IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v14y2025i3p138-d1599253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doing Visibility : Understanding Gender and Discipline Differences in Science Communication on Social Media and in the Press

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Spagert

    (Department of Engineering and Management, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany
    Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, 80801 Munich, Germany)

  • Elke Wolf

    (Department of Engineering and Management, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany)

Abstract

Nowadays, visibility is playing an increasingly important role in science communication. The topic is particularly significant for female experts, as their visibility not only inspires other women but also challenges gender stereotypes in academia. This article provides the first insights into the actual public visibility of scientific experts in Germany and presents potential factors that influence visibility. The analysis is based on the theoretical concept of doing visibility and identifies factors that influence the decision to increase visibility via social media. Our complex dataset comprises 139 experts (59 from computer science and 80 from social sciences), who took part in our online survey about visibility and personal information. Additionally, we tracked the respondent’s online footprint to ascertain their actual visibility in social media and press. The study reveals significant differences in creating visibility and the perception of visibility by sex and discipline. Computer scientists are more active on social media, while male social scientists are more visible in the press. Male computer scientists (57%) post their work on social media most frequently, followed by female computer scientists (35%), female social scientists (24%), and male social scientists (17%). Furthermore, the engagement on social media depends on the discipline, age, and media affinity of the experts. Overall, female experts gain less visibility on LinkedIn and in the press, although the gender differences in IT are smaller in this respect. Based on the results, we discuss potential reasons for the unequal distribution of visibility and suggest targeted interventions to close the gender visibility gap, such as (social) media or interview training. In addition, organisations and media representatives should be trained to actively contribute to breaking down gender stereotypes.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Spagert & Elke Wolf, 2025. "Doing Visibility : Understanding Gender and Discipline Differences in Science Communication on Social Media and in the Press," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:14:y:2025:i:3:p:138-:d:1599253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/14/3/138/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/14/3/138/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim Holmberg & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1027-1042, November.
    2. Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2013. "Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    3. Claire Samtleben, 2019. "Auch an erwerbsfreien Tagen erledigen Frauen einen Großteil der Hausarbeit und Kinderbetreuung," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 86(10), pages 139-144.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco Schmitt & Robert Jäschke, 2017. "What do computer scientists tweet? Analyzing the link-sharing practice on Twitter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-28, June.
    2. Kim Holmberg & Timothy D Bowman & Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters, 2014. "Astrophysicists’ Conversational Connections on Twitter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Ortega, José Luis, 2021. "How do media mention research papers? Structural analysis of blogs and news networks using citation coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    4. Yu, Houqiang & Li, Longfei & Cao, Xueting & Chen, Tao, 2022. "Exploring country's preference over news mentions to academic papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    5. Mazarakis, Athanasios & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Quo Vadis German Scholarly Communication in Economics?," EconStor Conference Papers 110679, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. Yupei Zhao & Zhongxuan Lin, 2019. "The Political Cultures of Forwarding on Chinese Social Media: Lessons From Hong Kong Chief Executive Election," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, April.
    7. Houqiang Yu, 2017. "Context of altmetrics data matters: an investigation of count type and user category," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 267-283, April.
    8. Wenya Huang & Peiling Wang & Qiang Wu, 2018. "A correlation comparison between Altmetric Attention Scores and citations for six PLOS journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    10. Shenmeng Xu & Houqiang Yu & Bradley M. Hemminger & Xie Dong, 2018. "Who, what, why? An exploration of JoVE scientific video publications in tweets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 845-856, November.
    11. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    12. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    13. Mahsa Amiri & Maryam Yaghtin & Hajar Sotudeh, 2024. "How do tweeters feel about scientific misinformation: an infoveillance sentiment analysis of tweets on retraction notices and retracted papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 261-287, January.
    14. João Melo Maricato & Bruno Lara Castro Manso, 2022. "Characterization of the communities of attention interacting with scientific papers on Twitter: altmetric analysis of a Brazilian University," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3815-3835, July.
    15. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2017. "What we can learn from tweets linking to research papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 349-369, April.
    16. Jianhua Hou & Hao Li & Yang Zhang, 2023. "Altmetrics-based sleeping beauties: necessity or just a supplement?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5477-5506, October.
    17. Sabine Walper & Michaela Kreyenfeld, 2022. "The Intensification of Parenting in Germany: The Role of Socioeconomic Background and Family Form," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    18. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    19. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Mary Kwasny & Kristi L Holmes, 2018. "Academic information on Twitter: A user survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, May.
    20. Dehoff, Andrea & Roosen, Jutta, 2020. "Aufgabengebiete der bayerischen Bäuerinnen - Ein Situationsbericht," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305596, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:14:y:2025:i:3:p:138-:d:1599253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.