Social media has turned scientists into everyday public figures who are at once balancing multiple duties—teaching science, debunking misinformation, sharing personal updates, and fielding hot takes in the same feed. That visibility is powerful, but it’s complicated: multiple audiences collide (friends, colleagues, skeptics, policymakers), platform norms reward personality and speed, and lingering stereotypes about what a scientist should (or should not do) still shape how people respond.

I conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 highly visible scientists (10k+ followers across different social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, and X) in North America and Europe. Using reflexive thematic analysis, I examined how they imagine their audiences, present their public identities, and navigate tensions between professional norms and platform expectations.

Key Findings

• Audience in mind: Scientists post with a “target imagined audience,” ranging from peers to parents to skeptics, and adjust their tone, use of scientific jargon, and what they disclose accordingly.
• Context collapse is real: One post can reach many mismatched groups of audiences, so people self-censor, hedge, or optimize for the “strictest” or “most consequential” audience (e.g., hiring committees).
• Authenticity builds trust: Authentic content, process transparency, and owning mistakes can help to foster credibility, but scientists may struggle with the flip side of sharing too much information with their audiences; that is, the parasocial nature of such online relationships.
• Humanizing helps: Personal stories and humor counter the “cold scientist” stereotype, yet some followers punish non-scientific content or political expression.
• Representation matters, and costs: Women and scientists from minoritized backgrounds leverage their visibility to mentor and broaden who belongs in STEM, while facing higher harassment and emotional labor.

Bottom line: Being a “scientist online” isn’t just sharing facts, but it’s an ongoing process of identity work. Clear audience targeting, calibrated authenticity, and institution-level support can make that work safer and more effective.