Source-linked AI summary
Gender Stereotypes Make Women Invisible: The Presence of Female Scientists in the Media
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola, Simón Peña-Fernández
TL;DR
The study examines how women scientists are represented in media, including their visibility and the stereotypes and journalistic features associated with them. The study analyzed coverage on four regional newspaper websites, screening 408 analysis units and coding scientific content, researcher details, gender-associated ideas, and women-related themes. Women scientists’ media presence and headline prominence increased, but portrayals continued to emphasize gender identity and singularity, with STEM coverage prioritizing feminine roles.
Problem
The study examines how women scientists are represented in media, including their visibility and the stereotypes and journalistic features associated with them.
Source: §1 · p. 3Method
The study analyzed coverage on four regional newspaper websites, screening 408 analysis units and coding scientific content, researcher details, gender-associated ideas, and women-related themes.
Source: §2.1 · p. 3, §2.2 · p. 5Results
Women scientists’ media presence and headline prominence increased, but portrayals continued to emphasize gender identity and singularity, with STEM coverage prioritizing feminine roles.
Source: §4 · pp. 10, 12, §6 · p. 13Takeaways & Limitations
The conclusions indicate that greater visibility has not shifted coverage toward women’s scientific contributions and status, and that STEM portrayals can prioritize feminine roles.
Source: §6 · p. 13The content analysis leaves researchers’ perceived factors shaping participation in media and other dissemination activities for future qualitative study.
Source: §5 · pp. 12–13
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Interest in the situation of women scientists has increased in recent years. Scientific institutions and governmental authorities have launched initiatives to promote science as a vocation among women. Within this context, the effort made by the media in disseminating role models is of vital importance. The aim of this research is to analyse the presence of women scientists in the media, and to conduct an appraisal of the status granted to them and the image conveyed about them. To this end, we analysed the content published on the websites of the regional newspapers Berria, Gara, El Correo and Diario de Navarra between 2014 and 2019 citing women scientists and researchers (N = 2362). The results indicate that presence is greater in quantitative terms, as is the prominence given to them in headlines. However, the disciplines in which they practise and the stereotypes which are conveyed shape their image, which in the case of STEM areas emphasise their role as carers and their singularity in the scientific field.
1. Introduction
The introduction situates the study amid initiatives to promote women in science and asks how regional media portray women scientists, including their visibility, the disciplines represented, stereotypes, and journalistic treatment. Prior research describes their lower public and media presence and recurring portrayals shaped by gender roles.
Initiatives
- The introduction notes initiatives promoting women’s scientific vocations, including the UN’s International Day of Women and Girls in Science, first held in 2016.The UN approved the declaration in December 2015.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
Women in science
- Women make up 29.3% of research staff worldwide, while prior research also reports barriers to advancement, career attrition, and lower publication and citation output.In Spain, women account for 41% of scientists on average, with substantial variation by area and sector.Source: §1 · p. 2
Media representations
- Prior studies report that women scientists have less public and media recognition than men and are treated differently in line with gender roles.Media representations may shape attitudes and possible selves, while young people still commonly associate scientific activity with men.Source: §1 · p. 2
Gendered portrayals
- Research describes portrayals that emphasize women scientists’ femininity and caregiving roles, while representing men as the norm and women as exceptions in a masculine sphere.Other cited work associates leadership and analytical capacity with men and emotional qualities with women.Source: §1 · p. 3
Research aims
- The study asks how women scientists are profiled, which disciplines attract interest, what stereotypes appear, how they are featured journalistically, and whether treatment relates to authorship.It aims to assess changes in their media visibility and the characteristics of messages about them.Source: §1 · p. 3
2. Materials and Methods
The study analyzes regional newspaper content from 2014–2019 using a two-stage content analysis. It defines a broad sample of women scientists and researchers, then codes general article features and headline-focused portrayals.
2.1. Selection of the Sample
- The sample covers Berria, Gara, El Correo, and Diario de Navarra, regional newspapers serving the Basque Country and Navarre.The outlets publish in Spanish and/or Basque, with Berria published entirely in Basque.Source: §2.1 · pp. 3–4
- The analysis uses content analysis in two phases: general characteristics of all texts mentioning women scientists, then content featuring them in headline elements.The study aims to track change over time as well as take a current snapshot.Source: §2.1 · p. 4
- The 2014–2019 period spans two years before and three years after the International Day of Women and Girls in Science began in 2016.Researchers searched digital archives and the newspapers’ own search engines for content citing women scientists.Source: §2.1 · p. 4
2.2. Coding
- Searches used “investigadora” and “científica”; Berria in its entirety and Gara in part were also searched using Basque “ikertzaile” and “zientzialari” (Gara in both languages), yielding 2362 sampled content elements from 14,523 identified.Women scientists included researchers across disciplines, expert commentators, and historical figures recognized for scientific work.Source: §2.2 · pp. 4–5
- The study coded all analysis units in an initial phase for content characteristics, then screened for items with female scientists in any title element, yielding 408 units.Variables included date, medium, authorship, section, purpose, and area of knowledge.Source: §2.2 · p. 5
- The headline-focused coding assessed scientific content, researchers’ characteristics, and five stereotype categories: caregiving, appearance, traits and suitability, exceptionality, and gender-related difficulties.It also recorded whether coverage focused on maternity and care, female health and the body, discrimination, or violence against women; Excel and SPSS supported analysis.Source: §2.2 · p. 5
3. Results
Articles citing female scientists and researchers increased overall, while coverage varied by discipline and presented women in hard sciences through more stereotypes, including family-care roles and exceptional status.
3.1. General Results
- The number of articles citing female scientists and researchers followed an upward, though non-linear, trend across the study period.The first-phase sample included 2,362 articles.Source: §3.1 · p. 6, Figure 1 · p. 6
- Social sciences and humanities accounted for 40.65% of coverage, while health and life sciences represented 21.29% and 14.23%, respectively.Nearly half of the texts explained study or research-project results (46.27%).Source: §3.1 · p. 6
- Information agencies produced 31.2% of the content, and journalists’ gender was associated with differences in the scientific areas covered.Women journalists more often covered social sciences; men more often covered astronomy, physics, chemistry, and earth and space sciences. Figure 2 identifies authorship and knowledge areas by authorship.Source: §3.1 · p. 7, Figure 2 · p. 7
- Regional and society sections carried much of the coverage, while the newspapers had no dedicated science section.Regional sections accounted for 21.34% and society for 18.05%; 11.26% of items were classified as scientific by topic headers, and 67.40% of those concerned hard sciences. Culture accounted for 9.14%.Source: §3.1 · pp. 7–8
3.2. Female Scientists in Headlines
- Among headline mentions, 18.87% cited women scientists without giving them a voice, while awards or bursaries accounted for 29.41%.Headline appearances increased continuously, especially in 2016 and 2017; research results accounted for 30.14%, and methodology was mentioned in 47.79% of analyzed units. Table 1 concerns the evolution of content addressing inequality in science.Source: §3.2 · p. 8, Table 1 · p. 8
3.3. Stereotypes and Ideas
- Stereotypes were considerably more prevalent in hard-science coverage, and references to appearance and clothing had declined considerably.Family and caring duties appeared in 17.15% of texts, including references to conflict between academic careers and family.Source: §3.3 · pp. 9–10, Figure 4 · p. 9
- References to difficulties and exceptional status appeared in 15.9% and 18.3% of texts, respectively, especially in hard-science coverage.Coverage of issues concerning women accounted for 26.22% of publications, and descriptions also emphasized women scientists’ excellence, virtues, perseverance, and singularity.Source: §3.3 · p. 10
4. Discussion
Women scientists’ media presence and headline prominence increased, but their placement and framing often continued to mark them as exceptional or primarily representative of women. Disciplinary treatment and gender stereotypes shaped the scientific status conveyed to readers.
4. Discussion
- Despite increased presence and headline prominence, women scientists were often merely mentioned, placed outside science sections, or given little space.The study notes their placement in regional and society sections, while media-defined science coverage remained closely linked to hard sciences.Source: §4 · pp. 10–11
- The study’s all-discipline approach found that women in social sciences and humanities were often presented as interpreters of society, without specific research cited, giving their contributions an opinion-piece status.Their academic track records supported their selection, but their work was not presented through particular studies.Source: §4 · p. 11
- In hard sciences, women’s scientific legitimacy was less questioned, but their status depended more on framing and stereotypes, with a sharper tension between gender and scientist roles.The study identifies discipline classification and gender stereotypes as strategies that question women’s role as creators of scientific knowledge.Source: §4 · p. 11
- Family references appeared in almost one in every five texts about women researchers, often linking their biographies or work–life balance to family life.The authors say this framing situates narratives about women in science within a family context.Source: §4 · p. 11
- Women’s continued presence in science was sometimes framed as singular, with husbands, brothers, or teachers cast as the specific context that encouraged their scientific work.This framing presents women’s participation as requiring a particular stimulus.Source: §4 · p. 12
- 18.38% of headlines featuring women scientists foregrounded how extraordinary their story was, alongside the difficulties they faced.The discussion cautions that emphasis on women’s singular status and difficulties can displace attention from their abilities and contributions.Source: §4 · p. 12
- Although the specific messages have shifted from appearance toward difficulty and exceptionality, the narrative still tends to represent science as a man’s field and women scientists as singular.The authors describe this as a qualitative change that preserves the underlying gendered framing.Source: §4 · p. 12
- Women scientists were also frequently presented through topics associated with femininity, especially gender discrimination and scientific inequality, in 26.22% of texts featuring them in the title.The discussion says this can make them symbolic representatives of women rather than professionals in science.Source: §4 · p. 12
5. Limitations
The study is limited by its regional-media sample and identifies several factors that future research should examine to better understand how media messages are shaped and how women researchers participate in dissemination.
5. Limitations
- The sample is limited to regional media from the Basque Country, and the authors recommend comparing coverage of male and female scientists to identify quantitative and qualitative differences.The study also calls for further investigation of scientific-field structures and media routines shaping messages, and qualitative work on researchers’ collective and subjective factors affecting participation in media and dissemination.Source: §5 · pp. 12–13
6. Conclusions
Media visibility of women scientists has advanced, but their contributions and status as scientific figures remain underemphasized. Their portrayals also differ by discipline, while women continue to be represented as exceptions in a male-coded scientific environment.
6. Conclusions
- Despite progress in visibility, media coverage does not focus on women scientists’ contributions or status as scientific figures.In STEM, stereotypes prioritizing women’s feminine roles undermine their scientific role.Source: §6 · p. 13
- In social sciences and humanities, women scientists are presented as “interpreters” rather than scientific experts, reflecting those disciplines’ historically lower social status.Source: §6 · p. 13
- Science is still represented in the media as a male environment in which women are the exception, prompting continued research into the messages and factors shaping coverage.The authors call for examining both scientific-field structures and media organization and routines.Source: §6 · p. 13