When Visibility Reflects Bias: Why Female Scientists Still Draw Smaller Audiences

Rosy Pipit

25-10-2025

First, for birds immersed in all sorts of disputes, over millennia, making too much noise, Zhuang teaches:
“Birds don’t argue about the sky. They fly.”

In Kingfisherish Wandering [1]

© Wix

Efforts to promote gender equality in science have intensified in recent years, but visibility and recognition remain unevenly distributed [2-4]. A new study published in npj Biodiversity by Barreto and colleagues [5] examines whether audiences in academia are truly “gender-blind.” Using 12 years of data (2008–2019) from EcoEncontros, a Brazilian seminar series in ecology and conservation science, the researchers found that female scientists—especially professors—consistently attracted smaller audiences than their male counterparts, even after accounting for productivity, academic level, and research topic.

The study analyzed 327 talks given at the University of São Paulo and revealed that before 2018, women represented less than a quarter of professors’ talks. Affirmative actions introduced that year successfully increased female representation to about 50% across all academic levels. Yet, audience engagement lagged behind: male professors’ talks continued to draw about 1.4 times more attendees than those of female professors. Importantly, this disparity persisted even though men and women discussed similar themes and demonstrated comparable academic productivity.

These findings expose a subtle yet pervasive cultural bias: despite improved representation, women remain less recognized and heard. The persistence of gender-science stereotypes—where the image of a scientist is still predominantly male—appears to influence who receives attention and intellectual engagement [6]. As the authors note, visibility gaps of this kind reinforce the so-called “leaky pipeline” effect, discouraging women from continuing in academic careers [7].

In simpler terms, this study reminds us that fairness in science is not just about having more women on stage—it is about making sure they are equally seen and heard. Even when women give talks just as interesting and high-quality as men’s, they still draw smaller crowds. That means something deeper than numbers is shaping attention—unconscious bias, habit, and outdated ideas about what a “scientist” looks like.

Diversity is not decoration—it is strength. Just as an ecosystem thrives on many different species, science grows stronger when everyone’s knowledge has space to be shared. When audiences actively choose to listen across gender, culture, and background, they help create a space where prejudice is replaced with openness and build communities that value fairness and cooperation over competition.

References

[1] Nguyen MH. (2025). Kingfisherish Wandering. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FVLLLXNW/

[2] Larivière V, et al. (2013). Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211-213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a 

[3] Schroeder J, et al. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2063-2069. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12198

[4] Niemeier DA, González C. (2004). Breaking into the Guildmasters’ Club: What we know about women science and engineering department chairs at AAU universities. NWSA Journal, 16, 157-171.

[5] Barreto JR, et al. (2025). Is the audience gender-blind? Smaller attendance in female talks highlights an imbalanced visibility in academia. npj Biodiversity, 4, 28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-025-00100-x

[6] Miller DI, Eagly AH, Linn MC. (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender–science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 631-644. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000005

[7] Zandonà E. (2022). Female ecologists are falling from the academic ladder: a call for action. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 20, 294-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2022.04.001

[8] Vuong QH, Nguyen MH. (2025). On Nature Quotient. Pacific Conservation Biology, 31, PC25028. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC25028

[9] Tran TT. (2025). Flying beyond didacticism: The creative environmental vision of ‘Wild Wise Weird’. Young Voices of Science. https://youngvoicesofscience.org/?p=1963

[10] Nguyen MH, Ho MT, La VP. (2025). On “An” (安): Inner peace through uncertainty, nature quotient, and harmony with Dao. http://books.google.com/books/about?id=NIKMEQAAQBAJ