1 Can we break the binary in science communication?

By: Max Taylor

Introduction: The Challenge of Trust in the Digital Age

In the digital age, it is hard to know what and what not to trust. The truth is warped by a number of factors such as misinformation, conflicting research, and platform infrastructure. One side of this many pronged issue is the perception of content through evolving social lenses. Nowhere is this more important than in science communication. Abstract scientific research can be incredibly dense and unapproachable to those without the necessary context in a given field. For this reason the task of disseminating this information is a difficult but incredibly important one. In my group’s study, we did not look at the conventions of communication but instead at the gender of the communicator. Gender in STEM is a subject of debate due to continuing issues of representation within those fields. This led us to our research question: How does gender difference play a role in how commenters perceive science communicators emotionally?

Previous research has shown that women are disadvantaged within science communication, and communication more generally. They are often expected to be nurturing or expressive. My group hypothesized that non-binary science communicators would be similarly reacted to by audiences. Our study sought to identify emotional reactions such as fear, anger and disgust in the YouTube comment section of a science channel called SciShow. SciShow features male, female, and non-binary presenters who each cover a range of content. This gave us a good environment to observe differences between a male science communicator and a non-binary one. To categorize each comment, my group made use of a resource called the NRC emotional dictionary. Using it, we were able to sort individual words into emotional categories like anger, fear, anticipation, trust, surprise, sadness, joy, and disgust. We also sorted the comments by their overall positive or negative association. Using these elements, we analysed 100 comments from 10 videos. We sorted 50 comments from a male presenter, and the other 50 from a non-binary presenter.

Findings: Emotional Reactions by Gender

While the findings of our research confirmed our expected results, there were a few statistics that surprised us. Fitting relative expectations, the non-binary host received 21 (43%) negatively associated comments and 18 (37%) positively associated comments while the male host received 13 (26%) negative and 28 (56%) positive. Interestingly, trust was mostly unchanged between hosts. This was a big deal for our findings because it showed that trust was not changed significantly between genders. What was tremendously different was anger. Where the male hosts had 2 anger comments, the non-binary host had 15, an increase of 7.5 times the number of anger-associated comments. Numerically, however, the greatest difference was fear and sadness which both increased by 17 emotional associations or 241% and 270% increases respectively.

Interpreting the Data: Communication Theories and Gender Bias

To better frame and understand our findings we made use of Muted Group Theory and Agenda Setting Theory. Muted Group Theory refers to a way of understanding gender disparities in communication and has been applied to broader social hierarchies. It suggests that women and gender minorities must adapt their language and presentation style to be taken seriously in male-dominated fields such as science communication. Our findings fit well into this theory, showing that non-binary individuals are subject to greater emotional scrutiny in science communication settings than male presenters. Agenda Setting Theory is a theory of mass media that argues media helps to set up and frame issues within the public consciousness. It emphasizes how societal norms dictate the visibility and framing of different gender identities in media such as YouTube. Because historically men have dominated scientific discourse, public agendas of what a “credible” scientist looks favour men. Previous work has identified that gender minorities in media struggle with being either over-explained or dismissed, affecting their engagement levels with audiences. According to our study, non-binary science communicators appear to be met with a similar reception to women within the science community.

Conclusion: Visibility, Emotion, and the Stakes of Representation

As gender expression is in the media and dynamics are being negotiated socially, this research is essential in providing a view of where we are on the subject societally. In order to properly combat misinformation, it is essential that we consider how extenuating factors might be clouding our judgement. As gender does not alter the truthfulness of scientific data, this research indicates that there is still work to be done in reframing the validity of gender minorities as science communicators. Negative emotional responses in comments can have repercussions beyond public opinion. Gender minority science communicators on public media platforms may feel rejected by audiences, especially in comparison to better received male communicators. This decreases the visibility of gender minorities as a whole as they may be seen as less present in professional aspects of life such as STEM fields.

The hard work and efforts of Milan Ciurlizza, Jhen Oliveira, and Tenaya Mehjabin are acknowledged in the creation of this research.