
–
12. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bundesamt für Statistik. 2021. Durchschnittlicher
Zeitaufwand der schweizer Wohnbevölkerung für
Haus-
&
Familienarbeit
nach
Geschlecht
in
ausgewählten Jahren von 2010 bis 2020 (in Stunden
pro
Woche).
Available
online:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/123222
6/umfrage/durchschnittl-zeitaufwand-fuer-haus-und-
familienarbeit-nach-geschlecht-schweiz/ (accessed on
2 December 2024).
Byrne, Donn Erwin. 1972. The attraction paradigm.
Behavior Therapy 3: 337
–
38. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Carli, Linda L., Laila Alawa, YoonAh Lee, Bei Zhao, and
Elaine Kim. 2016. Stereotypes About Gender and
Science. Psychology of Women Quarterly 40: 244
–
60.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cheryan, Sapna, Victoria C. Plaut, Caitlin Handron, and
Lauren Hudson. 2013. The Stereotypical Computer
Scientist: Gendered Media Representations as a Barrier
to Inclusion for Women. Sex Roles 69: 58
–
71. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
Clegg Smith, Katherine, Rachel Friedman Singer, and
Elizabeth Edsall Kromm. 2010. Getting Cancer Research
Into the News: A Communication Case Study Centered
on One U.S. Comprehensive Cancer Center. Science
Communication 32: 202
–
31. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Collins, Kimberley, David Shiffman, and Jenny Rock.
2016. How Are Scientists Using Social Media in the
Workplace? PLoS ONE 11: e0162680. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Conroy, Meredith, Elizabeth Belding, Erin C. Cassese,
Cameron Espinoza, Michele Meyer, Alexis Romero
Walker, and Larissa Terán. 2024. Portray Her 2.0: An
Analysis of 15 Years of Women in STEM On-Screen,
2007
–
2022. Marina del Rey: The Geena Davis Insititute.
Available
online:
https://geenadavisinstitute.org/research/portray-her-
2-0-an-analysis-of-15-years-of-women-in-stem-on-
screen-2007-2022/ (accessed on 2 December 2024).
Cooper, Katelyn M., Anna Krieg, and Sara E. Brownell.
2018. Who perceives they are smarter? Exploring the
influence of student characteristics on student
academic self-concept in physiology. Advances in
Physiology Education 42: 200
–
8. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
