The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external
communication through social networks
La visibilidad de las mujeres cientícas en la comunicación externa de las
universidades a través de las redes sociales
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 245
July-December of 2023
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
How to cite this article:
Eizmendi-Iraola, M. and Peña-Fernández, S. (2023). e visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social
networks.
Doxa Comunicación
, 37, pp. 245-261.
https://doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.n37a1861
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola.
PhD in Social Communication from the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU),
Master in Equality between Women and Men and Graduate in Journalism and Social and Cultural Anthropology. She
works as an assistant professor in the Journalism department of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Communication
of the UPV/EHU. She is a member of the work team of the Gureiker research group (IT1496-22). Among her lines of
research, the study of the participation of women scientists in the media and in dissemination initiatives stands out. As
a result of these investigations, she is the author of several articles published in scientic journals indexed in JCR and
SJR in the eld of communication and has participated as a speaker in a dozen national and international conferences.
In addition, she has a career of more than 17 years as a journalist.
University of País Vasco UPV/EHU, Spain
[email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0002-5894-8238
Simón Peña-Fernández.
Full Professor in the Department of Journalism at the UPV/EHU. Graduated in Journalism
and Audiovisual Communication from the University of Navarra and PhD in Information Sciences from the UPV/EHU,
he has published 70 articles in academic journals. All these publications have always been associated with continued
participation in around thirty research projects funded in competitive public calls, including eight European projects
(Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+) and four National Plan projects. He has also led eight relevant research and transfer
contracts with public entities and has participated in ve teaching innovation projects. He is a member of the research
group of the Basque university system Gureiker (IT1496-22).
University of País Vasco UPV/EHU, Spain
[email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0003-2080-3241
Abstract:
As agents of innovation and knowledge generation, universities take
advantage of their high symbolic capital to expand the communication
work they were already carrying out through legacy media on to social
networks. For its part, science communication has been characterized
Resumen:
Como agentes de innovación y de generación de conocimiento, las
universidades aprovechan su elevado capital simbólico para extender
a las redes sociales la labor divulgadora que ya realizaban a través de
los medios de comunicación. Por su parte, la comunicación cientíca
Received: 11/11/2022 - Accepted: 08/05/2023 - Early access: 23/05/2023 - Published: 01/07/2023
Recibido: 11/11/2022 - Aceptado: 08/05/2023 - En edición: 23/05/2023 - Publicado: 01/07/2023
is content is published under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License. International License
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
246
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
1. Introduction
During the last decades, universities have developed communication policies that have allowed them to disseminate the
knowledge they generate more eectively to society (Busto, 2013). e use of the Internet and social networks has played an
important role in this expansion, which has beneted from the signicant symbolic capital that higher education institutions
have as agents of innovation and knowledge generation.
Social networks have become an indispensable communication tool for universities, which have actively and extensively
incorporated them into their communication work (Rodríguez; Santamaría, 2012; Paniagua; Gómez, 2012; Brito; Laaser;
Toloza, 2015; Motta; Barbosa, 2018; Bellucci; Biagi; Manetti, 2019; Eizmendi; Peña, 2023). Because of them, they have been
able to overcome the technical and economic barriers that limited the public’s access to them (Peters
et al
., 2014; Paladan,
2018) and expand the impact that they already had through traditional media (Guzmán, 2013; González-Pedraz
et al
., 2017).
is social network activity has prompted academic interest in learning how universities use them to disseminate their activity,
whether it is to promote their researchers’ scientic results, improve their public image, or attract potential students (Cancelo;
Almansa, 2013; Voss; Kumar, 2013; Bélanger
et al
., 2014; García; Alonso, 2014; Castillo; Pérez-Latre, 2016; Amaral; Correia,
2020).
1.1. Women in science and academia
In parallel to the rise in the use of social networks, the study of science communication has also been approached from a gender
perspective, taking into account that narrowing the gap between men and women in science through dierent strategies and
programs has become one of the priorities of academia, in line with the fth sustainable development goal of the 2030 Agenda
(United Nations, 2015).
by a gender gap in which, despite initiatives to boost their presence
in the eld of science, women have a reduced visibility that has
repercussions on their social image. is research analyzes the content
that three leading universities have published on Twitter and Facebook
through a gender perspective with the aim of understanding what
type of content they publish, the scientic areas to which it belongs,
and the engagement it generates. e results indicate that science
communication constitutes a signicant part of the communicative
activity that universities develop through their social network
accounts. e data also indicate that, at the same time, quantitatively
fewer women are present and that their positions are qualitatively
more subordinate, particularly in STEM areas.
Keywords:
Dissemination; innovation; science; women; gender; university; social
networks.
se ha caracterizado por una brecha de género en la que las mujeres, a
pesar de las iniciativas para promover su presencia en el ámbito de la
ciencia, logran una visibilidad reducida que repercute en su imagen
social. Esta investigación analiza con una perspectiva de género los
contenidos publicados en Twitter y Facebook por parte de tres centros
universitarios de referencia, con el objetivo de conocer qué tipo de
contenidos publican, las áreas cientícas a las que pertenecen y el
enganche que generan. Los resultados indican, por una parte, que la
divulgación cientíca constituye una parte relevante de la actividad
comunicativa que las universidades desarrollan a través de sus cuentas
en las redes sociales. Por otro lado, los datos también apuntan a una
presencia de las mujeres cuantitativamente menor y cualitativamente
más subordinada, en particular en las áreas CTIM.
Palabras clave:
Divulgación; innovación; ciencia; mujeres; género; universidad; redes
sociales.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 247
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
us, since 1999, concern about the gender gap in science has prompted changes to encourage the involvement of women in
the European Commission’s research framework programs (Díaz; Samper, 2014). In the same vein, in 2015 the United Nations
General Assembly proclaimed February 11 as the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, with the aim of improving
their access to education, training, and research in the elds of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, as well as
supporting women scientists (United Nations, 2022).
Despite these and many other initiatives that seek to promote equality in the eld of science, several studies show that the
gender gap is still present in this eld, from both a vertical and a horizontal point of view, and this fact also aects both
production and the visibility received upon dissemination (Elsevier, 2020; European Commission, 2021; Ministry of Science and
Innovation, 2023). As regards universities, the legislation that promotes these institutions as agents of equality is extensive, at
both a state and an international level, since it is understood that they are uniquely positioned to implement equality policies.
However, in this area, the data indicate that, although women make up the majority of the student body, their participation in
the highest positions in academia is declining. According to the latest Times Higher Education (THE) report “Gender Equality:
How Global Universities are Performing” (UNESCO, 2022), women are still underrepresented among faculty and research
sta and, particularly, in leadership roles. According to this report, universities focus their eorts on women’s access to higher
education rather than on the advancement of their academic careers.
us, while it is true that the role of women in academia has changed during the last 50 years and that more and more women
are attaining positions of greater responsibility, they are still underrepresented in many scientic disciplines (Meho, 2021).
eir presence is greater in lower-ranking positions, and a greater proportion of women than men work in subdisciplines
that receive less funding and less recognition (Sá; Cowley
et al
., 2020). ere is also a gender gap in the output, citation, and
promotion of these professionals (Llorens
et al
., 2021; Sá, Cowley
et al
., 2020). Among the factors contributing to inequality
in science and academia, studies point to family responsibilities, stereotypes, biases, work culture, and the lack of eective
measures to address gender inequalities (Charlesworth; Banaji, 2019; Funk; Parker, 2018; Wang; Degol, 2017).
1.2. Gender and dissemination of science
Gender inequality in science communication is an area that has been extensively analyzed from multiple perspectives, with
studies indicating that the amount (Lariviere
et al
., 2013; Mueller
et al
., 2016; Holman
et al
., 2018) and impact (Duch
et al
.,
2012) of research conducted by scientists varies according to an author’s gender.
Multiple factors that explain this structural imbalance have been identied because gender bias in science calls for a
multifactorial analysis (Larivière
et al
., 2013). Disparities in the calling to study science (Fisher, 2020), hiring policies (Moss-
Racusin
et al
., 2012), access to funding and resources (Duch
et al
., 2012), work–life balance (Palomar Verea, 2009; Krukowski
et
al
., 2021; Krukowski
et al
., 2021), composition and leadership of research groups, and existing social stereotypes about people
who pursue science (Carli
et al
., 2016) have been highlighted among the multiple causes of the gender gap in this eld.
As a result of all of this, the representation of women is more limited in the science communication content being disseminated
through the media (García Nieto, 2013). Also, in the scientic eld, recent studies show that women publicize their academic works
through social networks less (Peng
et al
., 2022) and that they receive fewer citations in academic papers (Klar
et al
., 2020; Dinu, 2021).
248
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
e amount of visibility women scientists have in the media and on social networks undoubtedly has an impact on their social
image and also on that of science itself, a eld that has traditionally been considered masculine. In fact, several studies have
observed the underrepresentation of women scientists both in traditional and on digital media (Aladro
et al
. 2014; Mitchelstein
et al
. 2019); moreover, they indicate that the image projected by these media is biased and stereotyped (Husu; Tainio 2016;
Mitchell; MacKinnon 2019).
Since social networks oer a greater opportunity for engagement with and dissemination of messages, especially for
underrepresented groups (Vásárhelyi
et al
., 2021), messages posted through social networks can also have a positive impact
on the social image of these professionals and on the academic impact that their work can achieve.
erefore, science communication free from gender bias has great potential to help reverse the existing inequality in the
scientic eld, since it enables the public see the work of female academics.
In this context, the objective of this research is to analyze the involvement of men and women in the content related to science
communication and innovations posted on universities’ social networks.
erefore, the research questions of this study are:
RQ1. What roles do women and men play in the content about science communication and innovation disseminated
through universities’ Twitter and Facebook accounts?
RQ2. What are the formal and thematic characteristics of the science communication and dissemination about innovation
carried out by men and women?
RQ3. What level of interaction is generated by messages about science communication and innovation in relation to the
gender of their authors or of the people featured?
2. Methodology
To address the proposed objective, the role women and men played in the content posted on
Facebook
and
Twitter
by
Harvard University, the University of Oxford, and Universitat de Barcelona was analyzed. ese three institutions are the most
prestigious academic institutions in the United States, Great Britain, and Spain, respectively, according to data collected for
the Webometrics ranking (www.webometrics.info) by the Cybermetrics Lab research group of the Spanish National Research
Council (CSIC). e United States and the United Kingdom rank second and third after China in terms of impact and volume
of scientic output. e case of Spain, however, is of interest owing to the contrast between its volume of scientic output and
its impact, as in number of articles it ranks 11th globally and 1st among Spanish-speaking countries, but it drops to 74th place
when it comes to citation impact per article (Scimago, 2022). is choice was also based on the fact that the United Kingdom,
the United States, and Spain (along with Canada and Australia) are among the ve countries in which universities have more
data available regarding their activities in the area of gender equality (UNESCO, 2022), which demonstrates their interest in
the issue.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 249
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
In addition,
Twitter
and
Facebook
are the platforms on which the three institutions have the largest number of followers, and
choosing to analyze them is in line with other existing studies on use of social networks by universities across the globe (Motta;
Barbosa, 2018; Valerio-Ureña
et al
., 2020).
e period analyzed covers two months –from January 1, 2022, to February 28, 2022. is period is in the middle of the academic
year: for Oxford, at the beginning of the second term; for the Universitat de Barcelona, at the end of the rst semester and the
beginning of the second semester; and for Harvard, at the beginning of the second semester. In all cases, this is a period of
normal academic activity that, as it is after the winter holidays, does not include any vacation period that could aect the
sample.
After the study period was set, content was extracted manually by analyzing the three institutions’ accounts on the social
networks and the content that their university communications oce posted. erefore, the delimitation of the nal sample
did not require a signicant screening process. A total of 1,271 messages were analyzed.
Subsequently, the coding process, analyzing each of the posts and categorizing them, was carried out using an analysis
sheet. To ensure the reliability of the study, 20 units of analysis were randomly selected, and each variable was analyzed by
two coders. e percentage of agreement was 86.75%, according to Holsti’s formula, which indicates acceptable reliability
(Neuendorf, 2002).
First, to study the presence of a gender in the science communication that universities carried out on social networks (RQ1),
the genders of authors of the content or of the people featured in the messages and in the content that was linked to it were
identied, in addition to the gender and the authorship order of the persons who act as authoritative sources in them.
To determine the thematic and formal characteristics of the science communication (RQ2), in addition to the messages’
baseline data (date of post, university), the type of content and the topics addressed were studied. To this end, a distinction
has been made between (1) content aimed at making the results of a study or scientic project known, (2) activities of an
informative nature (congresses, conferences, etc...), (3) informative or opinion articles published on the university’s own web
pages or in the press, and (4) more practical posts, including analyses of current issues and interviews posted by university
communication oces or the traditional media and redistributed through these networks.
With respect to the scientic areas that the content corresponds to, they have been classied using the UNESCO International
Standard Nomenclature for Fields of Science and Technology, which –despite the problems with obsolescence and
representativeness ascribed to them (Ruiz-Martínez
et al
., 2014)– is widely used as a model by academic institutions today.
is code classies the elds of knowledge into 24 elds, to which one more, communication, has been added, in line with
what other studies in this eld (García, 2007; Marzal-Felici
et al
., 2016) have proposed.
Finally, to study the engagement generated by the posted messages according to the gender of their author or the person
featured (RQ3), the number of comments received by the messages, the number of likes obtained, and the number of times
they have been retweeted or shared were analyzed.
250
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
3. Results
e analysis of the messages that the three leading universities posted on
Twitter
and
Facebook
corroborates, rst of all, the relevance
of the science and innovation communication on their social networks, since, of the 1,271 messages posted on their accounts, 41.4%
(
N
= 526) were aimed at disseminating knowledge generated by the institution. e results indicated that there was a dierence in
the use of these platforms, with
Twitter
playing a key role, accounting for slightly more than three out of four of the messages posted
(78.7%,
N
= 414). Among the universities, there were no major dierences in the volume of their social networking activity. During
the period analyzed, Harvard was somewhat more active in disseminating science communication content.
3.1. Representation of women
In regard to gender, according to the data analyzed, there is a greater number of men acting as disseminators on university
Facebook
and
Twitter
accounts. us, there were twice as many institutional messages created by or featuring men or groups
of men (37.3%,
N
= 196) as those mentioning women or groups of women (19%,
N
= 96). e rest of the content was divided
among mixed groups (32.1%,
N
= 169) and those that did not specify the source (12.4%,
N
= 65). Between platforms, there
were also dierences in terms of gender. On
Facebook
, mentions of women were 21.5% of the total, whereas on
Twitter
this
percentage dropped to 14%.
erefore, there were fewer women were represented in the informative content disseminated through the universities’
Twitter
and
Facebook
accounts (RQ1) than men, both individually and in groups, especially on
Twitter
. is trend continued across
all of the universities, although to varying degrees (Figure 1). Harvard University showed the greatest inequality, whereas
Universitat de Barcelona’s posts showed a somewhat better balance.
Figure 1. Percentage of posts from each university according to the gender of the person who wrote or was featured in the content
3.1.
Representation
of women
In regard to gender, according to the data analyzed,
there
is a greater number of
men
acting
as disseminators on university
Facebook
and
Twitter
accounts
. Thus, there were
twice as many institutional messages created by or featuring men or groups of men
(37.3%,
N
= 196) as those mentioning women or groups of women (19%,
N
= 96). The
rest of the content was divided among mixed groups (32.1%,
N
= 169) and those that did
not specify the source (12.4%,
N
= 65). Between platforms, there were also differences
in terms of gender. On
Facebook
, mentions of women were 21.5% of the total, whereas
on
Twitter
this percentage drop
ped
to 14%.
Therefore, there were fewer women
were
represented
in the informative content
disseminated through the universities
’
Twitter
and
Facebook
accounts (RQ1) than men,
both individually and in groups, especially on
Twitter
. This trend continued
across
all of
the universities, although to varying degrees (Figure 1). Harvard University showed the
greatest inequality, whereas Universitat de Barcelona
’s posts
showed a somewhat
better
balance.
Figure 1. Percentage of posts from each university
a
ccording to the gender of the person
who wrote or was
featured
in
the content
Source: prepare by the authors
Looking
beyond
the data and percentages, the mathematician and crew member of the
Hypatia I simulated mission Ariadna Farrés and professor of biology Conxita Ávila in the
case of the Universitat de Barcelona; professor of psychiatry
Jacqueline Olds and political
scientist Claudine Gay at Harvard; and professor of sociology and demography Melinda
Mills and vaccinologist Sarah Catherine Gilbert in the case of Oxford were among the
names of the most prominent women scientists on the analyzed universities’ social
networks.
ͻǤ͵
ͳǤͶ
ͳͷǤͻ
ͷǤͳ
ͶǤʹ
ͷǤͷ
͵ͳǤͲ
ͳǤͲ
ʹͷǤͷ
ͳͳǤͳ
ͳͺǤʹ
Ǥͻ
ͶʹǤ
ʹǤͳ
ʹ͵ǤͶ
ͲǤͻ
ͳͺǤʹ
ʹʹǤͺ
*"48"4%2;'14%
7Ǥ #"4$&,1/"
:1-"/
)4163 1' 91-&/
."/
)4163 1' -&/
.+;&% (4163
015 $+5&%
Source: prepared by the authors
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 251
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Looking beyond the data and percentages, the mathematician and crew member of the Hypatia I simulated mission Ariadna
Farrés and professor of biology Conxita Ávila in the case of the Universitat de Barcelona; professor of psychiatry Jacqueline Olds
and political scientist Claudine Gay at Harvard; and professor of sociology and demography Melinda Mills and vaccinologist
Sarah Catherine Gilbert in the case of Oxford were among the names of the most prominent women scientists on the analyzed
universities’ social networks.
Moreover, there were signicant dierences from a gender perspective in terms of message content (Table 1). In total, 54.6% (
N
= 287) of the informative content posts were aimed at disseminating the results of research carried out at the institution itself,
followed distantly by analyses carried out by experts (13.1%,
N
= 69), informative activities (congresses, seminars, etc.; 12.4%,
N
= 65), interviews (9.7%,
N
= 51), and informative texts (9.5%,
N
= 50).
By type of content, interviews (68.6% versus 25.5%), informative articles (48% versus 20%), and the dissemination of research
results (34.5% versus 11.8%) underscored that men have greater representation. In contrast, women had somewhat greater
representation in posts that covered outreach activities (30.8% versus 23.1%), whereas analyses were somewhat more balanced
in terms of the authors’ genders.
Table 1. Number of posts according to the gender of the person who wrote or was featured in the content
WomanMan
Group of womenGroup of menMixed groupNot cited
Study results
1752174710747
Informative article
71638142
Analysis171627198
Outreach activity
161342246
Interview13350030
Other000022
Source: prepared by the authors
With respect to scientic areas, 2 of the 25 disciplines accounted for almost half of the content disseminated (Table 2). e
study showed that interest in informative content is concentrated in medical sciences (30.2%,
N
= 159) and life sciences (16.3%,
N
= 86), far outstripping other disciplines such as economics (7.6%,
N
= 40), political science (4.9%,
N
= 26), or history (4.6%,
N
= 24). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), therefore, monopolized a large part of the attention in
universities’ communication activity.
252
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
3.2. Formal and thematic characteristics of dissemination from males and females
Expanding upon the points above, it is interesting to analyze from a gender perspective which areas of knowledge women were
cited in within the content that universities posted (RQ2). With some exceptions due to the fact that some categories of the
sample had a limited number of ndings, in general there was a greater proportion of women or groups of women in the social
sciences and humanities. Women made up the majority in disciplines such as communication and psychology, and pedagogy
and liberal arts were gender balanced. Meanwhile, the two elds most commonly disseminated on social networks –medical
sciences (37.1% versus 12.6%) and life sciences (39.5% versus 8.1%)– were heavily dominated by men.
Table 2. Topics covered in posted content according to the gender of the cited authors
WomanMan
Group of womenGroup of menMixed groupNot cited
Total
Mathematics6200008
Astronomy
0200237
Physics0302308
Chemistry0300104
Life sciences
721013271886
Earth sciences
57045122
Agricultural sci.
1000203
Medical sciences
14326276020159
Technological sci.
01051411
Demographics1000304
Economics513498140
Geography1200003
History312006324
Legal sciences
26008016
Linguistics0301004
Pedagogy12215213
Political science
89027026
Psychology96402122
Liberal arts
1210408
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 253
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Sociology0000404
Philosophy1100002
Communication53108320
Other028013932
TOTAL70132266416965526
Source: prepared by the authors
erefore, the formal and thematic characteristics of the content that cited men and women were dierent. Male scientists were
cited to a larger extent than women scientists in messages that covered research results, and therefore, a greater proportion of
them were presented as generators of knowledge. Meanwhile, women were more often associated with the social sciences and
humanities, and were more frequently mentioned in relation to content on outreach activities or as analysts.
In addition to the direct mentions of male scientists, either as the author of or the person featured in the post, the authority
attributed to them as sources of information for the published texts was also studied. e ndings indicated that, of the total
number of people presented in the posts as authoritative sources, 62.8% were men and 37.21% were women (Figure 2).
erefore, in response to the third research question (RQ3), men make up the majority when it comes to acting as sources of
information, since a greater proportion of men directly present scientic content than women do, and men do so at all of the
levels studied, particularly as the rst cited author.
Figure 2. Number of men and women serving as direct sources, according to place in the sequence of authorship
Therefore, in response to the third research question (RQ3), men make up the majority
when it comes to acting as sources of information, since a greater proportion of men
directly present scientific content than women do, and men do so at all of the levels
studied, particularly as the first cited author
.
Figure 2. Number of men and women
serving
as direct sources, according to
place
in
the sequence of authorship
Source: prepare by the authors
In this sense, informative content with mixed citations
–
that is, those in which both men
and women have been requested to act as authoritative sources and give statements
–
we
re
of interest. In these mixed groups, men also remain
ed
slightly in the majority, particularly
as
the first source cited, whereas women
we
re in the majority as supporting authors.
Therefore, the subordination of women
wa
s not only quantitative but also qualitative in
the content analyzed.
3.3. Interaction generated by informative messages according to the gender of their
author or the person featured
Finally, in relation to RQ3, posts featuring or
written
by men or groups of men achieve
d
better engagement metrics than those featuring or
written
by women or groups of women.
Men achieved an average of 14.5 comments per post, taking into account those received
both individually and as a group; for women, this averaged at 11, and in mixed groups at
12.7. In regard to likes, men achieved 186.5 interactions per post individually and
collectively, women 146.4, and mixed groups 197.9. Finally, content featuring or
produced by men was shared an average of 32.9 times, compared with 23.8 times for
women and 35.2 times for mixed groups.
ͳ͵
ͳͲͲ
ͷͳ
ͷ
ͳͲͶ
ͳ
ͳͻ
ͳ
ͳ./ "0/&+-.&',ʹ*$ "0/&+-.&',͵-$ "0/&+-.&',Ͷ/& "0/&+-.&', "*$
#%2+*$
)"*
1+("*
Source: prepared by the authors
254
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
In this sense, informative content with mixed citations –that is, those in which both men and women have been requested
to act as authoritative sources and give statements– were of interest. In these mixed groups, men also remained slightly in
the majority, particularly as the rst source cited, whereas women were in the majority as supporting authors. erefore, the
subordination of women was not only quantitative but also qualitative in the content analyzed.
3.3. Interaction generated by informative messages according to the gender of their author or the person featured
Finally, in relation to RQ3, posts featuring or written by men or groups of men achieved better engagement metrics than those
featuring or written by women or groups of women.
Men achieved an average of 14.5 comments per post, taking into account those received both individually and as a group;
for women, this averaged at 11, and in mixed groups at 12.7. In regard to likes, men achieved 186.5 interactions per post
individually and collectively, women 146.4, and mixed groups 197.9. Finally, content featuring or produced by men was shared
an average of 32.9 times, compared with 23.8 times for women and 35.2 times for mixed groups.
Table 3. Engagement of posts according to the gender of their author or the person featured
WomanMan
Group of
women
Group of
men
Mixed
group
Not cited
Comments13.29.04.925.712.74.0
Likes163.0137.5101.8287.5197.970.2
Shares25.826.518.546.235.215.4
Source: prepared by the authors
4. Conclusions and discussion
ere is no doubt that the dissemination of scientic knowledge and innovations has become increasingly important in recent
years, even more so in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has highlighted the work involved in research and the high
demand for and impact of scientic information, especially through social networks (Pulido
et al
., 2020; Mheidly; Fares, 2020).
In this sense, the social network activity of the three leading universities analyzed in this study corroborates the importance
of science communication in their communication work, since two out of every ve messages posted on their institutional
accounts cover this type of content. e dissemination of the results of the research carried out at these institutions is, therefore,
an important part of these centers’ communication activity, which through social networks reinforces their image as agents for
generating knowledge and innovation, taking it further than the simple educational work that society usually associates with
them.
e analysis of their
Facebook
and
Twitter
accounts also revealed other trends regarding science communication, such as
the predominance of content related to medical sciences and life sciences, which monopolize almost half of the posts, in line
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 255
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
with what has been stated in previous research (Bauer
et al
., 2013; Olvera; López, 2015). Research communication (Cassidy,
2021) continues to demonstrate, therefore, an imbalance in the dissemination of the “hard” and “soft” sciences, in a setting in
which the social sciences and humanities have less visibility on social networks than the areas known as science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). ese data show that, regardless of the overall level of scientic production in the elds
of knowledge, research results in STEM areas are considered more newsworthy and have better visibility on social networks,
in line with what already happens in the media (Eizmendi; Peña, 2021).
An analysis of universities’ science communication and dissemination of innovation also indicated a considerable gender
imbalance in the content of the messages posted, which was evident both quantitatively and qualitatively. First, there were
twice as many texts posted by or featuring men or groups of men than posted by or featuring women or groups of women.
is dierence was notable in the dissemination of research results, interviews, or informative articles –that is, in content that
was more focused on scientic activity itself and therefore, reinforced the identity of its authors and people featured therein
as men (or people) of science. In this regard, it can be seen that men were also more commonly presented as sources of rst-
hand information, that is, as authoritative sources for texts. erefore, the representation of women was quantitatively and
qualitatively subordinate on social networks, as well as in external communication, which undoubtedly conditions the social
perception of their contribution to scientic production.
By scientic discipline, gender inequality is signicant in content regarding medical sciences, which mostly featured or was
written by men. is fact is interesting to note, since in this research eld, the proportion of women exceeds that of men. For
example, according to the latest data in the United Kingdom, the percentage of female researchers in medical sciences in
academia is 61.4% (She Figures, 2021). Meanwhile, women only made up the majority when it came to organizing outreach
activities, and to a similar extent, when it came to texts about analysis –that is, in more peripheral activities, ones that are more
distantly connected to the core of research work. In this regard, it would be interesting to delve deeper into the criteria that
communications oces use when they post content and to study qualitatively the potential diculties that women might
encounter when it comes to disseminating their work.
However, these results cannot be attributed –at least not primarily– to university institutions’ policies regarding their
communication on social networks; they are also a reection of the structural inequalities of research work, of which science
communication is an indirect reection. When the two identities dierentiated by Settles (2004) –that of the scientist and that
of the woman– come head-to-head in the academic and scientic spheres, the data show that the latter is what stands out.
erefore, despite the progress made by women in this eld, on universities’ social networks scientic work is still presented
as a primarily male undertaking. And this fact becomes all the more important since the message could reinforce the social
stereotypes that associate scientic activity with men, directly or through the media that rereport the information posted
on academic institutions’ social networks. In this regard, the results of this study align with many other studies that have
highlighted the gender inequality that exists in science content in both traditional and digital media (Aladro
et al
. 2014), as
well as the impact this has on the social image of science and of male and female science professionals. is disparity can be
seen in the engagement generated by posts featuring or authored by men or women, which are also inuenced by factors such
as the topics covered, the type of center, or the type of content shared (Peruta; Shields, 2017).
256
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
Ultimately, this study shows that, although the priority objectives of the universities analyzed include gender equity and that
they promote the visibility of female scientists and academics through their equality units –the Equality Unit at the Universitat
de Barcelona, the University of Oxford Equality and Diversity Unit, and Harvard University Oce for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion
& Belonging– they fail to harness social networks’ potential to publicize scientic work in a more equal way considering that
none of these units has a guide or resource for promoting visibility in external communications. eir eorts, particularly at
Oxford and Harvard, focus on preventing and responding to sexual harassment and gender-based violence, as well as women’s
access to higher education (UNESCO, 2022).
However, the results need to be monitored, and the gender inequalities that still remain for women when it comes to scientic
careers need to be eectively addressed. is would require, of course, a comprehensive initiative that studies the reasons
why the gender gap still persists in academic institutions and in which giving visibility to female academics is an important,
if not the primary, focus. It is necessary to foster gender equality in science communication by promoting a greater diversity
of voices in science communication (Cambronero
et al
., 2021) and thereby avoid perpetuating gender stereotypes in science.
In this eort, as this study suggests, it would be interesting to work on resources and guides to give women scientists and
academics visibility, in both universities’ internal and external communication and, specically, that which is carried out
through social networks.
5. Acknowledgments
Article translated into English by Colin Marsh to whom we are grateful for his work.
is work is part of the research project TED2021-130810B-C22 funded by Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) of the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Innovation (Micin) 10.13039/501100011033 and by the European Commission NextGeneration EU/
PRTR. It is also part of the scientic production of the Gureiker consolidated research group of the Basque University System
(IT1496-22).
6. Specic contributions from each author
Name and surname
Conception and design of the workMaider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
Methodology
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
Data collection and analysisMaider Eizmendi-Iraola
Discussion and conclusionsMaider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
Drafting, formatting, version review and approvalMaider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 257
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
7. Bibliographic references
Aladro, E., Padilla, G., Requeijo, P., Semova, D., García-Agustín, J., García-Nieto, M. T., & Viñarás, M. (2014). Presence and
representation of female scientists in the Spanish press.
Revista Latina de Comunicación Social
,
69
, 176-194.
https://doi.
org/10.4185/RLCS-2014-1007en
Amaral, I., & Correia Santos, S. (2020). Social networks and institutional communication: the case of Portuguese universities.
Revista Prisma Social
,
28
, 20–43.
https://revistaprismasocial.es/article/view/3371
Bauer, M. W., Howard, S., Romo Ramos, Y. J., Massarino, L., & Amorim, L. (2013).
Global science journalism report: working
conditions & practices, professional ethos and future expectations
. Our learning series. Science and Development Network.
Bélanger, C.H., Bali, S., & Longden, B. (2014). How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves.
Tertiary
Education and Management
,
20
, 14–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2013.852237
Belucci, M., Biagi, S., & Manetti, G. (2019). Dialogic Accounting and Stakeholder Engagement rough Social Media: e Case
of Top-Ranked Universities.
e Review of Higher Education
,
42
(3), 1145-1184.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0032
Brito, J. G., Laaser, W., & Toloza, E. A. (2015). El uso de redes sociales por parte de las universidades a nivel institucional. Un
estudio comparativo.
Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED)
,
32
, 1-38.
https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/233071
Busto, L. (2013). Nuevas tecnologías en los gabinetes de comunicación de las universidades españolas.
Revista Internacional
de Relaciones Públicas
,
3
(6), 2013, 137-154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5783/RIRP-6-2013-08-137-154
Cambronero-Saiz, B., Segarra-Saavedra, J., & Cristófol-Rodríguez, C. (2021). Análisis desde la perspectiva de género del
engagement de los principales youtubers de divulgación cientíca.
Cuestiones de género: de la igualdad y la diferencia
, 16,
511–525.
https://doi.org/10.18002/cg.v0i16.6914
Cancelo Sanmartín, M., & Almansa Martínez, A. (2013). Estrategias comunicativas en redes sociales. Estudio comparativo
entre las Universidades de España y México.
Historia y Comunicación Social
,
18
, 423-435.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_
HICS.2013.v18.44339
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women≠ scientists.
Psychology
of Women Quarterly
,
40
(2), 244-260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645
Cassidy, A. (2021). Communicating the Social Sciences. In M. Bucchi & and B. Trench (Eds.),
Handbook of Public Communication
of Science and Technology
(pp. 1948-1954). Routledge.
Castillo, H., & Pérez-Latre, F. J. (2016). El impacto de la presencia online en las cuentas de Twitter de las universidades vascas y
navarras.
Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico
,
22
(1), 225-238.
https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ESMP.2016.v22.n1.52591
Charlesworth, T. E., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Gender in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, causes,
solutions.
Journal of Neuroscience
, 39(37), 7228-7243.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0475-18.2019
Comisión Europea (2021). She gures 2021: gender in research and innovation: statistics and indicators, Publications Oce.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/06090
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
258
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
Díaz Martínez, C., & Samper Gras, T. (2014). Las mujeres y la ciencia.
100cias@uned
,
7
, 92-95.
http://hdl.handle.
net/10550/53958
Dinu, N. R. (2021). ¿Citan las mujeres investigadoras más a las otras mujeres que a los hombres?
Telos
,
23
(3).
https://doi.
org/10.36390/telos233
Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodru, T. K., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2012). e possible role of
resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender dierences in publication rate and impact.
PloS one, 7
(12),
e51332.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051332
Eizmendi-Iraola, M., & Peña-Fernández, S. (2021). ¿Desaparecidas o escondidas? Análisis de la presencia de las ciencias
sociales y las humanidades en las versiones online de e Guardian, El País y Público.
European Public & Social Innovation
Review
,
6
(1), 56-69.
https://pub.sinnergiak.org/esir/article/view/147
Eizmendi-Iraola, M., & Peña-Fernández, S. (2023). Universidades y redes sociales: De la divulgación cientíca a la
autopromoción.
Documentación de las Ciencias de la Información, 46
(1), 67-74.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/dcin.83768
Elsevier (2020).
e Researcher Journey rough a Gender Lens
. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
https://bit.ly/45mueD8
Fisher, C. R., ompson, C. D., & Brookes, R. H. (2020). Gender dierences in the Australian undergraduate STEM student
experience: a systematic Review.
Higher Education Research & Development
, 39(6), 1155-1168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/072
94360.2020.1721441
Funk, C. & Parker, K. (2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity. Pew Research Center.
García, S. A., & Alonso García, M. M. (2014). Las redes sociales en las universidades españolas.
Revista de Comunicación de la
SEECI
,
33
, 132-140.
https://bit.ly/45kRvWa
García García, F. (2007). Los medios de comunicación y los códigos de la UNESCO. ICONO14.
Revista Cientíca de Comunicación
y Tecnologías Emergentes
,
5
(1), 384-396.
https://doi.org/10.7195/ri14.v5i1.383
García Nieto, M. T. (2013). ¿Son invisibles las mujeres cientícas?
Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico
,
19
, núm. especial
abril, 783-792.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_ESMP.2013.v19.42161
González-Pedraz, C., Pérez-Rodríguez, A. V., Campos-Domínguez, E., & Quintanilla Fisac, M. Á. (2017). Análisis comparativo
de la presencia de las universidades españolas en prensa digital nacional y local.
Revista Latina de Comunicación Social
,
72
,
861-882.
https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2017-1197
Guzmán, A. P. (2013). Factores críticos de éxito en el uso de las Redes Sociales en el ámbito universitario [Tesis doctoral,
Universidad Politécnica de Valencia].
https://bit.ly/45r1dGr
Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). e gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?
PLoS biology, 16
(4), e2004956
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956
Husu, L., & Tainio, L. (2016). Representations of Women Researchers in Finnish Print Media: Top Researchers, Multi-Talents
and Experts.
Investigaciones Feministas
,
7
(2), 203-224.
https://doi.org/10.5209/INFE.53796
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 259
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Klar S., Krupnikov Y., Ryan J.B., Searles K., & Shmargad Y. (2020) Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying
the benets of twitter for sharing academic work.
PLoS ONE
15(4), e0229446.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229446
Krukowski, R. A., Jagsi, R., & Cardel, M. I. (2021). Academic productivity dierences by gender and child age in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Journal of Women’s Health
,
30
(3), 341-347.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2020.8710
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science.
Nature
News
,
504
(7479), 211.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122565
Llorens, A. et al. (2021). Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions.
Neuron,
109, 2047–2074.
https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.002
Marzal-Felici, J., García Jiménez, A., & Humanes, M. L. (2016). Análisis y reformulación de la organización del conocimiento en
las Ciencias de la Comunicación: aplicación para la codicación UNESCO.
Revista General de Información y Documentación
,
26
(1), 65-79.
https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RGID.2016.v26.n1.53049
Meho, L. (2021). e gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020. Quantitative Science Studies,
2(3), 976-989.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00148
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (2023).
Cientícas en cifras 2023
. Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio de
Ciencia e Innovación.
https://bit.ly/3MlVo4u
Mheidly, N., & Fares, J. (2020). Leveraging media and health communication strategies to overcome the COVID-19 infodemic.
J Public Health Pol
,
41
, 410–420.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-020-00247-w
Mitchell, M., & McKinnon, M. (2019). “Human” or “objective” faces of science? Gender stereotypes and the representation of
scientists in the media”.
Public understanding of science
,
28
(2), 177-190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801257
Mitchelstein, E., Andelsman, V., & Boczkowski, P. (2019). Joanne Public vs. Joe Public: News Sourcing and Gender Imbalance
on Argentine Digital Media.
Digital Journalism
,
7
(10), 1311-1317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680301
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases
favor male students.
PNAS
,
109
(41) 16474-16479.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.121128610
Motta, J., & Barbosa, M. (2018). Social Media as a Marketing Tool for European and North American Universities and Colleges.
Journal of Intercultural Management
,
10
(3), 125-154.
https://doi.org/10.2478/joim-2018-0020
Mueller, C. M., Gaudilliere, D. K., Kin, C., Menorca, R., & Girod, S. (2016). Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US
academic surgeons.
Journal of Surgical Research
,
203
(1), 28-33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.03.060
Naciones Unidas (2022). Día Internacional de la Mujer y la Niña en la Ciencia 11 de febrero.
https://bit.ly/431jjxe
Naciones Unidas (2015). Objetivos y metas de desarrollo sostenible.
https://bit.ly/2HpMbJ5
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002).
e content analysis guidebook
. Sage
Olvera-Lobo, M.D., & López-Pérez, L. (2015). Periodismo cientíco: la homogeneización de la información del papel a internet.
Journal of Science Communication
,
14
(3), 2-12.
http://hdl.handle.net/10481/37132
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
260
|
nº 37, pp. 245-261
|
July-December of 2023
The visibility of women scientists in universities’ external communication through social networks
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
Paladan, N. N. (2018). Higher education institutions embracing digital & social media marketing: A case of top 25 universities
in asia & africa.
Marketing and Branding Research
,
5
(3), 159-167.
https://doi.org/10.33844/mbr.2018.60254
Palomar Verea, C. (2009). Maternidad y mundo académico.
Alteridades
,
19
(38), 55-73.
Paniagua, F. J., & Gómez, B. (2012). Hacia la comunicación 2.0. El uso de las redes sociales por parte de las universidades
españolas.
Icono 14. Revista cientíca de Comunicación y Tecnologías emergentes
,
10
(3), 346-364.
https://doi.org/10.7195/
ri14.v10i3.473
Peng, H., Teplitskiy, M., Romero, D. M., Horvát, E. A. (2022). e Gender Gap in Scholarly Self-Promotion on Social Media.
Arxiv
.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2206.05330
Peruta, A., & Shields, A. B. (2017). Social media in higher education: understanding how colleges and universities use Facebook.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
,
27
(1), 131-143,
http://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2016.1212451
Peters, H. P., Dunwoody, S., Allgaier, J., Lo, Y. Y., & Brossard, D. (2014). Public communication of science 2.0: Is the
communication of science via the “new media” online a genuine transformation or old wine in new bottles?
EMBO reports
,
15
(7), 749-753.
https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201438979
Pulido, C. M., Villarejo-Carballido, B., Redondo-Sama, G. & Gómez, A. (2020). COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for
science-based information on coronavirus than for false information.
International Sociology
,
35
(4), 377-392.
https://doi.
org/10.1177/0268580920914755
Rodríguez, A., & Santamaría, P. (2012). Análisis del uso de las redes sociales en Internet: Facebook y Twitter en las Universidades
españolas.
Icono 14. Revista cientíca de Comunicación y Tecnologías emergentes
,
10
(2), 228-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7195/
ri14.v10i2.198
Ruiz-Martínez, J. M., Baños-Moreno, M. J., & Martínez-Béjar, R. (2014). Nomenclatura Unesco: evolución, alcance y reutilización
en clave ontológica para la descripción de perles cientícos.
El profesional de la información
,
23
(4), 383-392.
http://dx.doi.
org/10.3145/epi.2014.jul.06
Sá, C., Cowley, S., Martinez, M., Kachynska, N., & Sabzalieva E. (2020). Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition
among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa. PLOS ONE 15, e0240903.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0240903
Scimago (2022). SJR - International Science Ranking.
https://bit.ly/3OxxFRM
Settles, Isis (2004). When multiple identities interfere: e role of identity centrality.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
,
30
(4), 487-500.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261885
Valerio-Ureña, G., Herrera-Murillo, D., & Madero-Gómez, S. (2020). Analysis of the Presence of Most Best-Ranked Universities
on Social Networking Sites.
Informatics
,
7
(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7010009
Vásárhelyi, O., Zakhlebin, I., Milojevic, I., & Horvát, E. A. (2021). Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars’
work.
PNAS
,
118
(39), 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102945118
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
doxa.comunicación |
nº 37, pp. 245-261
| 261
July-December of 2023
Maider Eizmendi-Iraola and Simón Peña-Fernández
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
Voss, K. A., & Kumar, A. (2013). e value of social media: are universities successfully engaging their audience? Journal of
Applied Research in Higher Education, 5(2), 156-172.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2012-0060
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current
knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational psychology review, 29, 119-140.
https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>