YouTube science channel video presenters and comments: female friendly or vestiges of sexism?
| Published date | 15 January 2018 |
| Pages | 28-46 |
| Date | 15 January 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2017-0204 |
| Author | Mike Thelwall,Amalia Mas-Bleda |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
YouTube science channel video
presenters and comments: female
friendly or vestiges of sexism?
Mike Thelwall
School of Mathematics and Computing, University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, UK, and
Amalia Mas-Bleda
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to analyse popular YouTube science video channels for evidence of
attractiveness to a female audience.
Design/methodology/approach –The influence of presenter gender and commenter sentiment towards
males and females is investigated for 50 YouTube science channels with a combined view-count approaching
ten billion. This is cross-referenced with commenter gender as a proxy for audience gender.
Findings –The ratio of male to female commenters varies between 1 and 39 to 1, but the low proportions of
females seem to be due to the topic or presentation style rather than the gender of the presenter or the
attitudes of the commenters. Although male commenters were more hostile to other males than to females,
a few posted inappropriate sexual references that may alienate females.
Research limitations/implications –Comments reflect a tiny and biased sample of YouTube science
channel viewers and so their analysis provides weak evidence.
Practical implications –Sexist behaviour in YouTube commenting needs to be combatted but the data
suggest thatgender balance in online sciencepresenters should not be the primaryconcern of channel owners.
Originality/value –This is the largest scale analysis of gender in YouTube science communication.
Keywords Online interaction, YouTube, Gender differences, Comment sentiment,
Research communication, Science channels
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Women are underrepresented in science. In almost all countries in the world, there are more
publishing male scientists with proportions varying by field. This underrepresentation is
continuing despite progress in recent years and its causes are unclear (Sugimoto et al., 2013).
Contributory or associating factors include lower female respect for science, fewer female
scientist role models, poor pedagogy in science classes, sexist course materials, cultural
pressure (Blickenstaff, 2005) and gender stereotypes (Ceci et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2015;
Smyth and Nosek, 2015). More generally, females are underrepresented in science,
technology, engineering and maths disciplines (Cesarsky and Walker, 2010; Ivie and
Tesfaye, 2012; Kirkup et al., 2010; National Science Foundation, 2017). In quantitative fields,
continuing gender differences in the USA are not caused by biases against women within
academia; instead the socially constrained choices made by women seem to explain differing
career outcomes (Ceci and Williams, 2011). For example, young female biological scientists
may be less focused on authoring publications, damaging their long-term academic career
prospects (Feldon et al., 2017). It is therefore important to understand the social context in
which women choose science-related careers and their decisions at the start of these careers.
This may reveal some ways in which they are alienated from research.
The internet and YouTube are obvious choices for investigating gender issues in science
education. YouTube contains many different types of science-related videos, including
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 70 No. 1, 2018
pp. 28-46
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-09-2017-0204
Received 15 September 2017
Revised 3 December 2017
Accepted 11 December 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-3806.htm
28
AJIM
70,1
many that are documentary, recreational and educational (Erviti and Stengler, 2016;
Muñoz Morcillo et al., 2016). It is widely used in school classrooms and by university
students to support learning (e.g. Barry et al., 2016; Tan and Pearce, 2012) as well as for
leisure-time explorations of science-related content, such as by watching TED Talks videos
(see below) or science-related music videos (Allgaier, 2013). It is also used as a research
source (Kousha et al., 2012).
Although the provision of free, high-quality science content on the world’ssecondmost
popular website YouTube (www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com on 9 June 2017) is a societal
benefit, it is concerning from a women’s empowerment perspective because YouTube is a
male-dominated corner of the internet. It has been the site of misogynist abuse (Jane, 2014;
Mourey, 2015; Wotanis and McMillan, 2014) and inappropriate personal comments
(Molyneaux et al., 2008), even though positivity is more common (Thelwall et al., 2012).
In male-dominated online spaces, gendered abuse and stereotyping can thrive and become
normalised so that females must try to cope with it or combat it (Nardi, 2010). For example,
a comparison of two high profile successful YouTubecomedians found that the woman was
more criticised and subjected to more personal comments (Wotanis and McMillan, 2014).
Despite this, YouTube has seen the emergence of more gender-inclusive cultures(Morris and
Anderson, 2015) and so it is not clear that science channels, if male dominated, would be
unwelcoming for female viewers.
Gender is a factor in the popularity of YouTube science-related channels. Professionally
produced YouTube science videos seem to be more popular if they have a male presenter,
although the same is not true for amateur content and it is not known whether the
popularity is due to an increased male or female audience ( Welbourne and Grant, 2016).
For TED Talks, male-presented videos are more popular (Sugimoto et al., 2013) but female
presenters are more likely to elicit positive or negative comments (Tsou et al., 2014). For the
Khan Academy YouTube science channel, 80 per cent of commenters are male (Saurabh and
Sairam, 2013). Unless this is a special case or commenters are a highly gender-biased
audience sample, it seems that the YouTube audience for science videos is primarily male.
In other genres, such as TV, male presenters may also be more popular with female viewers
(Sánchez Olmos and Hidalgo Marí, 2016).
The predominance of males in some areas of science and YouTube raises the
possibility that hostile language (Alonzo and Aiken, 2004; Kayany, 1998; Lapidot-Lefler
and Barak, 2012; Moor et al., 2010) may alienate female science channel viewers. It tends to
originate from males (Alonzo and Aiken, 2004) and is not necessarily related to the content
of a video (Lange, 2007). Males on YouTube are more likely to comment on the
attractiveness of vloggers (Molyneaux et al., 2008), and prominent female YouTubers
are routinely forced to deal with threatening sexist abuse (Mourey, 2015). Offline, male
sexual humour is used to relieve anxieties about masculinity (O’Connor et al., 2017;
Pascoe, 2013). In this context, commenters may perceive inappropriate sexual references
as being humorous and inoffensive. This would be a mistake because, for example,
the occasional “low-level”sexist behaviour (or microagression) that is a fact of life for
some women in physics and astronomy has tangible impacts. These include the
consequent social pressure on females to manage their appearance to be perceived as
serious and intelligent by their colleagues (Barthelemy et al., 2016).
From the above review, males are likely to dominate the presenters and viewers of
YouTube science videos, potentially creating an unwelcome space for female viewers.
Nonetheless, no previous study has sought evidence of the reasons for gender imbalances on
YouTube science videos or attempted to provide recommendations for attracting a wider
audience. The current paper addresses this gap by comparing the gender ratios of the
audiences of a set of popular science channels (RQ1). It also seeks evidence of an alienating
environment for women by male presenters or in the sentiments expressed towards females
29
YouTube
science
channel video
presenters
To continue reading
Request your trial