While previous research has established foundational knowledge on how women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) social media content creators use digital platforms to combat stereotypes, less is known about how they make space for themselves on visually dominant platforms. We address this gap by theorizing visual space-making as the coordinated use of visual cues into reproducible, platform-legible visual configurations that create recognizable “places” of belonging and authority within networked counterpublics. We employ visual clustering of video frames and topic modeling of text to identify recurring patterns in STEM-related TikTok content and examine their relationship with audience engagement. Results show that identity-oriented visuals are more prevalent than expertise-oriented visuals but applied differently across content topics. Identity-oriented visuals are more likely to be associated with higher comment rates, whereas expertise-oriented visuals are associated with higher share rates. Results suggest implications for balancing identity and expertise self-presentation in digital spaces for women in STEM.
AshforthBEMaelF (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review14(1): 20–39.
2.
BaiAVahedianMHessariH, et al. (2024) Digital empowerment: transformation of women’s body display norms in the age of social media. Formosa Journal of Science and Technology3(8): 1935–1954.
3.
BhandariABimoS (2022) Why’s everyone on TikTok now? The algorithmized self and the future of self-making on social media. Social Media + Society8(1): 1–11.
4.
BurkeMKrautRE (2016) The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(4): 265–281.
5.
ChenSBrewerPR (2025) Representation in ScienceTok: communicator identities, message content, and user engagement on a short-form video platform. International Journal of Communication19: 1207–1227.
6.
CheryanSMarkusHR (2020) Masculine defaults: identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review127(6): 1022–1052.
7.
CotterK (2019) Playing the visibility game: how digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society21(4): 895–913.
8.
DeVitoMABirnholtzJHancockJT (2017) Platforms, people, and perception: using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In: Proceedings of the 2017ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland OR, 25 February 2017–1 March 2017, pp. 740–754. New York: ACM.
9.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
10.
FlickerE (2003) Between brains and breasts — women scientists in fiction film: on the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence. Public Understanding of Science12(3): 307–318.
11.
FraserN (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text25/26: 56–80.
12.
GeelsJGraßlPSchraffenbergerH, et al. (2024) Virtual lab coats: the effects of verified source information on social media post credibility. PLoS ONE19(5): e0302323.
13.
GillespieT (2014) The relevance of algorithms. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society167(2014): 167.
14.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
15.
GoodwinC (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist96(3): 606–633.
GuoMSunFS (2020) Like, comment, or share? Exploring the effects of local television news Facebook posts on news engagement. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media64(5): 736–755.
18.
HallinanBScharlachRShifmanL (2022) Beyond neutrality: conceptualizing platform values. Communication Theory32(2): 201–222.
19.
Hernández-SerranoMJJonesBRenés-ArellanoP, et al. (2022) Analysis of digital self-presentation practices and profiles of Spanish adolescents on Instagram and TikTok. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research11(1): 49–63.
20.
HillS (2024) Navigating visibility and risk: disabled young women’s self-presentation practices on social media. Journal of Gender Studies33(5): 512–523.
21.
HuberBBaenaLQ (2023) Women scientists on TikTok: new opportunities to become visible and challenge gender stereotypes. Media and Communication11(S1): 240–251.
22.
HwongY-LOliverCVan KranendonkM, et al. (2017) What makes you tick? The psychology of social media engagement in space science communication. Computers in Human Behavior68: 480–492.
23.
InwoodOZappavignaM (2024) The legitimation of screenshots as visual evidence in social media: YouTube videos spreading misinformation and disinformation. Visual Communication. Epub ahead of print 6 October 2024. DOI: 10.1177/14703572241255664.
24.
JacksonSJFoucault WellesB (2015) Hijacking #myNYPD: social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication65(6): 932–952.
25.
JarreauPBCancellareIACarmichaelBJ, et al. (2019) Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLoS ONE14(5): e0216620.
26.
KimDHWeeksBELaneDS, et al. (2021) Sharing and commenting facilitate political learning on Facebook: evidence from a two-wave panel study. Social Media + Society7(3): 1–11.
27.
LaFolletteMC (1988) Eyes on the stars: images of women scientists in popular magazines. Science, Technology, & Human Values13(3/4): 262–275.
28.
LatourBWoolgarS (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage.
29.
LeeJSukJ (2025) Navigating the complexity of visual misinformation: developing the visual misinformation processing model for visual-text misinformation dynamics. Communication Theory35(4): 238–249.
30.
LüdersADinkelbergAQuayleM (2022) Becoming “us” in digital spaces: how online users creatively and strategically exploit social media affordances to build up social identity. Acta Psychologica228: 103643.
31.
LundgrenLCrippenKJBexRT (2022) Social media interaction as informal science learning: a comparison of message design in two niches. Research in Science Education (Australasian Science Education Research Association)52(1): 1–20.
32.
LynchM (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge.
33.
MajchrzakAFarajSKaneGC, et al. (2013) The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(1): 38–55.
34.
MendickHMoreauM-P (2013) New media, old images: constructing online representations of women and men in SET. Gender and Education25(3): 325–339.
NguyenHDiederichM (2023) Facilitating knowledge construction in informal learning: a study of TikTok scientific, educational videos. Computers & Education205: 1–14.
37.
NyawagaCMitraR (2025) Black STEM professionals’ identity management on enterprise social media. Communication and Race2(1): 1–29.
38.
OngMSmithJMKoLT (2018) Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher education: marginal and central spaces for persistence and success. Journal of Research in Science Teaching55(2): 206–245.
39.
ReimersNGurevychI (2019) Sentence-BERT: sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks. In: Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), (eds InuiKJiangJNgV, et al.), Hong Kong, China, November 2019, pp. 3982–3992. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
40.
RoseG (2022) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. London: Sage.
41.
SchummerJSpectorTI (2008) Popular images versus self-images of science. In: HüppaufBWeingartP (eds) Science Images and Popular Images of the Sciences. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 69–95.
42.
SpangSSteinkeJ (2026) ‘We’re women in STEM’: Promoting adolescent girls’ engagement with TikTok posts by women STEM content creators. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement1–20.
43.
SteinkeJBaumelKTurnerMM (2024a) Cultivating authenticity as role models: women in STEM influencers on Instagram. Science Communication46(5): 543–583.
44.
SteinkeJColettiAGilbertC (2024b) #WomenInSTEM: exploring self-presentation of identity on Instagram. Journal of Science Communication (JCOM)23(1): A03.
45.
SteinkeJGilbertCColettiA, et al. (2024c) Women in STEM on TikTok: advancing visibility and voice through STEM identity expression. Social Media + Society10(3): 20563051241274675.
46.
SteinkeJTavarezP (2017) Cultural representations of gender and STEM: Portrayals of feamle STEM characters in popular films 2002-2104. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology9(3): 244–277.
47.
SuM-HSukJRojasH (2022) Social media expression, political extremity, and reduced network interaction: an imagined audience approach. Social Media + Society8(1): 20563051211069056.
48.
SukJAbhishekAZhangY, et al. (2021) #MeToo, networked acknowledgment, and connective action. Social Science Computer Review39(2): 276–294.
49.
SukJLukitoJSuM-H, et al. (2022) Do I sound American? Message attributes of IRA disinformation and Twitter engagement. Computational Communication Research4(2): 590–628.
50.
SukJZhangYYueZ, et al. (2023) When the personal becomes political: sexual violence and gender justice discourses across platforms. Communication Research50(5): 610–632.
51.
TajfelH (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology33: 1–39.
52.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. WorchelSAustinWG (eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Boston, MA: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.
TuchmanG (1981) The symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media. In: CohenSYoungJ (eds) The manufacture of news: Social Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media, Revised ed. London: Sage, pp. 169–185.
55.
WardLM (2016) Media and sexualization: state of empirical research, 1995–2015. The Journal of Sex Research53(4–5): 560–577.
56.
WellsHM (2023) I look like an engineer: women reclaiming STEM through hashtag activism. In: AmesMMcDuffieK (eds) Hashtag Activism Interrogated and Embodied. Denver, CO: Utah State University Press, pp. 75–99.
57.
YammineSZLiuCJarreauPB, et al. (2018) Social media for social change. Science360(6385): 162–163.
58.
YuanSLouC (2020) How social media influencers foster relationships with followers: source credibility and fairness in parasocial relationship and product interest. Journal of Interactive Advertising20(2): 133–147.
59.
ZhaoXAbidinC (2023) The “Fox Eye” challenge trend: anti-racism work, platform affordances, and the vernacular of gesticular activism on TikTok. Social Media + Society9(1): 2056305123115759.
60.
ZulliDZulliDJ (2022) Extending the Internet meme: conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society24(8): 1872–1890.
