A top medical journal published a research letter this week concerning the behavior of health researchers on Twitter, and how that behavior is informed by gender. The authors report that women researchers have far fewer followers, likes, and retweets than men, despite similar levels of activity on the site:
Women had half the mean (SD) number of followers as men (567.5 [1819.7] vs 1162.3 [3056.2], P < .001) … Women’s tweets generated fewer mean (SD) likes and retweets per year (315.6 [659.8] likes vs 577.6 [1281.8] likes and 207.4 retweets [403.6] vs 399.8 [876.6] retweets) and per tweet (3.8 [4.8] likes vs 4.5 [4.8] likes and 2.4 [2.2] retweets vs 3.1 [3.4] retweets) compared with men’s. Most gender differences were largest among full professors. Gender differences in influence held across the distribution of number of tweets, with men having more followers than women at every level of activity.
These findings ought to be taken seriously. Twitter data offer an easy way to explore social behavior that is more difficult to research off-line. Imagine, for example, trying to study whether men or women were more likely to get affirmative nods from their colleagues in the workplace, or some other equivalent behavior to Twitter likes. Further, Twitter data capture social interactions with real-world consequences, since Twitter connects researchers and helps to promote their work. A larger number of followers, likes, and retweets means greater exposure for these researchers not only on Twitter, but in the news media, since Twitter is a major resource for journalists trying to keep up with the latest research. These social media disparities may contribute to other disparities. As women advance in their careers, the gap between men and women widens, both in terms of promotions and in terms of pay. The status gained through Twitter and other social media might exacerbate this gap, leading to further gender inequities at the top of the medical profession.
What’s more, these findings compound previous research demonstrating that Twitter is an especially toxic place for women—even more so for women of color—and that the sexist behavior enabled by social media spreads offline. It is clear from these studies that women are treated differently from men on social media, and that this difference is likely to have a negative impact on many professions.
How do these concerns apply to philosophy? I did a small preliminary study to determine whether philosophers on Twitter are subject to the same gender imbalance. TrueSciPhi has long maintained a ranked list of philosophers and scientists on Twitter with more than 1,000 followers, and I selected the top 50 philosophers on this list. I then used Foller.me, a website that compiles some basic information using Twitter handles, to check each of the top 50 handles and collect their information in a spreadsheet. In all cases, I guessed the gender of the account, which may not correspond with the person’s actual gender identity. That spreadsheet is available here.
For this subset of philosophers on Twitter, the effect found in the medical research letter held up, women in the top 50 had 58 percent of the number of followers men had. (I did not test this for significance; for that I would need to do a much larger study.) While I did not collect information on likes and retweets, women were also placed on lists about half as often. (Lists are a way for Twitter users to group important accounts that others may want to follow.) This is despite the fact that these women had far more tweets on average (157 percent of men’s tweets) and follow about as many people, on average (103 percent of men’s followings). To put this point another way, the followers-to-following ratio for women is 29 percent that of men on this list, meaning that men have far more followers for every person they are following than women.
If this small study applies to philosophy in general, then the voices of men in philosophy are likely to be amplified at the expense of women in philosophy. This is especially significant in a field that already has a gender imbalance. In fact, only 32 percent of those in the top 50 were women. So even the few women who make it to the top of this list are followed at about half the rate of men who make it to the top of this list. Further, it is plausible that the problem extends to other underrepresented groups in philosophy, such as racial and ethnic minorities. I was unable to repeat my analysis for race and ethnicity, because only three of the top 50 accounts appeared to be held by philosophers of color—a number far short of representation, even in a field as lacking in racial and ethnic diversity as philosophy. If philosophy is serious about addressing its diversity problem, it should probably look to the role of social media in exacerbating it. At the individual level, each of us should make more of an effort to follow women and people of color on Twitter. But efforts will also need to be made at the discipline level. I would love to hear any suggestions other philosophers may have on this. I offer one simple idea below.
To start, it seems plausible to me that one factor at play on Twitter might be the lack of information we have about those with whom we interact. In our everyday life, and even at conferences, we tend to have more information about a person’s philosophical expertise. On Twitter, we have access to a broader set of philosophers, about whom we know less. This lack of knowledge may lead to a greater dependence on biases and heuristics. Unfortunately, one of those biases may be that men are more authoritative and more worthy of being followed. (There may be further biases that are specific to philosophy, but I will set those aside for now.) As Kim Weeden put it in an Inside Higher Ed article on the topic, “When evaluators lack background information to evaluate a person’s competence or expertise, as is often the case on Twitter, they rate men as being more competent than women.” If this is one of the causal factors at play, we could simply promote women and people of color on Twitter to help counteract this bias: The official Twitter accounts of departments and philosophical organizations, as well as the accounts of those already deemed to be authoritative, could make an extra effort to highlight the achievements of underrepresented philosophers who happen to be on social media, to encourage all social media users to overcome their biased tendencies.
An alternative is to simply abandon the use of social media. I have taken this path before, and certainly respect those who choose to stay offline. (I only re-joined Twitter this past July, and have often found social media distracting.) Yet, Twitter is clearly a powerful tool for connecting philosophers to each other, other disciplines, and the public at large. It also offers a way to interact with others with traits or interests that are difficult to find at a local level. As Amnesty International says in its report about the problem, “Many of the women who spoke to Amnesty International about the violence and abuse they experience on Twitter emphasized how important the platform is to them—both professionally and personally. Women rely on social media platforms like Twitter to advocate, communicate, mobilize, access information and gain visibility.” In my view, we should focus our efforts on improving the use of these tools, rather than on discouraging their use, but I am interested in what other philosophers have to say about the issue.
Postscript: If you are now looking for new women to follow on Twitter, Katie Stockdale has helpfully compiled a list of women philosophers on the site, as has TrueSciPhi.
Photograph by Sebastiaan ter Burg via Flickr (Creative Commons)
Carolyn Dicey Jennings
Carolyn Dicey Jennings is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science at the University of California, Merced, and the author of The Attending Mind. Her research interests include attention, perception, consciousness, and action.
