Gender Communication Among University Students: Stereotypes, Academic Interaction, and Identity Negotiation

ABSTRACT

Gender communication among university students takes place in everyday conversations, group-work role allocation, student organizations, and digital interactions. In these situations, gender stereotypes may influence who is considered suitable for leadership, who receives administrative tasks, and how a person's communication style is evaluated.

This article aims to discuss how gender stereotypes can be reproduced and negotiated in student communication. It uses a descriptive literature review by examining academic articles on gender communication, stereotypes, representation, and academic interaction.

The literature reviewed suggests that communication behavior is not accurately explained solely through biological differences between men and women. Social norms, interactional contexts, and individual experiences must also be considered.

This article does not present new fieldwork findings. The discussion emphasizes the importance of transparent role allocation, equal speaking opportunities, and critical evaluation of gender-based jokes and labels on campus.

Keywords: Gender communication; university students; gender stereotypes; academic interaction; equality.

ABSTRACT

Gender communication among university students takes place in everyday conversations, group-work role allocation, student organizations, and digital interactions. Gender stereotypes may influence who is considered suitable for leadership, who receives administrative tasks, and how a person's communication style is evaluated.

This article discusses how stereotypes may be reproduced and negotiated in student communication. It uses a descriptive literature review of academic works on gender communication, stereotypes, representation, and academic interaction.

The literature suggests that communication behavior should not be explained solely through biological differences; social norms, interactional context, and individual experience also matter.

This article does not present new fieldwork findings. It highlights transparent role allocation, equal speaking opportunities, and critical evaluation of gender-based jokes and labels on campus.

Keywords: Gender communication; university students; gender stereotypes; academic interaction; equality.

INTRODUCTION

Higher education institutions serve as both learning and social spaces where students build knowledge, friendship networks, identities, and communication skills.

Communication does not merely function to convey lecture information; it also shapes relationships, determines positions within groups, and negotiates norms deemed acceptable. One aspect present in this process is gender, which is a social construction regarding roles, behaviors, and expectations attached to individuals based on gender categories.

In academic activities, students work in groups, participate in class discussions, join organizations, and communicate via messaging apps. These situations can contain assumptions that are not always consciously recognized.

Women, for instance, may be associated with note-taking or administrative tasks, while men are often considered more suitable as spokespersons or leaders. This assumption does not automatically apply to all student groups, but it is important to examine because it can limit an individual's role choices if it is continuously repeated and accepted without evaluation.

A study on gender stereotypes among students at Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta identifies stereotypes as an issue that can disadvantage individuals and emphasizes the need for gender-perspective education (Chusniatun et al., 2022).

Research on resistance to gender stereotypes among students at Universitas Negeri Surabaya also illustrates that role distribution in organizations can be linked to specific assumptions about women and leadership (Hanifah et al., 2024).

Meanwhile, research by Communication Science students at Untag Surabaya regarding the reception of toxic masculinity messages through Jefri Nichol's Instagram photos shows diverse interpretations of masculine expression (Nadira et al., 2024).

The main issue of this article is how gender stereotypes can emerge in student communication and how the academic environment can build more equitable interactions.

The purpose of this article is to explain forms of communication that potentially reproduce stereotypes, discuss the role of digital communication in shaping gender meanings, and formulate communication principles that support equality.

This article is a literature review, not a field research report. Therefore, the discussion does not claim that certain patterns occur among all students or specifically among Untag Surabaya students.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gender communication can be understood as a process of exchanging messages within the context of social norms and meanings regarding gender.

How a person speaks, chooses words, takes turns speaking, responds to opinions, or presents themselves can be interpreted through social expectations.

However, gender categories should not be used to assume that all men or all women communicate in the same way. Individual differences, experiences, situations, power relations, and group culture also influence communication.

Gender stereotypes are generalizations regarding characteristics or roles considered appropriate for a specific gender group. When generalizations are used to determine a person's ability before hearing their opinion or evaluating their performance, stereotypes can become a barrier.

On campus, stereotypes may appear through comments about who is considered assertive, emotional, suitable for leadership, or expected to handle administrative work.

Labels that appear as jokes still need to be viewed in terms of context, frequency, relationships between parties, and their impact on participation.

A study on gender representation in virtual conversations between students and lecturers examines language use in WhatsApp communication and links it to how gender is represented in text (Angela et al., 2023).

Findings in one research context cannot be generalized as fixed traits for all male and female students. However, such research shows that digital conversations can serve as material for observing how language choices are read and assigned gendered meanings.

In communication studies, the meaning of a message is not entirely determined by the sender. Stuart Hall's reception approach, as used in the research by Nadira et al. (2024), pays attention to the possibility of audiences accepting, negotiating, or rejecting the offered meaning.

This framework is useful for understanding that students may interpret gender expressions differently, depending on their experiences, values, and social environment.

Differences in interpretation do not necessarily mean communication has failed. What is important is the availability of space for dialogue and that differences of opinion are not used to belittle others.

Research on computer-supported collaborative learning discusses whether certain learning environments can encourage communication styles that are not bound by traditional stereotypes among students (Can Computer Supported Collaborative Learning..., 2014).

Zamista et al. (2024) examined student communication skills and reported very small score differences between female and male groups in their research sample.

Both studies remind us that communication differences need to be examined empirically and contextually, rather than assumed from the outset.

RESEARCH METHOD

This article uses a descriptive literature review method. The sources examined are scientific journal articles discussing gender communication, gender stereotypes in educational environments, digital conversations, representation, and message reception.

The search was conducted through journal websites and academic search results, prioritizing articles with verifiable bibliographic identities that are relevant to the focus on students and communication.

The analysis was conducted in three steps.

First, identifying recurring themes, namely gender stereotypes, role distribution, communication styles, digital representation, and meaning negotiation.

Second, comparing the focus and context of each study so that the results of one study are not treated as a universal picture.

Third, synthesizing concepts to answer the article's objectives and formulate practical implications for communication on campus.

Because no interviews, field observations, or surveys were conducted by the author, this article does not produce primary data and does not claim any new empirical findings.

The limitation of this method is that the scope of sources depends on publications that can be accessed and verified.

Therefore, this article is more appropriately positioned as an initial literature review draft. Before being used as a final manuscript, the reference list should be re-checked based on the official metadata of each article and adjusted to the chosen journal template.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Stereotypes in Academic Role Distribution

Group task distribution is one context that can reveal the operation of gender expectations.

When group members automatically appoint men to present and women to take notes, such distribution risks turning habits into limitations.

The problem is not with someone choosing a specific task voluntarily, but with situations where choices are determined by assumptions about gender rather than ability, interest, or member agreement.

2. Stereotypes in Speaking Style and Evaluation

The same communication style can be evaluated differently depending on who uses it.

Assertiveness may be read as leadership in one person but considered rude in another. A cautious attitude may be praised as politeness or judged as a lack of confidence.

This article does not conclude that such patterns always occur. The main point is that communication evaluation can be influenced by social expectations.

Academic evaluation should refer to the content of arguments, evidence, delivery methods, and interaction context, not gender labels.

3. Digital Communication and Meaning Reproduction

Class WhatsApp groups, social media, and online discussion spaces expand the context of student communication.

Short messages, memes, comments, and posts can spread stereotypes while also becoming spaces to challenge them.

Research on gender representation in virtual conversations between students and lecturers shows the relevance of digital language as an object of study (Angela et al., 2023).

However, short texts are not always sufficient to determine the author's intent or their impact on the recipient.

Analysis needs to pay attention to context, social relationships, interaction patterns, and the responses of the parties involved.

4. Masculinity, Self-Expression, and Audience Reception

The study by Nadira et al. (2024) regarding the reception of Communication Science students at Untag Surabaya toward toxic masculinity messages through Jefri Nichol's Instagram photos shows different positions of interpretation regarding clothing and expressions considered feminine.

This study is relevant because it shows that masculinity is not just a matter of personal traits, but also a social meaning debated through media.

In the campus environment, such discussions can be a learning opportunity to distinguish criticism of ideas from insults toward an individual's identity or expression.

5. Strategies for Building Equitable Communication

First, group task distribution needs to be done openly.

Roles such as leader, presenter, note-taker, reference seeker, and report compiler can be rotated or adjusted based on agreement and competence, rather than being automatically attached to gender.

Second, lecturers and organization officials can ensure that speaking opportunities are not dominated by certain individuals by giving turns, asking for responses from members who have not spoken, and evaluating ideas based on their substance.

6. Implications for the Campus Environment

An equitable campus environment does not mean everyone must speak or behave in the same way.

Equality is more accurately interpreted as fair access to participate, obtain opportunities, express objections, and be evaluated based on contributions.

This practice requires consistency, including clear group rules, inclusive discussion facilitation, responses to harassment, and periodic reflection on communication habits.

For Communication Science students, gender sensitivity needs to be evident in decision-making processes, teamwork, message production, and evaluation of communication impacts.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Based on the literature reviewed, gender communication among students can be understood through the interaction between social stereotypes, role distribution, evaluation of speaking styles, representation in digital spaces, and meaning negotiation.

The literature reviewed shows that campus is a relevant context for examining how gender norms can be maintained or questioned through communication.

However, this article does not present field data and therefore cannot state the level of gender stereotype incidence among students in general or at Universitas 17 August 1945 Surabaya specifically.

Efforts to build more equitable communication can begin through transparent task distribution, balanced speaking opportunities, criticism focused on behavior and arguments, evaluation of gender-based jokes, and media and gender literacy.

Further research is suggested to conduct interviews or observations on student groups with clear boundaries, for example, in class discussions or campus organizations.

Such research needs to explain the selection of informants, data collection procedures, research ethics, and analysis methods so that conclusions can be traced based on empirical evidence.

REFERENCES

Angela, N., Rafli, Z., & Iskandar, I. (2023). Representasi gender dalam percakapan virtual mahasiswa dan dosen. Lingua Rima: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.31000/lgrm.v12i2.8580

Chusniatun, Inayati, N. L., & Harismah, K. (2022). Identifikasi stereotip gender mahasiswa Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta: Menuju penerapan pendidikan berperspektif gender. Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Sosial, 32(2). https://journals.ums.ac.id/index.php/jpis/article/view/21610

Hanifah, N. R., Atriska, F. E., Damayanti, F. F., Santoso, M. D. S. P., & Listyani, R. H. (2024). Representasi perlawanan stereotip gender di lingkungan Universitas Negeri Surabaya. Jurnal Kajian Gender dan Anak, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.24952/gender.v7i2.6511

Nadira, N. D., Danadharta, I., & Ayodya, B. P. (2024). Analisis resepsi mahasiswa Ilkom Untag terhadap pesan toxic masculinity melalui foto Instagram Jefri Nichol. Sintesa, 3(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.30996/sintesa.v3i01.10506

Purnamasari, N. P., & Tutiasri, R. P. (2021). Analisis resepsi remaja perempuan terhadap gaya hidup berbelanja fashion melalui tayangan video 'Belanja Gak Aturan' dalam akun TikTok @handmadeshoesby. Representamen, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.30996/representamen.v7i01.5129

Qibtiyah, A. (2017). Sensitivitas gender dan pola komunikasi mahasiswa/i UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta. Musãwa Jurnal Studi Gender dan Islam, 16(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.14421/musawa.2017.162.153-168

Zamista, A. A., Azmi, K., & Onia, S. I. (2024). Bridging the gender gap: Investigating disparities in student communication skills in the digital education era. An-Nisa’ Journal of Gender Studies, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.35719/annisa.v17i1,219

Can computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) promote counter-stereotypical gender communication styles in male and female university students? (2014). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4384–4392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.952

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage Publications.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Wadsworth.

European Institute for Gender Equality. (2024). Gender stereotypes. https://eige.europa.eu/

World Health Organization. (2021). Gender and health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2019). From access to empowerment: UNESCO strategy for gender equality in and through education 2019–2025. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/