The Persistence of Gender Bias in Australian Science Reporting

In the fast-paced world of science journalism, who gets to speak as the voice of authority matters a great deal. Recent research has shone a spotlight on a stubborn issue: men continue to dominate as experts quoted in Australian science news coverage. This imbalance not only shapes public understanding of complex scientific topics but also reinforces stereotypes about who belongs in science. While progress has been made in some areas, the data reveals that despite years of equity initiatives, the playing field remains uneven.

The study in question examined thousands of articles from major Australian outlets, highlighting patterns that persist even as more women enter journalism and STEM fields. This isn't just a media problem—it's intertwined with broader challenges in higher education and research institutions across Australia, where women make up around 31 percent of STEM researchers. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for universities, where academics often serve as these experts, and for aspiring researchers navigating career paths in a male-skewed landscape.

Unpacking the Latest Research on Gender Representation

Published in the Journal of Science Communication, the study by Tegan Clark from the Australian National University and Merryn McKinnon from Charles Darwin University analyzed science news from 2018 to 2022. They used a constructed week sampling method—selecting random days to represent a full year—to review 2,551 articles from 18 prominent outlets, including ABC News, The Guardian Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald, and science-specific sites like Cosmos and The Conversation. From these, 2,146 articles contained quotable sources.

The researchers coded for gender based on verifiable names, distinguishing between direct quotes (spoken words) and indirect attributions. Topics ranged from health and medicine to climate change, space exploration, and technology. This rigorous approach allowed them to track changes over time and identify patterns by discipline and journalist gender.

Startling Statistics on Expert Voices

The numbers paint a clear picture of male dominance. Men were direct sources in 75.5 percent of articles with quotes, a figure holding steady between 72 and 80 percent annually. Women appeared as direct sources in 44.9 percent, ranging from 41 to 48 percent. Note that these percentages exceed 100 percent because articles often feature multiple experts.

• Men dominated even in female-heavy fields like health and medicine, where they were sources in 50 percent of articles versus 36 percent for women.
• In environmental science and psychology, similar skews persisted despite women's stronger presence in these areas.
• Indirect sources showed men at 20.2 percent and women at 9.7 percent, with 18.7 percent unspecified.

These findings underscore a recycling of familiar male voices, driven by tight deadlines and trusted contacts.

Shifts in the Journalist Landscape

One bright spot is near gender parity among science journalists, with a slight male edge overall (22 more male-authored articles). Early years (2018-2020) leaned male, but 2021-2022 saw more women, particularly at outlets like Cosmos, which shifted to majority female authors. Women were more likely to cover health, animals, marine science, psychology, physics, and social science themes, while men focused on weather, technology, space, environment, and climate.

Significantly, female journalists quoted women more often, and males quoted males—a pattern confirmed by statistical analysis (chi-square p < 0.001). This suggests that diversifying newsrooms could naturally boost expert diversity.

Topic-Specific Patterns and Persistent Gaps

Health and medicine topped story frequencies, followed by space and environment. Yet, even here, men outnumbered women. For instance, in STEM education stories—where women researchers are prominent—quotes remained skewed. Unspecified genders were common in psychology and technology, potentially masking biases.

The study links this to stereotypes: women associated with 'soft' sciences, men with 'hard' ones. This mirrors global trends but highlights Australia's unique context, where equity programs exist yet media lags.

Photo by Natalie Parham on Unsplash

Evolution from Earlier Studies

Compared to prior work like the 2019 Women for Media report, which found women as experts in just 19-24 percent of coverage, women sources rose to 45 percent direct quotes. Journalist parity marks improvement from earlier imbalances. However, expert dominance by men (76 percent) echoes consistency, suggesting systemic issues beyond newsrooms.Women for Media 2019 report showed similar sourcing biases across media.

Women in Australian STEM: The Research Reality

Australia's STEM workforce sees women at about 29 percent overall, rising to 35.7 percent of researchers—but stagnant for a decade. In higher education, universities drive much of this research, yet women face barriers like underrepresentation in senior roles. The STEM Equity Monitor tracks these gaps, showing slow progress in fields like engineering (17 percent women enrolments) and computing (19 percent).STEM Equity Monitor.

This real-world underrepresentation amplifies media bias, as journalists draw from available experts—often male-dominated networks.

Why It Matters: Shaping Perceptions and Careers

Media influences who youth see as scientists, perpetuating cycles. Australian high school textbooks nearly erase women scientists, with one study finding only one female mentioned amid 150 males. Public perception lags: fewer women role models mean fewer girls pursuing STEM.

For universities, this affects funding, policy influence, and talent pipelines. Diverse expert voices ensure balanced science communication, vital for issues like climate change where multidisciplinary input is key.

Australian Initiatives Tackling the Bias

Efforts abound. The STEM Women database lists female experts for media. Superstars of STEM trains 60 women/non-binary experts yearly in communication, reaching millions.Superstars of STEM. SAGE's Athena SWAN-like program accredits equitable unis.

• STEM Women: Free directory for journalists.
• Superstars: Media training, school visits.
• SAGE: Institutional change for equity.

Global Parallels and Unique Australian Challenges

Worldwide, men comprise 75-80 percent of science news experts. Studies from Nature and others show similar patterns. Australia's advantage: strong equity frameworks. Yet, pushback against diversity (e.g., US, Hungary) threatens gains. Local factors like remote work post-COVID aided journalist diversity but not sources.

Photo by Eriksson Luo on Unsplash

Actionable Steps for Change

Journalists: Use databases, track sources, train on bias. Unis: Promote women academics for media. Experts: Mentor juniors, advocate diversity. Funders: Support communication training.

• Intentional sourcing: Aim 50/50.
• Training: Unconscious bias workshops.
• Monitoring: Annual audits like this study.
• Intersectionality: Beyond gender, include First Nations, diverse backgrounds.

With collective effort, Australian science news can reflect true expertise diversity, benefiting higher education and society.