Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study uses discourse analysis to explore online science communication experiences from the perspectives of 43 female opinion leaders. Women described their experiences in terms of their lifelong love for science and their ever-growing interest in communication. For them, a career in science communication is a conscious career choice rather than an “alternative” career path. Communicators performed various functions depending on the sensitivity of their topics and whether their communications are self-focused or audience-focused. Accordingly, four types of science communicators emerged from the data: Expressive/Escapist, Advocate/Normalizer, Edutainer, and Performer/Sharer. This diversity challenges societal stereotypes that reduce female experiences in science.

Keywords

online science communication science communication opinion leaders female science communicators science communication typology science communication motivations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allgaier

Dunwoody

Brossard

Y-Y.

Peters

H. P.

(2013). Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience, 63, 284-287. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8

Andrews

Weaver

Hanley

Shamatha

Melton

(2005). Scientists and public outreach: Participation, motivations, and impediments. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 281.

Atkinson

L. U. C. Y

. (2015). Locating the politics in political consumption: A conceptual map of four types of political consumer identities. International Journal of Communication, 9, 2047-2066.

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G. V.

Pastorelli

(2001). Self-efﬁcacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187-206.

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35, 56-85.

Batts

S. A.

Anthis

N. J.

Smith

T. C.

(2008). Advancing science through conversations: Bridging the gap between blogs and the academy. PLoS Biology, 6(9), e240. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060240

Bik

H. M.

Goldstein

M. C.

(2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001535.

Brauer

Er-Rafiy

(2011). Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 871-881.

Brumfiel

(2009). Supplanting the old media? Nature, 458, 274-277. doi:10.1038/458274a

10.

Bucchi

(2014). Science and the media: Alternative routes to scientific communications (Vol. 1). London, England: Routledge.

11.

Carter

Steiner

(2004). Critical readings: Media and gender. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

12.

Chimba

M. D.

Kitzinger

(2009). Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: An analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 609-624.

13.

Cirksena

Cuklanz

(2015). Male is to female as _____ is to _____: A guided tour of five feminist frameworks for communication studies. In Rakow

(Ed.), Women making meaning: New feminist directions in communication (pp. 18-44). New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

14.

Collins

R. L.

(2011). Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles, 64, 290-298. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5

15.

Colson

. (2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12, 889-902. doi:10.1177/1464884911412834

16.

Correll

(2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93-113.

17.

Cronin

Roger

(1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 639-661.

18.

Dennen

V. P.

Pashnyak

T. G.

(2008). Finding community in the comments: The role of reader and blogger responses in a weblog community of practice. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 4, 272-283.

19.

De Welde

Laursen

S. L

. (2011). The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers for women Ph.D. students in STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 3, 572-595.

20.

Diekman

A. B.

Brown

E. R.

Johnston

A. M.

Clark

E. K.

(2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles a new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057.

21.

Dudo

(2012). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501. doi:10.1177/1075547012460845

22.

Eagly

A. H.

Steffen

V. J.

(1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754.

23.

Ecklund

E. H.

Lincoln

A. E.

Tansey

(2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society, 26, 693-717.

24.

Edmondston

Dawson

Schibeci

(2010). Are students prepared to communicate? A case study of an Australian degree course in biotechnology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 1091-1108.

25.

Ellison

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007). The benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.

26.

Eperen

L. V.

Marincola

F. M.

(2011). How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9, 199-201. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-9-199

27.

Estrich

(2005). Kinsley’s days at the LA Times are numbered. RealPolitics.com, 18.

28.

Fahy

Nisbet

M. C.

(2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12, 778-793.

29.

Gilbert

(2001). Science and its “other”: Looking underneath “woman” and “science” for new directions in research on gender and science education. Gender and Education, 13, 291-305.

30.

Goodell

(1977). The visible scientists. The Sciences, 17(1), 6-9.

31.

Gwynne

(1989). A place for national service in higher education. Educational Record, 70, 66-70.

32.

Hayes

B. C.

Tariq

V. N.

(2000). Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: A comparative study of four Anglo-American nations. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 433-447.

33.

Herring

S. C.

Kouper

Scheidt

L. A.

Wright

E. L.

(2004). Women and children last: The discursive construction of weblogs. In Gurak

Antonijevic

Johnson

Ratliff

Reyman

(Eds.), Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/women_and_children.html

34.

Huann

John

Yuen

(2005). Weblogs in education, a literature review. Retrieved from http://edulab.moe.edu.sg/edulab/slot/fm3_posts/ah01/bec133d60_u4266.pdf

35.

Jarreau

P. B.

(2014). In response to the top 50 science list. Retrieved from http://www.scilogs.com/from_the_lab_bench/in-response-to-the-top-50-science-list/

36.

Jensen

(2011). A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 26-36.

37.

Johnson

D. R.

Ecklund

E. H.

Lincoln

A. E.

(2014). Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Communication, 36, 81-105.

38.

Johnston

Friedman

Peach

(2011). Standpoint in political blogs: Voice, authority, and issues. Women’s Studies, 40, 269-298.

39.

Kantola

(2008). “Why do all the women disappear?” Gendering processes in a political science department. Gender, Work & Organization, 15, 202-225.

40.

Kitzinger

Chimba

M. D.

Williams

A. J.

Haran

Boyce

(2009). Gender, stereotypes and expertise in the press: How newspapers represent female and male scientists. Bradford, England: UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC) and Cardiff University.

41.

Kitzinger

Haran

Chimba

Boyce

(2008). Role models in the media: an exploration of the views and experiences of women in science, engineering and technology. Bradford, England: UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology and Cardiff University.

42.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Glynn

C. J.

Huge

(2013). The Matilda effect in science communication an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35, 603-625.

43.

Kouper

(2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9, 1-10.

44.

Kozinets

R. V.

(2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Lauzen

M. M.

Dozier

D. M.

(2005). Maintaining the double standard: Portrayals of age and gender in popular film. Sex Roles, 52, 437-446. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3710-1

46.

Lee

C. S.

(2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 331-339.

47.

Liben

L. S.

Bigler

R. S.

Krogh

H. R.

(2001). Pink and blue collar jobs: Children’s judgments of job status and job aspirations in relation to sex of worker. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 346-363.

48.

Mahaffy

Ashmore

Bucat

Rosborough

(2008). Chemists and “the public”: IUPAC’s role in achieving mutual understanding (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 80, 161-174.

49.

Mahrt

Puschmann

(2014). Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13, A05.

50.

Martín-Sempere

M. J.

Garzón-García

Rey-Rocha

(2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 349-367.

51.

Mathews

D. J.

Kalfoglou

Hudson

(2005). Geneticists’ views on science policy formation and public outreach. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 137, 161-169.

52.

McQuail

(2002). The media and lifestyle: Editor’s introduction. European Journal of Communication, 17, 427-428. doi:10.1007/BF00289764

53.

Mendick

Moreau

M-P.

(2010). Monitoring the presence and representation of women in SET occupations in UK based online media. Bradford, England: UK Resource Centre for Women. Retrieved from http://research.gold.ac.uk/3140/

54.

National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

55.

National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2008, June). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308/

56.

Nelkin

(1987). Selling science. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

57.

Nelkin

(1995). Selling science: How the press cover science and technology. New York, NY: Freeman.

58.

Nisbet

M. C.

Kotcher

J. E.

(2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30, 328-354.

59.

O’Donnell

(2006). Blogging as pedagogic practice: Artefact and ecology. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 1(17), 3.

60.

Pollard

(2003, October 30). Is the blogosphere sexist? How to save the world [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2003/10/30.html

61.

Potter

(2008). Sociology of science and discourse analysis. In Given

L. M.

(Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

62.

Potter

Wetherell

(1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London, England: Sage.

63.

Rakow

L. F.

(1986). Rethinking gender research in communication. Journal of Communication, 36(4), 11-26.

64.

Rakow

L. F.

(Ed.). (2015). Women making meaning: New feminist directions in communication (Vol. 10). London, England: Routledge.

65.

Ranger

Bultitude

(2014). “The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me”: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662514555054

66.

Resnick

D. B.

(1998). The ethics of science. London, England: Routledge.

67.

Riesch

Mendel

(2014). Science blogging: Networks, boundaries and limitations. Science as Culture, 23, 51-72.

68.

Rossi

A. S.

(1965). Women in science: Why so few? Social and psychological influences restrict women’s choice and pursuit of careers in science. Science, 148(3674), 1196-1202.

69.

Shachar

(2000). Spotlighting women scientists in the press: Tokenism in science journalism. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 347-358.

70.

Shema

Bar-Ilan

Thelwall

(2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PloS one, 7(5), e35869.

71.

Smaglik

(2011). Career paths: Where are they now? Nature, 469(7328), 121-123. doi:10.1038/nj7328-121a

72.

Stafford

Bell

(2012). Brain network: Social media and the cognitive scientist. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 489-490. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.08.001

73.

Steinke

(2013). Portrayals of female scientists in the mass media. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, 3(2), 13. doi:10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems070

74.

Steinke

Lapinski

M. K.

Crocker

Zietsman-Thomas

Williams

Evergreen

S. H.

Kuchibhotla

(2007). Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children’s perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science Communication, 29, 35-64.

75.

Surdyk

L. K.

Diddams

M. A.

(1999). Doing well by doing good: Career attainment and volunteerism. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 17(2), 11-24.

76.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/women-stem-gender-gap-innovation

77.

von Roten

. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33, 52-75.

78.

Weber

Skirbekk

Freund

Herlitz

(2014). The changing face of cognitive gender differences in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 11673-11678.

79.

Weimann

Tustin

D. H.

Van Vuuren

Joubert

J. P. R.

(2007). Looking for opinion leaders: Traditional vs. modern measures in traditional societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 173-190.

80.

Wilkins

J. S

. (2008). The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(8), 411-413. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.004

81.

Women in Global Science and Technology, the Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World, & the Elsevier Foundation, and GenderInSITE. (2012, November). The National Assessments on gender and STI. Retrieved from http://www.wisat.org/national-assessments/

82.

Wykes

Gunter

(2005). The media and body image: If looks could kill. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

83.

You

(2014). Who are the science stars of Twitter? Science, 345(6203), 1440-1441.

Madam Science Communicator

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References