Female researchers are bearing the brunt of advocating for science.

Science has never existed in a vacuum, and now the Trump administration places more pressure on academia than ever before. Couple this with the misinformation crisis, and it’s increasingly important that academia effectively connects its work with the wider public. Researchers no longer just do science; they must communicate it as well.

One might think institutions support and reward those who represent science publicly, but that isn’t always the case. Research from the University of Adelaide shows that female researchers increasingly take on the job of science communication. Although that may seem like progress, the researchers found that this work rarely receives compensation, recognition, or reward.

The Hidden Costs of Non-Promotable Work

This kind of labor falls into the category of “non-promotable work” or essential tasks that performance appraisals typically overlook, offering no clear path to promotion or pay increases. In The No Club, Carnegie Mellon’s Linda Babcock and colleagues highlight how women spend around 200 hours more per year on these tasks than men.

The Adelaide research confirms this dismal trend in academia, showing that women disproportionately take on science communication duties. Indeed, 85% of female researchers said their communication work went unrecognized, yet nearly all said they would continue doing it because they understood its importance.

The researchers refer to this situation as the “paradox of relationality,” because while science communication offers social and emotional fulfillment, it also reinforces gender inequality by adding extra work for women. This fits into a broader category of “social” labor (e.g., care and inclusion) that institutions often neglect when evaluating performance or awarding promotions.

Why Women Carry the Burden of Science Communication

This matters, as communication, media, and public engagement shape the public face of science. That face often reflects entrenched norms, and institutions more often promote senior male academics as authoritative spokespeople.

This has consequences. Studies show female scientists are less internationally mobile than their male counterparts, appear less frequently as first authors, and struggle more to gain traction when bringing ideas to market. So while male researchers take the stage in high-prestige public roles, female researchers often handle the behind-the-scenes work (e.g., organizing events, creating blog content) that bolsters scientific discourse but earns less recognition.

Unequal science communication affects science itself. Research from the University of Munster shows that public engagement motivates researchers, boosts productivity, and fosters interdisciplinary collaboration. But not everyone benefits equally. Men more often receive the spotlight, which gives them access to recognition and funding opportunities that their female colleagues miss.

Who Gets to Be the Voice of Science?

Research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offers a new path forward, moving away from the “deficit model” that assumes public ignorance and toward a model that values relational, responsive communication.

Many female science communicators already use this approach. They focus on trust-building, community engagement, and emotionally intelligent storytelling. But for this work to thrive, institutions must recognize its importance and stop treating it as secondary to traditional research.

The Case for Institutional Change in Science Engagement

That recognition could take many forms:

• acknowledging and rewarding science communication in hiring and promotion;
• ensuring a diverse range of spokespeople in public-facing roles;
• providing funding, training, and institutional support; and
• equitably distributing communication and outreach responsibilities.

We live in a time when people increasingly recognize the value of science communication, but recognition alone isn’t enough. We must also address the gendered dynamics that shape who gets heard and who stays on the sidelines. Science communication doesn’t just transmit knowledge. It builds trust, shapes narratives, and defines expertise.

Right now, women do much of this invisible work without receiving credit. That leaves their voices out of the scientific narrative and keeps science from being truly inclusive. Communicating science matters—but so does deciding who gets to speak.