Gender equity in academia is a long-standing struggle. Although common to all disciplines, the impacts of bias and stereotypes are particularly pronounced in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. This paper explores what barriers exist for the career progression of women in academia in STEM disciplines in order to identify key issues and potential solutions. In particular, we were interested in how women perceive the barriers affecting their careers in comparison to their male colleagues. Fourteen focus groups with female-identifying academics showed that there were core barriers to career progression, which spanned countries, disciplines and career stages. Entrenched biases, stereotypes, double standards, bullying and harassment all negatively impact women’s confidence and sense of belonging. Women also face an additional biological burden, often being pushed to choose between having children or a career. Participants felt that their experiences as STEM academics were noticeably different to those of their male colleagues, where many of the commonly occurring barriers for women were simply non-issues for men. The results of this study indicate that some of these barriers can be overcome through networks, mentoring and allies. Addressing these barriers requires a reshaping of the gendered norms that currently limit progress to equity and inclusion.

Citizen science engages members of the public in research design, data collection, and analysis – in asking and answering questions about the world around them. The United States, European Union, and Australia have placed citizen science at the forefront of national science policy. Journals such as Science, Nature and Bioscience regularly feature projects conducted by citizens. Citizen science engages millions of people worldwide. However, to date, population health science has not relied heavily on citizen contributions. Although community-based participatory action research remains a strong foundational method to engage those affected by public health problems, there is additional potential to mainstream population health through wider, less intensive opportunities to be involved in our science. If we are to tackle the complex challenges that face population health then new avenues are needed to capture the energy and attention of citizens who may not feel affected by public health problems, i.e. to engage the ‘by-standers’ in population health science. Particular types of citizen science methods have the potential to do this. But simply increasing the breadth and volume of scientific evidence will not be enough. Complex, intractable, macro-level problems in population health require change in how our journals and funding bodies respond to data generated by the public. Of course, democratisation of science and the potential decentralisation of scientific authority will bring deep challenges. But potentially it brings a future where population health science is better known, understood and respected, with benefits for the types of public policies that derive from this science.

Gender biases and stereotypes are prevalent in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, which can create obstacles for the attraction, retention and progression of girls and women to STEM studies and careers. There are many initiatives which are used to attempt to address these biases and stereotypes, including the use of visible role models. This study explores the perceptions of the stereotypes applied to female STEM professionals who publicly speak about their work in both academic and non-academic settings. Using workshops with over 300 participants, predominantly female STEM professionals, from over 25 different cultural backgrounds, the results showed women who publicly communicate their work are likely to be stereotyped as ‘bitchy’, ‘bossy’, and ‘emotional’—often by their own gender. These findings suggest that women may be in a more vulnerable position when communicating publicly about their work, which could have implications for them participating fully in their careers. It may also have implications for programs which use role models to address prevailing STEM stereotypes. Systematic cultural and institutional change is needed in STEM fields to address the underlying bias and negative stereotypes facing women. However, it should be ensured that the intended solutions to facilitate this change are not compounding the problem.

Effective engagement with diverse stakeholders, combating misinformation and encouraging wider participation in science is core to science communication practice, and comprises much of the current focus of research in the discipline. Global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have clearly shown that social inequalities also manifest within communication structures, including those of science communication. Practices which are inclusive of diverse audiences are key if we wish to engage diverse audiences in finding solutions to societal issues. Yet there is little available evidence to show which diverse, marginalised and/or excluded groups are being engaged within science communication, and via what means. This paper develops a systematic map of academic literature spanning 40 years to provide a preliminary evidence base of how diversity and inclusion within science communication research and practice is conceived and implemented. Although the discipline has shown an increased focus within the last 5 years, science communication must evolve further in order to develop a robust evidence base for understanding what constitutes inclusive science communication in both theory and practice.

This article examines contemporary representations of female and male scientists in The New York Times with a particular emphasis on stereotypes related to gender and science as a profession. The selected series of profiles is approximately proportional in its representation of women in science and generally gives a rounded and diverse picture of their subjects. Traditionally ‘masculine’ characteristics (e.g. individual drive and brilliance) as well as ‘feminine’ communal skills (e.g. collaboration, communication and teamwork) are attributed to both male and female scientists. Nevertheless, textual and image analyses reveal that some differences remain in the treatment of male and female subjects, particularly in the unequal focus on combining family and career. This research identifies progress in media representations of scientists in comparison to previous studies. However, there is still room for improvement, especially in the representation of scientists from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.