Despite recent increases, women continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Using social identity theory as a framework, this study conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of 614 Instagram posts by 30 women in STEM influencers on Instagram to determine the extent to which and how they portrayed themselves as role models. Findings revealed that these influencers exhibited important role model traits: (a) favorable personality traits, (b) STEM expertise, and (c) personal connections with audience members, and they also displayed authenticity and knowledge of trending platform features in their posts. Implications for science communicators and STEM educators are discussed.
AlkhammashR. (2019). “It is time to operate like a woman’: A corpus based study of representation of women in STEM fields in social media. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(5), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n5p217
2.
AmosC.HolmesG.StruttonD. (2015). Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effectiveness. I. International Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2008.11073052
ArredondoP.MivilleM. L.CapodilupoC. M.VeraT. (2022). Women and the challenge of STEM professions: Thriving in a chilly climate. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62201-5
5.
BambergerY. M. (2014). Encouraging girls into science and technology with feminine role model: Does this work?Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 549–561. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24019742
6.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2023). Strategic science communication. Johns Hopkins University Press.
BetzD. E.SekaquaptewaD. (2012). My fair physicist? Feminine math and science role models demotivate young girls. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 738–746. https://doi.org/1948550612440735
9.
BianL.LeslieS.-J.CimpianA. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah652
10.
BondB. J. (2016). Fairy godmothers > robots: The influence of televised gender stereotypes and counter-stereotypes on girls’ perceptions of STEM. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(2), 91–97.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
13.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
14.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2022). Everything changes. . . well some things do: Reflections on, and resources for, reflexive thematic analysis. QMiP Bulletin, 1(33), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.21
15.
BuckG. A.ClarkV. L. P.Leslie-PeleckyD.LuY.Cerda-LizarragaP. (2008). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Science Education, 92, 688–707.
16.
BuckleyC.FarrellL.TyndallI. (2022). Brief stories of successful female role models in science help counter gender stereotypes regarding intellectual ability among young girls: A pilot study. Early Education and Development, 33(4), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1928444
17.
BurkeK. L. (2017). Harassment in science: Recent studies demonstrate an unwelcoming workplace for people of color and women in STEM fields, point to a need to raise awareness among men and leaders, and elicit calls for cultural change. American Scientist, 105(5), 262.
18.
ByrneD. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality and Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
19.
CanfieldK.MenezesS. (2020). The state of inclusive science communication: A landscape study. The University of Rhode Island.
20.
CarloneH. B.JohnsonA. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.
21.
CechE. A.Blair-LoyM. (2019). The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10), 4182–4187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810862116
22.
ChenC.HardjoS.SonnertG.HuiJ.SadlerP. M. (2023). The role of media in influencing students’ STEM career interest. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 56–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00448-1
23.
CheryanS.MarkusH. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000209
24.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.HandronC.HudsonL. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69, 58–71.
25.
ClarkS. L.DyarC.InmanE. M.MaungN.LondonB. (2021). Women’s career confidence in a fixed, sexist STEM environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00313-z
26.
CohenE. L.TylerW. J. (2016). Examining perceived distance and personal authenticity as mediators of the effects of ghost-tweeting on parasocial interaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 19(5), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0657
27.
ColognaV.BaumbergerC.KnuttiR.OreskesN.BertholdA. (2022). The communication of value judgements and its effects on climate. Environmental Communication, 16(8), 1094–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2153896
28.
CookeP.NunesS.OlivaS.LazzerettiL. (2022). Open innovation, soft branding and green influencers: Critiquing “fast fashion” and “overtourism.”Journal of Open Innovation, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010052
29.
CraneP. R.TalleyA. E.Piña-WatsonB. (2022). This is what a scientist looks like: Increasing Hispanic/Latina women’s identification with STEM using relatable role models. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 10(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000202
30.
DekoninckH.SchmuckD. (2022). The mobilizing power of influencers for pro-environmental behavior intentions and political participation. Environmental Communication, 16(4), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2027801
31.
DruryB. J.SiyJ. O.CheryanS. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 265–269.
32.
EriksonE. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W.W. Norton.
33.
Farland-SmithD. (2010). Exploring middle school girls’ science identities: Examining attitudes and perceptions of scientists when working “side-by-side” with scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 415–427.
34.
Farland-SmithD. (2012). Personal and social interactions between young girls and scientists: Examining critical aspects for identity construction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(1), 1–18.
FujiokaY. (1999). Television portrayals and African-American stereotypes: Examination of television effects when direct contact is lacking. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 52–75.
37.
GladstoneJ. R.CimpianA. (2021). Which role models are effective for which students? A systematic review and four recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of role models in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00315-x
38.
GuenagaM.EguíluzA.GaraizarP.MimenzaA. (2022). The impact of female role models leading a group mentoring program to promote STEM vocations among young girls. Sustainability, 14(3), 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031420
39.
HabibiS. A.SalimL. (2021). Static vs. dynamic methods of delivery for science communication: A critical analysis of user engagement with science on social media. PLOS ONE, 16(3), Article e0248507. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248507
40.
HazariZ.SonnertG.SadlerP. M.ShanahanM.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.
41.
HerrmannS. D.AdelmanR. M.BodfordJ. E.GraudejusO.OkunM. A.KwanV. S. Y. (2016). The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1209757
42.
HundE. (2023). The influencer industry: The quest for authenticity on social media. Princeton University Press.
IlicicJ.WebsterC. M. (2016). Being true to oneself: Investigating celebrity brand authenticity. Psychology and Marketing, 33(6), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20887
JamesR.FisherJ. R. B.Carlos-GrotjahnC.BoylanM. S.DembereldashB.DemissieM. Z.Diaz De VillegasC.GibbsB.KoniaR.LyonsK.PossinghamH.RobinsonC. J.TangT.ButtN. (2023). Gender bias and inequity holds women back in their conservation careers. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, Article 1056751. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1056751
51.
JarreauP. B.CancellareI. A.CarmichaelB. J.PorterL.TokerD.YammineS. Z. (2019). Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE, 14(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216625
52.
JenkinsE. L.IlicicJ.BarklambA. M.McCaffreyT. A. (2020). Assessing the credibility and authenticity of social media content for applications in health communication: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e17296. https://doi.org/10.2196/17296
53.
JonesK. J.HiteR. L. (2020). Who wants to be a scientist in South Korea: Assessing role model influences on Korean students’ perceptions of science and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 42(16), 2674–2695. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1829158
54.
KendallL. (1999). Nerd nation: Images of nerds in US popular culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2(2), 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/136787799900200206
55.
KesselsU. (2015). Bridging the gap by enhancing the fit: How stereotypes about STEM clash with stereotypes about girls. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 280–296.
56.
KönigL.JucksR. (2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519833903
57.
KorteR. F. (2007). A review of social identity theory with implications for training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(3), 166–180.
58.
LeaperC.StarrC. R. (2019). Helping and hindering undergraduate women’s STEM motivation: Experiences with STEM encouragement, STEM-related gender bias, and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318806302
59.
LeeJ. A.EastinM. S. (2021). Perceived authenticity of social media influencers: Scale development and validation. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 15(4), 822–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2020-0253
60.
LiuS.-N. C.BrownS. E. V.SabatI. E. (2019). Patching the “leaky pipeline”: Interventions for women of color faculty in STEM academia. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000062
61.
LongM.SteinkeJ.ApplegateB.LapinskiM. K.JohnsonM. J.GhoshS. (2010). Portrayals of male and female scientists in televised programs popular among middle school-age children. Science Communication, 32(3), 356–382.
62.
MaaresP.BanjacS.HanuschF. (2021). The labour of visual authenticity on social media: Exploring producers’ and audiences’ perceptions on Instagram. Poetics, 84, 101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2020.101502
McKinleyC. J.MastroD.WarberK. M. (2014). Social identity theory as a framework for understanding the effects of exposure to positive media images of self and other on intergroup outcomes. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1049–1068.
66.
MillerD. I.NollaK. M.EaglyA. H.UttalD. H. (2018). The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. Draw-A-Scientist studies. Child Development, 89(6), 1943–1955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039
67.
MolledaJ. C. (2010). Authenticity and the construct’s dimensions in public relations and communication research. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541011064508
68.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2013). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. In CookmeyerM. W. M. B. D.WayneH. O. O. M. (Eds.), Women, science and technology: A reader in feminist science studies (3rd ed., pp. 3–14). Routledge.
69.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda.
70.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Promising practices for addressing the underrepresentation of women in science, engineering, and medicine. https://doi.org/10.17226/25585
71.
National Science Foundation. (2023). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2023 (Special Report NSF 23–315). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/
72.
ParkJ. J.KimY. K.SalazarC.HayesS. (2020). Student-faculty interaction and discrimination from faculty in STEM: The link with retention. Research in Higher Education, 61, 330–356.
73.
PérezA. (2019). Building a theoretical framework of message authenticity in CSR communication. Corporate Communications, 24(2), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0051
74.
PhillipsA. A.WalshC. R.GraysonK. A.PenneyC. E.HusainF.TeamW. D. S. (2022). Diversifying representations of female scientists on social media: A case study from the women doing science Instagram. Social Media + Society, 8(3), 205630512211130. https://doi.org/10.177/20563051221113068
75.
PlustU.MurphyD.JosephS. (2021). A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative research into teachers’ authenticity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1829546
76.
ReidP. T.StephensD. S. (1985). The roots of future occupations in childhood: A review of the literature on girls and careers. Youth & Society, 16(3), 267–288.
RiedlM. J.LukitoJ.WoolleyS. C. (2023). Political influencers on social media: An introduction. Social Media + Society, 9(2), 205630512311779. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231177938
79.
RothbartM.FuleroS.JensenC.HowardJ.BirrellP. (1978). From individual to group impressions: Availability heuristics in stereotype formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 237–255.
80.
SaffranL.HuS.HinnantA.SchererL. D.NagelS. C. (2020). Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative. PLOS ONE, 15(1), Article e0226711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711
81.
SchnellerA. (2021). Authenticity and credibility in science communication design: A rhetorical approach. Design Issues, 37(4), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00658
82.
SettlesI. H.JellisonW. A.Pratt-HyattJ. S. (2009). Identification with multiple social groups: The moderating role of identity change over time among women-scientists. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 856–867.
83.
ShinJ. E. L.LevyS. R.LondonB. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 410–427.
84.
ShoenbergerH.KimE. (A.). (2023). Explaining purchase intent via expressed reasons to follow an influencer, perceived homophily, and perceived authenticity. International Journal of Advertising, 42(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2022.2075636
85.
SmythF. L.NosekB. A. (2015). On the gender–science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–19.
86.
StarrC. R. (2018). “I’m not a science nerd!”: STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318793848
87.
SteinkeJ. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27, 27–63.
88.
SteinkeJ.ApplegateB.LapinskiM.RyanL.LongM. (2012). Gender differences in adolescents’ wishful identification with scientist characters on television. Science Communication, 34(2), 163–199.
89.
SteinkeJ.ApplegateB.PennyJ. R.MerlinoS. (2022). Effects of diverse STEM role model videos in promoting adolescents’ identification. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10168-z
90.
SteinkeJ.ColettiA.GilbertC. (2024). #WomenInSTEM: Exploring self-presentation of identity on Instagram. International Journal of Science Communication, 23(2), A03. https://doi.org/https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/JCOM_2301_2024_A03/
91.
SteinkeJ.DuncanT. (2023). Challenging media stereotypes of STEM: Examining an intervention to change adolescent girls’ gender stereotypes of STEM professionals. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 15(2), 136–165.
92.
SteinkeJ.LapinskiM.CrockerN.Zietsman-ThomasA.WilliamsY.EvergreenS. H.KuchibhotlaS. (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(1), 35–64.
93.
SteinkeJ.LongM. (1996). A lab of her own? Portrayals of female characters on children’s educational science programs. Science Communication, 18(2), 91–115.
94.
SteinkeJ.TavarezP. M. P. (2017). Cultural representations of gender and STEM: Portrayals of female STEM characters in popular films 2002-2014. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 9(3), 244–276.
95.
SterlingA. D.ThompsonM. E.WangS.KusimoA.GilmartinS.SheppardS. (2020). The confidence gap predicts the gender pay gap among STEM graduates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48), 30303–30308. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010269117
96.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270.
97.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press.
98.
TajfelH. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
99.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks Cole.
TracyS. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
102.
Van CampA. R.GilbertP. N.O’BrienL. T. (2019). Testing the effects of a role model intervention on women’s STEM outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 22, 649–671.
VrontisD.MakridesA.ChristofiM.ThrassouA. (2021). Social media influencer marketing: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 617–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12647
WellsH. M. (2023). I look like an engineer: Women reclaiming STEM through hashtag activism. In AmesM.McDuffieK. (Eds.), Hashtag activism interrogated and embodied: Case studies on social justice movements (pp. 75–99). Utah State University Press.
107.
WhiteE.HanleyT. (2023). Therapist + social media = mental health influencer? Considering the research focusing upon key ethical issues around the use of social media by therapists. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 23(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12577
Wilkins-YelK. G.HymanJ.ZounlomeN. O. O. (2019). Linking intersectional invisibility and hypervisibility to experiences of microaggressions among graduate women of color in STEM. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.018
ZahryN. R.BesleyJ. C. (2021). Can scientists communicate interpersonal warmth? Testing warmth messages in the context of science communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 49(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2021.1880017
116.
ZengJ.AbidinC.SchäferM. S. (2021). Research perspectives on TikTok & its legacy apps| research perspectives on TikTok and its legacy apps—Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 15, 12.
