Diversity in knowledge production is a core challenge facing science communication. Despite extensive works showing how diversity has been undermined in science communication, little is known about to what extent social media augments or hinders diversity for science communication. This article addresses this gap by examining the profile and network diversities of knowledge producers on a popular social media platform—YouTube. We revealed the pattern of the juxtaposition of inclusiveness and segregation in this digital platform, which we define as “segregated inclusion.” We found that diverse profiles are presented in digital knowledge production. However, the network among these knowledge producers reveals the rich-get-richer effect. At the intersection of profile and network diversities, we found a decrease in the overall profile diversity when we moved toward the center of the core producers. This segregated inclusion phenomenon questions how inequalities in science communication are replicated and amplified in relation to digital platforms.
AccominottiFKhanSRStorerA (2018) How cultural capital emerged in Gilded Age America: musical purification and cross-class inclusion at the New York Philharmonic. American Journal of Sociology123(6): 1743–1783.
2.
AmarasekaraIGrantWJ (2018) Exploring the YouTube science communication gender gap: a sentiment analysis. Public Understanding of Science28(1): 68–84.
3.
AshwoodLHardenNBellMM, et al. (2014) Linked and situated: grounded knowledge. Rural Sociology79(4): 427–452.
4.
BakerSAWalshMJ (2018) “Good Morning Fitfam”: top posts, hashtags and gender display on Instagram. New Media & Society20(12): 4553–4570.
5.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
BärtlM (2018) YouTube channels, uploads and views: a statistical analysis of the past 10 years. Convergence24(1): 16–32.
8.
BishopS (2019) Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society21(11–12): 2589–2606.
9.
BivensR (2017) The gender binary will not be deprogrammed: ten years of coding gender on Facebook. New Media & Society19(6): 880–898.
10.
BivensRHaimsonOL (2016) Baking gender into social media design: how platforms shape categories for users and advertisers. Social Media+ Society2(4): 1–12.
11.
Bonilla-SilvaE (2006) Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12.
BourdieuP (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
BoydD (2008) Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: BuckinghamD (ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 2007–2016.
14.
BrossardDScheufeleDA (2013) Science, new media, and the public. Science339(6115): 40–41.
15.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700.
16.
BurgessJGreenJ (2018) YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
17.
ButkowskiCPDixonTLWeeksKR, et al. (2020) Quantifying the feminine self(ie): gender display and social media feedback in young women’s Instagram selfies. New Media & Society22(5): 817–837.
18.
ButlerJ (2015) Notes toward a Performative Theory of Assembly. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
CanfieldKNMenezesSMatsudaSB, et al. (2020) Science communication demands a critical approach that centers inclusion, equity, and intersectionality. Frontiers in Communication5: 2.
20.
CaplanRGillespieT (2020) Tiered governance and demonetization: the shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy. Social Media + Society6(2): 1–13.
21.
ChakravarttyPKuoRGrubbsV, et al. (2018) #CommunicationSoWhite. Journal of Communication68(2): 254–266.
ChoiSYChoY (2017) Generating counter-public spheres through social media: two social movements in neoliberalised South Korea. Javnost-The Public24(1): 15–33.
24.
ChooHYFerreeMM (2010) Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: a critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory28(2): 129–149.
25.
CraigDCunninghamS (2019) Social Media Entertainment: The New Intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. New York: NYU Press.
26.
CrenshawK (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum1989(1): 8.
27.
CromwellJStrykerSWhittleS (2006) Queering the binaries. In: Stryker S and Whittle S (eds) The Transgender Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 509–520.
28.
CunninghamSCraigD (2019) Creator governance in social media entertainment. Social Media+ Society5(4): 1–11.
29.
DaviesSR (2011) The rules of engagement: power and interaction in dialogue events. Public Understanding of Science22(1): 65–79.
30.
DawsonE (2018) Reimagining publics and (non) participation: exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 772–786.
31.
DixonTLLinzD (2000) Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos as lawbreakers on television news. Journal of Communication50(2): 131–154.
32.
DöringNReifAPoeschlS (2016) How gender-stereotypical are selfies? A content analysis and comparison with magazine adverts. Computers in Human Behavior55: 955–962.
33.
DuboviITabakI (2020) An empirical analysis of knowledge co-construction in YouTube comments. Computers & Education156: 103939.
34.
DunlopLVeneuF (2019) Controversies in science. Science & Education28(6): 689–710.
35.
DunwoodyS (2020) Science journalism and pandemic uncertainty. Media and Communication8(2): 471–474.
36.
EasleyDKleinbergJ (2010) Power laws and rich-get-richer phenomena. In: EasleyDKleinbergJ (eds) Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 543–560.
37.
FrithKShawPChengH (2005) The construction of beauty: a cross-cultural analysis of women’s magazine advertising. Journal of Communication55(1): 56–70.
38.
FunkCJeffreyGMitchellA (2017) Science News and Information Today. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
39.
GoffmanE (1978) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
40.
GoffmanE (1979) Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper & Row.
41.
GorwaR (2019) What is platform governance?Information, Communication & Society22(6): 854–871.
42.
GranABBoothPBucherT (2020) To be or not to be algorithm aware: a question of a new digital divide?Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 20 August. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124.
43.
HabermasJ (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: A Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
HalberstamJ (2019) Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45.
HarawayD (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14(3): 575–599.
JacksonSJFoucault WellesB (2015) Hijacking #myNYPD: social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication65(6): 932–952.
48.
KapidzicSHerringSC (2015) Race, gender, and self-presentation in teen profile photographs. New Media & Society17(6): 958–976.
49.
KimuraAKinchyA (2019) Science by the People. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
50.
KloppenburgJ (1991) Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology56(4): 519–548.
51.
LagosD (2019) Hearing gender: voice-based gender classification processes and transgender health inequality. American Sociological Review84(5): 801–827.
52.
LangeP (2019) Thanks for Watching: An Anthropological Study of Video Sharing on YouTube. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
53.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action : How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
Matamoros-FernándezA (2017) Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society20(6): 930–946.
55.
MatiasJN (2019) The civic labor of volunteer moderators online. Social Media + Society5(2): 1–12.
56.
MertonRK (1968) The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science159(3810): 56–63.
57.
MottDCockayneD (2017) Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of conscientious engagement. Gender, Place & Culture24(7): 954–973.
58.
MuellerJC (2017) Producing colorblindness: everyday mechanisms of white ignorance. Social Problems64(2): 219–238.
59.
OakleyA (2016) Disturbing hegemonic discourse: nonbinary gender and sexual orientation labeling on Tumblr. Social Media+ Society2(3): 1–12.
60.
OlsonRSNealZP (2015) Navigating the massive world of Reddit: using backbone networks to map user interests in social media. PeerJ Computer Science1: e4.
61.
OtteERousseauR (2002) Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science28(6): 441–453.
PowellMKleinmanDL (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 329–348.
ShifmanL (2012) An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society14(2): 187–203.
67.
ShwedUBearmanPS (2010) The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. American Sociological Review75(6): 817–840.
68.
SobierajS (2018) Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: patterned resistance to women’s visibility in digital publics. Information, Communication & Society21(11): 1700–1714.
69.
StewartEHartmannD (2020) The new structural transformation of the public sphere. Sociological Theory38(2): 170–191.
70.
SunsteinCR (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
71.
SuryanarayananSKleinmanD (2016) Vanishing Bees: Science, Politics, and Honeybee Health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
72.
SweetPL (2018) The feminist question in realism. Sociological Theory36(3): 221–243.
73.
SzulcL (2019) Profiles, identities, data: making abundant and anchored selves in a platform society. Communication Theory29(3): 257–276.
74.
WimmerALewisK (2010) Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology116(2): 583–642.
75.
YoganarasimhanH (2012) Impact of social network structure on content propagation: a study using YouTube data. Quantitative Marketing and Economics10(1): 111–150.
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.
