What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Yes—men asked a larger share of audience questions than women in every major conference setting summarized here, but the size of the difference varied. The clearest audience-adjusted estimate comes from a 2017 study: after accounting for the gender mix in each session, men asked 1.8 questions for every question asked by women (95% confidence interval, 1.4–2.2). That is an estimate from one conference, not a rule about every meeting or about people’s ability or curiosity.
Other observations found the same direction in hematology, astronomy, a virtual biology-and-mathematics meeting, and a later international conference. The studies count participation in particular sessions; they do not show that men are inherently more knowledgeable or inquisitive, and they do not identify one universal cause.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What the main studies found
The figures below come from different conferences, disciplines, years and counting methods. They should be read as separate observations rather than combined into a single rate.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →| Study and setting | What was counted | Observed result | Important qualification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hinsley, Sutherland and Johnston (2017), large international scientific conference | 31 sessions and 270 questions; audience composition estimated for each session | 152 questions from men and 118 from women. The audience-adjusted model estimated 64% of questions from men in an evenly balanced room, or 1.8 men’s questions per woman’s question. | One conference; male/female categories; 95% CI for the ratio 1.4–2.2. |
| American Society of Hematology 2019 meeting (published 2020) | 112 eligible sessions and 577 presentations | Women asked 23% of audience questions while women were estimated to be 39% of attendees (P < .0001). | The attendee denominator was estimated at the conference level, not directly measured for every room. |
| JOBIM 2021 virtual conference (published 2023) | 192 chat questions | 57 questions were attributed to women, 115 to men, and 20 were anonymous or group submissions. Women were underrepresented among question askers despite parity in attendance. | Typing in a chat box is not the same behavior as walking to a microphone; anonymous and collective entries could not be assigned to one individual. |
| Banchefsky and colleagues (2022), three academic conferences | 189 observed live Q&A interactions and 234 survey responses | Men participated disproportionately in the recorded live Q&A. Women respondents reported less comfort and greater fear of backlash. | Observed behavior and self-reported experience are different measures; the survey does not prove that fear caused the participation gap. |
| 223rd American Astronomical Society meeting (2014), published as an arXiv report | 634 questions collected from 225 talks in 53 sessions | 153 questions came from women and 481 from men. The authors reported underrepresentation of women questioners and an association between chair gender and questioner balance. | Volunteer, informal sample; binary gender assignments, sometimes inferred from first names; the authors called for better methods. |
| International conference study (published 2025) | 388 questions after 134 talks and 373 complete survey responses | Women participated less in the observed Q&A in the conference studied. | Results describe that conference and its observational and self-report measures, not all scientific meetings. |
What the 1.8-to-1 figure actually means
The 2017 PLOS ONE study is often summarized as “men ask 1.8 times as many questions.” Its more precise claim is conditional. The investigators observed 270 questions in 31 sessions, estimated 1,487 women and 1,116 men in those audiences, and calculated average rates of 0.08 questions per female attendee and 0.14 per male attendee. A binomial generalized estimating-equation model treated session as a repeated measure and used each room’s male-to-female audience ratio as an offset.
#1 Best Overall
That adjustment matters. Simply comparing the total number of questions from men and women could reflect who happened to be in the room. The model instead asks how often an attendee of each gender asked a question relative to that attendee group’s size. In a hypothetical session with equal numbers of men and women, the fitted model predicts 64% of questions from men. The reported 95% confidence interval for the male-to-female rate ratio is 1.4 to 2.2, so the estimate has uncertainty even within that conference.
Observers did not tell delegates that question-asking was being studied, a design intended to reduce behavior changes caused by observation. The analysis found little evidence that adding speaker or chair gender improved the model. The authors also examined younger researchers; because directly measuring the gender mix of younger audience members could have made observers conspicuous, that part required estimated audience composition.
Why the results are consistent but not interchangeable
Across the settings, the direction is similar: women supplied fewer questions than their representation among attendees would predict. The denominators and formats differ enough that the percentages cannot be averaged.
Live microphone questions
At an in-person meeting, asking usually requires standing, being recognized, and speaking in front of peers. The 2017 study, the hematology analysis and the astronomy report all concern this kind of public interaction, but their fields, session structures and sampling procedures differ. The hematology result compares women’s 23% share of questions with an estimated 39% share of attendees; it is not the same statistic as the 2017 per-attendee rate.
Typed questions in a virtual room
The JOBIM study counted chat submissions. Its 20 anonymous or group entries show why a simple male-versus-female tally can omit meaningful participation. Chat removes the walk to a microphone and may allow anonymity, yet women were still underrepresented among identifiable questioners despite parity in attendance. That finding extends the pattern to one virtual format, not to every online conference platform.
Observation paired with surveys
Banchefsky’s 2022 work and the 2025 international-conference study combine observed Q&A with questionnaires. Observation records what happened; surveys ask participants about comfort, expectations and concerns. The two sources complement each other but cannot be substituted for one another. A reported fear of backlash is evidence about perceived climate, not proof that it explains every missing question.
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
What might produce the participation gap?
No study in this set establishes a single causal pathway. Several findings indicate plausible contributors while leaving important uncertainty.
Comfort and anticipated backlash
In the 2022 survey, women reported less comfort participating and greater fear of negative reactions. The 2025 study likewise pairs lower observed participation with self-reported conference experiences. These results support examining the social conditions around Q&A, but they do not show that every woman feels unsafe, that men feel uniformly comfortable, or that climate alone accounts for the difference.
Field history and accumulated barriers
The 2017 authors discuss the demographic history of science and broader barriers in STEM as context for who feels entitled or prepared to speak publicly. Their younger-researcher analysis found a participation difference too, so seniority by itself is not a sufficient explanation.
Rank #4
Chair and speaker effects remain unsettled
The large 2017 model found little improvement when speaker or chair gender was added. The informal 2014 astronomy report found an association between chair gender and questioner balance. Because the studies use different samples and controls, the evidence supports treating chair effects as context-dependent rather than settled.
Format and procedure
Microphone queues, time limits, chat moderation, question selection and anonymity all change the cost of submitting a question. The existing studies demonstrate that format matters to interpretation; they do not identify one procedure that will eliminate a gender gap in every meeting.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11What the evidence does not show
- It does not show an innate difference in curiosity, intelligence or expertise. Question counts are behavioral observations in particular settings.
- It does not show that men always ask more questions. The conclusion is limited to the conferences and sessions studied.
- It does not prove a cause. Survey reports about comfort or backlash are associated context, not a complete causal model.
- It does not describe every gender identity. Several studies used binary or perceived-gender coding. Nonbinary and gender-diverse attendees may have been excluded, misclassified or invisible in the totals.
- It does not make studies directly comparable. A per-attendee rate, a share of all questions, a conference-level attendance estimate and a chat count answer different questions.
How to judge a new claim about conference questions
When a paper or conference report gives a percentage, check the design before interpreting the number. Six questions usually reveal whether the comparison is meaningful:
Best Value
- Excellent science workbook series based on current State Standards
- Variety of fascinating facts develops students' science literacy
- Great to introduce and review key science concepts in natural, earth, life, and applied sciences
- Lessons presented in one-page format with bonus sidebar facts and key word definitions
- Includes complete answer keys to gauge students' understanding
- What was the unit? Was it a raised hand, a completed microphone question, a chat message, or a survey response?
- What was the denominator? Did investigators know who was in each room, estimate attendance for the whole conference, or count only people who submitted questions?
- Was audience composition measured per session? The 2017 analysis adjusted room by room; the hematology study used an estimated conference-level attendee share.
- How was gender recorded? Self-identification, observation, name-based inference and binary coding have different error and inclusion problems.
- How large and representative was the sample? Session and question totals, recruitment method and whether data came from one meeting determine how far the result can travel.
- Were anonymous or group questions included? Excluding them can change who appears to be participating, especially online.
These checks explain why the 2017 audience-adjusted ratio is the strongest single headline estimate here, while the other studies are valuable corroboration in distinct disciplines and formats rather than extra observations to add mathematically.
What conference organizers and attendees can take from it
The authors of the 2017 study urge the scientific community to recognize the context in which gender differences occur and to evaluate methods that support full participation. That recommendation is broader than adopting one guaranteed fix. Organizers who want to test improvements can document, rather than assume, how their procedures affect participation.
For organizers
- Record the number of questions and the audience composition for each session, not only conference-wide totals.
- Publish how gender and other demographic categories were obtained, including how anonymous, group and nonbinary responses were handled.
- Track live and virtual channels separately so a microphone count is not mistaken for a chat count.
- Pair behavioral counts with voluntary, confidential questions about comfort and perceived risks; neither source replaces the other.
- Report uncertainty and sampling limits, and avoid presenting one meeting’s percentage as a universal benchmark.
For attendees
A low question count from a group is not evidence that its members lack ideas. If you are deciding whether a published comparison is persuasive, look for the session-level denominator, the coding method and the confidence interval before drawing conclusions about people rather than procedures.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Quick Recap
Sources and further reading
- Hinsley, Sutherland and Johnston, “Men ask more questions than women at a scientific conference,” PLOS ONE (2017)
- “Gender differences in question-asking at the 2019 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting” (2020)
- “Gender-based disparities and biases in science: An observational study of a virtual conference” (2023)
- Banchefsky and colleagues, “Stepping Up to the Mic: Gender Gaps in Participation in Live Question-and-Answer Sessions at Academic Conferences” (2022)
- Davenport and colleagues, “Studying Gender in Conference Talks—data from the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society” (2014)
- “Public Discussion Affects Question Asking at Academic Conferences” (2019)
- “How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference” (2025)
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
