Following the YouTube–Science Communication series, today’s paper might feel a bit old by current standards, specially considering how much the online landscape has changed over the past 3–5 years (with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the popularization of AI). However, the main points of the article still provide a solid foundation for the one we are working on. One thing that hasn’t changed is that, in the digital world, attention is scarce. Science communicators, both professional and amateur, face the same challenge: making their message heard.
The article “Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity” by Welbourne and Grant, offers a comprehensive analysis of how different content features influence the popularity of science communication on YouTube.
Welbourne, D. J., & Grant, W. J. (2015). Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 706-718.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068 (Original work published 2016)
From broadcast to participation:
Science communication has moved far beyond traditional media. In the era of Web 2.0, audiences don’t just consume content, they also share, comment, and create. And no platform illustrates this shift better than YouTube. Launched in 2005 on a user-generated content (UGC) model, quickly grew into one of the world’s top websites. After its acquisition by Google in 2006, the platform deliberately increased the presence of professionally generated content (PGC), from media corporations like BBC or Discovery Channel. This created a space where passionate amateurs and big platers competed for the same audience.
Yet, popularity is not guaranteed. Whether a video finds its audience depends on contect factors (e.g., style, pacing, delivery), content-agnostic factors (e.g., network effects), and the platform’s recommendation system, which amplifies what’s already popular.
The authors aimed to understand how these content factors shape the popularity of science videos fro anyone trying to make science visible online.
The Method:
In order to achive that, the authors analysed:
- 390 videos from 39 YouTube channels in science and education (10 videos per channel).
- Channels randomly sampled from top 1000 channels from SocialBlade (2013) in Education, and Science and Technology categories.
- Videos in English, at least 180 days, and defined as science communication (Scopus science subjects areas: Physical, Life, Health, Social Sciences).
- Dividing them into:
- PGC ( Professionally Generated Content): content from established media or organizations.
- UGC (User Generated Content): independent creators.
To capture the nuances of content creation, the team manually coded each video for:
- Video length (seconds)
- Speaking pace (words per minute) -> from the transcript and the video length
- Continuity of the communicator (continuous communications: yes/no)
- Communicator gender (male, female, both, no-gender)
- Video style (vlog, hosted, interview, presentation, voice-over visuals, text-over visuals)
- Data from the channel: Channel age, number of videos, channel views, channels subscriptions, channel type (PGC or UGC)
- Data from the videos: video view count, number of comments, number of subscription driven from the video, number of shareds, total number of ratings
Key Findings:
- UGC Outperformed PGC, even though professional channels produced more content, user-generated channels attracted more subscribers and views.
- Authenticity and relatability seem to outweigh polished production.
- A regular face builds trust: channels with a regular science communicator had significantly more reviews. Familiarity fosters community and loyalty.
- Faster Speaking pace = More views: UGC videos had a higher average speaking rate (169 wpm) than PGC (153 wpm), and this faster delivery correlated with higher view counts.
- Video Length doesn’t determine Popularity, contrary to common assumptions, shorter videos weren’t necessarily more successful.
- Different engagement dynamics: depending on the type of creator:
- UGC received more ratings per view.
- PGC videos were shared more often.
Key Takeaways:
This study shows that:
- A consistent host builds trust.
- Speaking clearly and quickly helps hold attention.
- Authenticity beats production value.
- Ratings and comments help the algorithm amplify the reach, so focus on engagement, not just views.
The biggest mistake that content creators can make is in viewing YouTube as merely a video hosting platform, rather than a participatory community.
Limitations & What’s left to explore:
The study lays an important foundation but leaves open questions about:
- Causality: the analysis is correlative, not causal. While the authors identify factors associated with popularity, the study doesn’t prove these factors cause higher engagement. Experimental or longitudinal designs would be needed to establish causality.
- Algorithmic effects: the research intentionally isolates content-related variables (e.g., delivery style, pace, length) and does not directly measure content-agnostic factors (e.g., social network effects, algorithmic recommendations in real time, promotion strategies external to YouTube).
- Evolving platform dynamics: the study reflects the YouTube ecosystem of 2013–2014. Algorithms and audience behaviours evolve quickly, so repeating similar studiesat different points in time (or across platforms) could reveal changing patterns.
- Human dimensions of science communication: it found a predominance of male communicators but didn’t explore why this occurs or how it impacts audience reception. Future research could adopt qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, discourse analysis) to better understand gender dynamics in science communication.
- No direct measurement of comprehension: while faster speaking pace was correlated with more views, the study didn’t examine how it affects understanding or knowledge retention. Future work could pair popularity with audience comprehension measures.
Conclusions:
This study is a great reminder that science communication is about connection, not just transmission. YouTube functions as a community, and audiences reward communicators who feel approachable and genuine.
For researchers and science communicators, this offers practical inisght: your style, presence, and engagement matter as much as your content.
See you in the next paper =)