The relationship between gender and public engagement in the literature is unclear. Unlike with other factors, research has not conclusively shown whether gender affects involvement in public engagement activities and, if it does so, in what direction. This article aims to investigate this ambiguity and intends to contribute to the understanding of underlying factors. Using survey data from a large national sample of Italian academics from all disciplines (N = 5123), we find a gender gap in public engagement activities in the mass media and not in community-based activities. These results suggest a different analytical approach for investigating gender differences in public engagement.
Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca (ANVUR) (2015) La valutazione della terza missione nelle università italiane. Manuale per la valutazione [The evaluation of third mission in the Italian universities. Handbook for the evaluation]. Roma: ANVUR.
2.
Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca (ANVUR) (2016) Rapporto biennale sullo stato del sistema universitario e della ricerca [Biennial report on the state of the university system and research]. Roma: ANVUR.
3.
AnzivinoMCeravoloFARostanM (2018) L’impegno pubblico e sociale [Public and social engagement]. In PerulliARamellaFRostanMe SemenzaR (eds) La terza missione degli accademici italiani [The third mission of the Italian academics]. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 149–174.
4.
BaroneC (2011) Some things never change: Gender segregation in higher education across eight nations and three decades. Sociology of Education84(2): 157–176.
5.
BauerMJensenP (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 3–11.
6.
BentleyPKyvikS (2011) Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 48–63.
7.
BesleyJCOhSHNisbetM (2012) Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science22(8): 971–987.
8.
BucchiM (2002) Science in Society: An Introduction to Social Studies of Science. London: Routledge, pp. 70–82.
9.
BucchiMSaracinoB (2012) Mapping variety in scientists’ attitudes towards the media and the public an exploratory study on Italian researchers. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Quality, Honesty and Beauty in Science and Technology Communication. Vicenza: Edizioni Observa Science in Society, pp. 250–256.
10.
BurchellK (2015) Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers: Literature Review. London: Policy Studies Institute.
11.
BurchellKSheppardCChambersJ (2017) A ‘work in progress’? UK researchers and participation in public engagement. Research for All1(1): 198–224.
12.
Crettaz von RotenF (2011) Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication33(1): 52–75.
13.
Dubois-ShaikFFusulierB (2015) Academic careers and gender inequality: Leaky pipeline and interrelated phenomena in seven European countries. Garcia Working paper n.5. Trento: University of Trento.
14.
DudoA (2012) Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication35(4): 476–501.
15.
European Commission (2019) She Figures Handbook 2018. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
16.
GibbonsM (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature402: 81–84.
17.
HamlynBShanahanMLewisHO’DonoghueEHansonTBurchellK (2015) Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers. A Study on Behalf of a Consortium of UK Public Research Funders. London: TNS-BMRB.
18.
HowellLSingerJB (2017) Pushy or a princess? Women experts and British broadcast new. Journalism Practice11(9): 1062–1068.
19.
JensenP (2011) A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 26–36.
20.
JensenPRouquierJKreimerPCroissantY (2008) Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy35(7): 527–541.
21.
JohnsonDREcklundEHLincolnAE (2014) Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Communication36(1): 81–105.
22.
KitzingerJChimbaMWilliamsAHaranJBoyceT (2008) Gender, Stereotypes and Expertise in the Press: How Newspapers Represent Female and Male Scientists. Cardiff: UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology and Cardiff University.
23.
KreimerPLevinLJensenP (2011) Popularization by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 37–47.
24.
KyvikS (2005) Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication26(3): 288–311.
25.
MertonRK (1986) The Matthew effect in science. Science159(3810): 56–63.
26.
MitchellMMcKinnonM (2019) ‘Human’ or ‘objective’ faces of science? Gender stereotypes and the representation of scientists in the media. Public Understanding of Science28(2): 177–190.
27.
NicholsT (2017) The Death of Expertise. The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
NiemiMKPitkänenV (2017) Gendered use of experts in the media: Analysis of the gender gap in Finnish news journalism. Public Understanding of Science26(3): 355–368.
29.
PetersHP (2014) Scientists as public experts. Expectations and responsibilities. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edn.London: Routledge, pp. 27–39.
30.
PetersHPBrossardDde CheveignéSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerS, et al. (2008) Interactions with the mass media. Science321: 204–205.
31.
PoliakoffEWebbTL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29(2): 242–263.
32.
RainieLFunkCAndersonMPageD (2015) How Scientists Engage the Public. Pew Research Center.
RossiterMW (1993) The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science23(2): 325–341.
35.
Royal Society (1985) Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
36.
ScamuzziSTipaldoG (2015) Apriti scienza. Il presente e il futuro della comunicazione della scienza in Italia tra vincoli e nuove sfide [Open up science. The present and the future of science communication in Italy between constraints and new challenges]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
37.
SchoenAThevesJ (Eds.) (2006) Strategic Management of University Research Activities. Methodological guide. Lugano: PRIME Project Observatory of the European University.
38.
SummAVolpersAM (2016) What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism in German print media. Public Understanding of Science25(7): 775–790.
39.
ThuneTReymertIGulbrandsenMAamodtPO (2016) Universities and external engagement activities: Particular profiles for particular universities?Science and Public Policy43(6): 774–786.
40.
Van Der BesselaarPSandstromU (2016) Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: A longitudinal case study. Scientometrics106: 143–162.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
