Introduction

Climate change and biodiversity loss are major planetary threats1,2. Despite a well-established scientific consensus3,4,5, policy action remains limited5,6,7. At the same time, scientists are increasingly engaging in environmental social movements, aiming to translate scientific knowledge to effect change8,9,10. However, engaging in activism presents a dilemma for scientists. Traditionally, the scientific community promotes impartiality and objectivity while discouraging activism11,12,13,14,15,16. In contrast, others argue that the scientific community must act to raise the alarm and not simply produce research9,17,18. This tension can be thought of as an ideological dilemma19 for environmentally concerned scientists, who grapple with the question of whether to remain apolitical or to advocate for change. This paper explores the nuanced ways in which environmentally concerned scientists navigate this tension, examining the linguistic repertoires they employ and the subject positions they adopt to manage this dilemma.

The worldwide ‘March for Science’ in 2017 served as a catalyzing moment for scientist-activism, rallying scientists to defend research and evidence-based policymaking20. In the context of climate change, this movement has seen scientists engage in diverse forms of activism, from blocking fossil fuel infrastructure21 to strategically leaking the IPCC report22. Not limited to earth system scientists23, groups like Scientists for Extinction Rebellion24 and Scientist Rebellion25 have emerged, uniting natural and social scientists, underscoring the interdisciplinarity of environmental activism. Scientific societies, such as the American Psychological Association, also recognize the importance of scientists’ advocacy in altering the climate trajectory26. These developments demonstrate scientists’ departure from traditional roles, actively redefining what it means to be a scientist in the context of environmental challenges.

A note on terms. Advocacy is defined as the “act of persuading or arguing in support of a specific cause, policy, idea or set of values”27. Activism, as a distinct form of advocacy, is “the use of direct and noticeable action to achieve a result, usually a political or social one”28. In this paper, we primarily use the term activism, as an active form of advocacy29, reflecting the public actions taken by scientists and the framing used in the preceding survey30 and present interview research. We use advocacy where it appears in literature or by interviewees. The verb ‘advocate’ describes the act of supporting a cause, and when used without qualification below, it generally refers to activism. Furthermore, some scientists strategically choose the term advocacy over activism, as discussed in the results. Of course, these terms are often used interchangeably, reflecting conceptual overlap29.

The scientist identity, traditionally characterized by objectivity and impartiality, is at a crossroads due to the scientific consensus on, and pressing global impacts of, climate change5. Critics challenge the long-held separation of science and advocacy which was believed to protect scientific integrity by minimizing political influence11,12,13,14,15,16,31. They argue that strict detachment is morally and intellectually untenable9,18,32. Moreover, scholars have long questioned the dichotomy between science and advocacy, recognizing the intersections between science and social, cultural, and political dimensions33,34,35,36.

Despite growing recognition of the legitimacy of scientist advocacy within public discourse37 and academia37,38,39, actual engagement lags behind willingness38,39. Large-scale surveys have identified various factors influencing scientists’ participation, including efficacy, workload, and institutional constraints38,39. Additionally, perceptions of scientific norms and their compatibility with activism contribute to the tension some scientists feel between political engagement and maintaining credibility40,41. Central to this are identity processes42, with environmental activist identity key to shaping participation in environmental social movements43,44,45. However, this politicized social identity46,47,48 contrasts with the supposedly apolitical scientist identity constructed in the wider discourse. Our research has identified that the perceived inter-identity fit45 between science and activism is a critical factor for how engaged scientists are30. Specifically, scientists who have reconciled the values of science with activism, and perceive a moral duty to act, are more likely to engage in activism30. Differing constructions of scientific identity can either support or hinder action30, emphasizing the importance of understanding how scientists construct their identities and position themselves within the wider discourse.

Ideological dilemmas arise when conflicting views on a subject create opposing imperatives, leading to tension and contradiction that individuals must manage through complex negotiation and reconciliation. These dilemmas, rooted in everyday sense-making, have been explored across diverse topics, including political ideology19, race19,49,50, gender51,52, moral norms53, and populist national54 and environmental discourse55. However, the dilemmatic nature of scientists’ engagement with environmental issues remains underexplored. The tension between traditional scientific norms and perceived moral imperatives for environmental activism presents a unique dilemma for environmentally concerned scientists. How scientists respond to this dilemma may be reflected in the language they use. When scientists choose their words, they engage in rhetorical thinking, consciously or unconsciously, that positions themselves in relation to the wider discourse56. The choice of metaphors, framing, and persuasive strategies becomes pivotal in navigating these ideological tensions.

In this study, we examine the nuanced ways environmentally concerned scientists manage this dilemma through interpretive linguistic repertoires and subject positions. Linguistic repertoires are culturally shared ways of talking about and understanding the world, which subjects may draw on and adapt in conversation in context-specific ways57. Subject positions refer to relational, social locations, that individuals may construct for themselves or others, drawing on these repertoires to position themselves in relation to the wider discourse57,58. By analyzing how scientists employ these discursive strategies, we aim to catalog their management of the dilemma and gain insight into the argumentative functions of their talk56,59, providing insight into the strategies employed to reconcile conflicting identities and values.

Results

Our analysis revealed two repertoires that scientists utilize for managing the dilemma of engagement (see Table 1). The first, ‘Reconceptualizing Scientist Identity’, addresses the perceived conflict between scientific objectivity, impartiality, and the moral imperative of activism, by reconfiguring the scientist identity. The subject positions adopted adapt or challenge traditional scientific norms, arguing for a nuanced understanding of scientists’ roles in pushing for societal change. The second, ‘Reframing the Work that Scientists Do’, offers alternative perspectives on engagement, distinguishing advocacy from activism, and redefining research as activism. Together, these linguistic repertoires highlight the multifaceted ways in which scientists negotiate their identities and actions within the discourse of environmental activism.

Table 1 Linguistic Repertoires, Subject Positions, and Functions
Full size table

The scientist’s dilemma in the context of the climate crisis

Before we explore these repertoires, it is important to establish how interviewees construct the nature of their dilemma and why they see the traditional role of science and scientists as being insufficient:

Extract 1

Respondent 5, Female, Doctoral Student, Sustainability Social Scientist

The traditional linear perspective would be that we take the information, and we give it to people[…] to make better policies or technologies[…]. I very much do believe in the value of producing knowledge […] but I also think it is limited[…] because it is not[…] resulting in the changes that we really need to see[…]. I think a lot of us are at this point now where we are thinking well okay, we are doing all this really interesting research[…] but is that translating into the situation overall getting better? And I guess the answer is no[…], on its own the research isn’t making that happen and I guess that is where the activism comes in.

In this account, the production of knowledge is not enough. Science may produce the knowledge base for dealing with the climate crisis – but that knowledge has not been translated into “better policies or technologies”. Consequently, other actions are required. This is developed in Extract 2:

Extract 2

Respondent 1, Male, Doctoral Student, Environmental Monitoring

So, the traditional sense of what scientists I think do is that they tinker about with the world, find out how it works, and […] tell people about it. The telling people about it part is newer […]. [But] I don’t think the job description of a scientist involves making change. Traditionally that goes through the policymaker. Right, so scientists find something out, they write about it and dangle it in front of policymakers […], that might be regarded as activism, the dangling bit […] [But] People who go people into academia are not incentivized to make their findings, make their conclusions become actions[…], I think that scientists need to be ushered more towards making their conclusions acted upon.

Here it is the failure of policy makers to deliver on their perceived responsibility for using scientific knowledge for change that is at the heart of the scientists’ dilemma. Scientists are traditionally focused on knowledge discovery and informing policy makers—but if those charged with action are not delivering, then scientists need to ensure their knowledge is acted upon.

At the same time, while many scientists are drawn to activism due to the perceived limitations of policymakers’ actions, there is a recognition that activism should not overshadow their science:

Extract 3

Respondent 6, Female, PhD, Biologist

So, I’m back in that corner of doubt about whether the science I’m doing is the right thing to be doing […]. But it also keeps me sane because I love my job, and maybe doing both […] science and activism helps both of those things […]. I couldn’t do what I’m doing at work if I wasn’t doing the activism, because I would be so distracted by the state of the world that I wouldn’t be able to pick up a pen. Yeah, I think they can be complimentary. Being an active scientist is complimentary to activism, it helps people take you more seriously […]. It shouldn’t be the truth, but I think it is, and we all have that influence […]. And if there are no activist scientists in this lab, I’m calling myself it now, then no one’s ever going to think, “Oh, I can do that.” So, I’m here, and I’m out.

These perspectives highlight the dilemma that engaged scientists must negotiate as they strive to effect meaningful change while preserving their core identity. Below, we present the strategies scientists employ within each of these repertoires to manage this tension.

Reconceptualizing scientist identity

This repertoire entails a reconceptualization of the scientist identity, aimed at harmonizing scientific norms with activism. This process involves several strategic maneuvers: firstly, utilizing scientist identity content by framing activism as objective and rational to align it with scientific values; secondly, critiquing traditional notions of the objective researcher to counter accusations of compromised integrity; and finally, imbuing the scientist identity with a moral imperative to actively disseminate scientific information through activism.

Activism is objective and rational

This subject position frames activism as objective and rational, aligning with scientific norms:

Extract 4

Respondent 6, Female, PhD, Biologist

I think that people who are not acting on information that science has generated are not being good scientists, they’re not being objective, because what is scientific information for? […] It’s to be acted upon and turned into something useful. And we’re following science by doing the activism that we’re doing.

This framing legitimizes action as objective and a natural extension of scientific inquiry. In fact, activism is proposed as a requirement of good science. Moreover, the interviewee counters criticisms of her activism distracting her from her scientific responsibilities:

Extract 5

Respondent 6, Female, PhD, Biologist

My boss, when he was giving me a dressing down the other week, was saying, “You’re distracted,” and I couldn’t really deny that occasionally I am distracted, but I tried to say like, “Why aren’t you distracted?” No, I’m not distracted by activism, I’m actually distracted by the state of the world and the anxiety and the fear that that provokes, the activism helps with that. I said this a bit more gently but, “Who’s not behaving rationally here?”

She defends her activism as a rational response to the climate crisis, countering critiques of activism and her alleged distraction from science. The interviewee also touches upon the power dynamics within scientific institutions, hinting at the challenges faced by scientists who step into activism. The reference to a “dressing down” by a superior reveals the tension between individual agency and institutional norms, highlighting the need for scientists to navigate these power structures as they engage in activism.

There is no objective researcher

A second way scientist identity is reconceptualized to fit with activism is through challenging the notion of the possibility of objectivity – given that scientific writing is a form of persuasion.

Extract 6

Respondent 15, Male, Professor, Physics

I think as soon as you are out there writing publicly, then you are doing a form of advocacy, even if you don’t realize you are. So, I don’t think it is possible for anyone to be truly objective in how they present anything, so I think any form of public engagement is a form of activism […]. Maybe it is very difficult not to let it influence your scholarship, but as long as you are open about that, then I don’t particularly see a problem. I think the truly objective researcher probably doesn’t actually exist—nothing we do is truly objective […]. Anyone who is engaging publicly should at least think about how it influences their scholarship, but I don’t see any reason why you should suddenly go oh I am being so active in the public sphere I should stop being a scholar.

This position challenges the notion of complete objectivity and advocates for a culture of transparency in scientific communication. It recognizes the difficulty of maintaining impartiality but emphasizes the importance of being open about the influences that shape research. The professor’s view is that engaging with the public is not antithetical to scholarly pursuits; on the contrary, it encourages a deeper consideration of the interconnectedness of public engagement and academic scholarship. A similar perspective is echoed by another participant, who emphasizes the inherent motivation underlying research:

Extract 7

Respondent 16, Female, Senior Lecturer, Psychology

I think you see this tension between, you know, our training as scientists, which is like, “Oh, you’re a neutral, you just study the processes, you study the mechanisms,” but that’s really not true[…] you study so that people can be better and survive[…]. It’s always with an interest, you know. So, if people say there’s a conflict of interest, if you have kind of outcome hopes, basically, of course there is.

This participant underscores the motivational underpinnings of research, suggesting that scientific pursuits are intrinsically linked to the goal of improving society. These perspectives present an alternative view of the scientist, one that embraces the inherent values guiding their work and, in so doing seeks to legitimize scientist-activism. While this perspective may empower scientists to engage publicly, some argue that it may increase polarization:

Extract 8

Respondent 3, Male, Master’s Graduate, Sustainability Social Science

I do recognize that science loses trust of those social groups that have kind of already lost it and then you push further into polarization by being scientists and being activists, and that I guess really requires us to interrogate what knowledge is and why we feel confident to act on the knowledge we have and why we feel confident the other side as wrong. So, I do recognize that there’s something there that makes reconciliation a little bit difficult.

This perspective raises critical questions about the implications of blurring the boundaries between science and activism. It presents both an opportunity and a challenge. In one sense, it challenges the status quo and liberates scientists to be activists. In another, it may undermine public trust in science, which may be influenced by perceptions of objectivity and impartiality.

Activism is a scientist’s moral duty

This subject position asserts that activism transcends mere choice – it’s a moral imperative incumbent upon scientists as truth-tellers:

Extract 9,

Respondent 23, Female, Meteorologist.

“As scientists, we need to show people the truth[…] Well, I feel like it’s the morally–morally to me it’s the right thing to do.”

This retired meteorologist’s conviction sets the stage for a broader discussion on the moral responsibilities of scientists. Her perspective underscores the ethical dimension of science, where activism is seen as an extension of the scientist’s commitment to truth. Building on this is the view that a scientist’s duty arises from their expertise in rendering complex information accessible to the public:

Extract 10

Respondent 24, Male, Postdoctoral Researcher, Biologist

Scientists should take the first step[…] we are generally more aware of how to interpret the literature[…] distill it into layman language and, you know, raise awareness. We are trained for it, so we have the tools, so we should take the first step[…] and we also have the moral responsibility to do that because […] we have to stick up for science, and climate change is all about, you know, pushing people to listen to the science.

For some respondents, their status as scientists with particular knowledge and expertise places a moral obligation on them to sound the alarm:

Extract 11

Respondent 22, Male, PhD, Ecologist

I’m not just any scientist, I’m an earth scientist. I specifically know about what’s happening to the planet and[…] my knowledge compels me to act[…]. I think it also gives me a particular responsibility[…] to be visibly doing something because[…] I worry that there might be people out there thinking “well, if it was really that bad then the scientists would be freaking out. But the scientists aren’t freaking out, so clearly, they can’t even believe their own words.” So, I think it’s important that we act like it’s an emergency[…]. If I was to tell you now in this interview that I can smell smoke coming up the stairs and I think my house is on fire, but then I just carried on giving the interview, you, of course, would not believe me when I say my house is on fire[…]. I think it’s important that scientists are visibly freaking out.

This ecologist’s viewpoint adds depth to the discussion, suggesting that the visibility of scientists’ concerns is crucial in validating the urgency of environmental crises. Other non-earth systems scientists share similar sentiments that scientists have a duty to be activists:

Extract 12

Respondent 16, Female, Senior Lecturer, Psychology

I felt a sense of personal urgency and insight and bewilderment at the fact that we don’t act on this[…]. Given my professional privilege, I have the space to follow up on this[…]. I find it […] a moral imperative to educate ourselves and instigate action as much as we possibly can within our spheres of influence[…]. So, it’s that personal, moral, and also scholarly sense that all came together[…]. I just feel a strong sense of responsibility […] to do the right thing.

This extract articulates a holistic view, where personal ethics, professional privilege, and scholarly responsibility converge to form a strong sense of moral duty. Her words encapsulate the collective sentiment that activism is not just a choice for scientists but an ethical obligation. This position demonstrates how the scientist identity motivates some to extend their role as communicators to include activism, and then use moral arguments to justify it. While not all scientists personally experience activism as dilemmatic, many strategically employ rhetorical strategies to navigate tensions by emphasizing their duty to communicate urgent scientific findings and respond to critiques that argue against scientist-activism.

Reframing the work that scientists do

The second repertoire, “Reframing the Work that Scientists Do,” presents alternative perspectives on how scientists may engage in ways that manage the dilemma. This repertoire includes strategic maneuvers such as reframing research and teaching activities as a form of activism to effect change in ways more compatible with most scientists’ daily work. Others strategically frame their advocacy for environmental causes in ways that circumvent perceived risks or constraints associated with stereotypical activism, such as public protests or civil disobedience.

Research and teaching as an activist choice

This position offers a strategic approach for scientists to enact change through their research and teaching activities, while also addressing concerns about personal and professional risks associated with more confrontational forms of activism. As exemplified by a doctoral candidate below, this perspective highlights the deliberate decision to research environmental issues as an activist choice:

Extract 13

Respondent 4, Female, Doctoral Student, Psychology

The choice for me to focus on environmental issues in my work I think is also a very like activist choice because I kind of make sure that my career is contributing to the good stuff and not the stuff that’s destroying the earth.

This sentiment underscores the potential of research as a vehicle for change, bridging the gap between academia and activism. Similarly, a Senior Lecturer below emphasizes the impact of their educational initiatives in fostering activism among students:

Extract 14

Respondent 21, Male, Senior Lecturer, Economics

The actions I’m involved in—writing and publishing[…], I think things become cultural through social cues[…], I run a unit, […] I take them through 13 weeks of degrowth literature, and then I look at the structures that hold developed world lifestyles in place. […] I’m just making a documentary with students about their learning experience at the moment, and I’m hoping that little documentary would be a good form of activism.

The senior lecturer’s initiatives demonstrate how teaching can mobilize the next generation, equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary to address environmental challenges. His work maintains his professional identity while fulfilling his moral duty to contribute to societal change. While the previous extracts illustrate activism through research and education, the following extract presents a unique case where an academic not only engages in activism through civil disobedience but also integrates this experience into his teaching:

Extract 15

Respondent 25, Male, Senior Lecturer, Global Health

Up until recently I guess I was a climate activist. […] So, I think at the time it really informed my academic profile. I was able to draw on lived experiences and… bringing that into my work, and I think it changes the perception of the academic from a student perspective; they do actually see that an academic is doing something in the real world in real-time, it’s not just the fact that they are writing about stuff and publishing stuff they are actually physically doing something. […] I would be giving public talks and lectures on the topic from an activist perspective, really drawing on my research.

Taken together, these extracts capture how adopting this position allows scientists to advocate for change in a manner that aligns with their profession. However, transfiguring research and teaching as activism requires a conscious effort to bridge the gap:

Extract 16

Respondent 4, Female, Doctoral Student, Psychology

I think academia and activism are definitely compatible. I do think they are different things, though. Too many academics just assume that their work alone is enough to kind of reach people, and it’s not. Academia is, in large part, inaccessible to a lot of people […]. I think it takes personal work to make it compatible.

This doctoral student’s insight emphasizes that while academia and activism can be harmonized, it necessitates intentional work to make academic research accessible and impactful beyond the ivory tower. It’s a call to action for academics to actively engage in making their work understandable and relevant to the broader public, thereby fulfilling the potential of their activist endeavors.

Strategic environmental advocacy

The subject position of “Strategic Environmental Advocacy” illustrates how scientists strategically employ advocacy and activism terminology to promote environmental causes in ways that fit with their identities as scientists. This stance is shaped by two key considerations: first, the recognition that embracing an activist identity often entails significant involvement in activities like public protests, which may not align with scientists’ preferred modes of engagement; and second, an awareness of the stigma sometimes associated with the activist label. Scientists adopting this stance strategically present their environmental efforts primarily through the lens of advocacy, employing methods such as public communication and outreach to effectively influence change, allowing them to contribute to change while preserving their professional identity, and autonomy, and sidestepping the negative associations linked to activism:

Extract 17

Respondent 15, Male, Professor, Physics

In a way—I am not great at being the classical activist right—going out in the street and campaigning, but I think as soon as you are out there writing publicly, then you are doing a form of advocacy […] I do think that even just writing publicly or speaking publicly is a form of activism, even if it is fairly mainstream activism, rather than slightly more […] what is the right word […] slightly more extreme, I don’t know, I don’t want to use extreme in a pejorative sense, but you know what I mean.

Initially, he distinguishes his actions as advocacy to separate himself from more traditional forms of activism, such as street protests, which may not align with his preferred methods or professional identity as a scientist. However, he then expands his definition of activism to include activities like public speaking and writing, illustrating a nuanced evolution in how he conceptualizes and applies these terms. This shift underscores ongoing debates within scientific circles about the scope and methods of effective environmental advocacy, highlighting the evolving roles and perceptions of scientists in promoting change. In Extract 18, the doctoral student strategically distinguishes between different forms of advocacy—informal advocacy versus formal outreach—to position his environmental efforts within the academic sphere:

Extract 18

Respondent 12, Male, Doctoral Student, Biology

I’ve signed, you know, petitions, things like that. I’m trying to do as much outreach as I possibly can[…]. Like when we were making the members of the general public play board games and […] they would talk to the parents about[…] biofuels, about climate change and ability, and how[…] dire the situation was. It’s not official advocacy. It’s just I’m trying to reach the people. I didn’t do much formal advocacy, but I have joined a few marches and signed a few things. But[…] I considered most of the advocacy I do is in the periphery of my work, using my work[…] to credibilize myself and to reach the right people.

By labeling his public outreach efforts as informal advocacy, he circumvents the potential stigma associated with activism, while leveraging his academic credibility to effectively communicate and influence public discourse on climate change. Taken together, this subject position underscores scientists’ deliberate and strategic approach to advocating for environmental issues while preserving their professional integrity, autonomy, and credibility.

The authors’ dilemma

Of course, we are not above such considerations ourselves. The researcher is not ‘a fly on the wall’60. To enhance the credibility and depth of our analysis we reflected on our own positionality as researchers throughout the process61,62. As environmentally concerned psychologists, we grapple with questions about our commitments and actions. Within our team, there is no consensus on which actions are most effective or appropriate, nor how to reconcile these with our academic roles. This diversity among us mirrors the varied perspectives of our interviewees, helping us to understand the ideological dilemmas faced by scientists. For example, some of us engage in direct actions on environmental and other issues, including protests, and are comfortable with describing these actions as activism. Others align with the Strategic Environmental Advocacy position by refraining from such actions and carefully using terminology to distinguish advocacy efforts, such as public talks and blogging, from activism.

Discussion

This research highlights the repertoires scientists draw on to manage the dilemma between their professional identity as scientists and activism. We observed that scientists employ two strategies to reconcile their professional identities with their activism: redefining the scientist identity and reframing the work of scientists (see Table 1). Scientists adopt varied subject positions in relation to these repertoires to manage the inter-identity fit45 between science and activism, accommodating engagement. The following discussion details the nuanced subject positions scientists adopt and their implications for scientist-activism.

Identity construction is context dependent and fluid63,64, and can be used for particular functions argumentative functions56,65,66. The three subject positions adopted in relation to the reconceptualizing scientist identity repertoire broadly function to construct the scientist identity to legitimize action. Activism is Objective and Rational involves using scientist identity content, specifically scientific values of objectivity and rationality, to frame scientist-activism as a logical response to legitimize activism. Some scientists visibly invoke their identity through symbols like white lab-coats and peer-reviewed papers8, lending epistemic authority to social movements while staking a place for scientists. There is no Objective Researcher critiques the notion of a truly objective detached researcher to humanize scientists and justify activism. It argues against accusations that scientist-activists are compromised, provided they are open about their motivations. It reflects critiques of the separation of science from society and how science is inherently bound up with the social, cultural, and political33,34,35,36. Moreover, some adopt the Activism is a Scientist’s Moral Duty position to argue science is a moral enterprise aimed at producing knowledge of benefit to society and that science as an institution can give moral leadership67. This is reflected in the third subject position which emphasizes the moral duty of scientists to not only produce information but to advocate for it. This represents an evolution in the idea of the scientist as communicator with activism considered an extension of this role68. This position, reflected in various perspectives9,18,32, not only serves to legitimize scientist-activism by centering moral values in the scientist identity, but to compel other scientists to act. These positions represent broader challenges in the wider discourse to evolve traditional depictions of the scientist11,12,13,14,15,16,31 to take a more active role9,18,32. Additionally, these positions provide further support for previous research that found that scientist identity construction may be used to legitimize or delegitimize activism30.

The two subject positions adopted using the Reframing the Action repertoire broadly functioned to adapt actions taken to suit individual capacities, identities, and preferences. This allowed scientists to align their activism with their unique skills, self-perceptions, and personal inclinations. Firstly, scientists adopting a Research as an Activist Choice position reframed their research and teaching through an activist lens aimed to integrate their scientific expertise with their advocacy efforts. By contextualizing their research and teaching within the broader socio-political landscape, these scientists sought to amplify the relevance and impact of their work while doing so in ways that still closely aligned with the scientist identity. They embraced the activist label to some extent but did so in ways that were less contentious than stereotypical protest, thus requiring less identity reconstruction to accommodate the underlying dilemma. Secondly, scientists adopting the Strategic Environmental Advocacy position strategically use the terms “advocacy” and “activism” aim to differentiate their engagement in environmental issues from the more contentious connotations associated with activism. This strategic positioning involves flexible use of terminology, allowing scientists to leverage their credibility and expertise while advocating for change within institutional and policy frameworks. By positioning themselves as advocates or as milder activists compared to others, these scientists seek to bridge the gap between scientific research and policy action, while distancing themselves from more contentious types of political action. This careful framing permits them to maintain their professional integrity and public trust, thereby enhancing their influence in policy discussions. For example, some perspectives suggest scientists should support rather than participate directly in activism, acting as information providers to activist groups69. Scientists for future (S4F) International exemplifies this position, supporting the global climate movement by providing facts and materials based on reliable scientific data to stakeholders. This position allows scientists to fulfill their roles as advocates for evidence-based policies while maintaining a perceived neutrality associated with the scientist identity.

These efforts to reimagine identity and reframe action reflect the dilemma within the discourse and a wider concern among environmentally concerned scientists about how advocacy might impact credibility40,41,70. Mixed sentiment on whether scientists should engage, and if so, whether they should use the scientist identity or not70, reflects the varied subject positions scientists adopted in our interviews. Although our previous research did not find credibility concerns to be a statistically significant barrier to engagement30, they remain a concern for scientists30,39. However, this apprehension and the work undertaken to manage the dilemma may be disproportionate, given that a majority of scientists and researchers and the public support increased scientist advocacy38,39,71. This discrepancy suggests pluralistic ignorance where scientists privately support action but perceive other scientists as unsupportive30. The moderate to high public trust in scientists among the public globally (67 country study, N = 71, 417) further underscores the potential for scientists to advocate for evidence-based policies without compromising their credibility71.

This study provides important insights into how environmentally concerned scientists manage the ideological dilemma of balancing scientific norms with the urgency of the environmental crisis. By detailing the discursive strategies scientists adopt to manage conflicting identities and values, this research enriches understanding of this dynamic while offering a means for scientists to reflect on and identify pathways to environmental actions that align with their individual and disciplinary perspectives.

Future research would benefit from longitudinal studies that examine how scientists’ identities and framing of engagement strategies evolve over time, especially considering evidence suggesting that scientist identity content affects the political actions scientists take30, and politicization involves identity content change72. Expanding the research beyond a primarily Western or WEIRD (White, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic)73,74 sample by incorporating additional voices from the Global South and other underrepresented regions would enrich understanding. Scientists from other cultural and socio-political contexts may perceive and engage in scientist-activism differently, potentially adopting distinct subject positions.

While managing ideological dilemmas is a key factor, it is not alone in impacting scientist activism (see Supplementary Information Note One and research on scientist activism for more detail39). Future research should explore how these factors, such as community and interpersonal bonds, and moral values, influence sustained engagement and high-risk actions alongside ideological beliefs.

Our team’s diverse perspectives on environmental activism reflect the broader ideological dilemmas faced by scientists, enriching our analysis and representation of participants’ viewpoints. Recognizing our motivations and actions, we emphasize the importance of ongoing reflexivity in research. Future work should continue to explore researchers’ positions, fostering nuanced conversations within the scientific community about climate crisis responses. This dialog can enhance our ability to develop comprehensive strategies that integrate scientific expertise with societal needs.

Methods

This study was preregistered. Interview data are not publicly available as this would render the participants identifiable. However, those interested may contact the authors to discuss the analysis. Additionally, the survey from which the interview sample was drawn, including its pre-registration, measures, manipulations, and exclusions, as well as data, analysis code, and materials, are available for download here. The study received ethical approval from the University of Lancaster Faculty of Science and Technology (Ref: FST-2022-0617-RECR-3). Participants provided written informed consent prior to commencing the study. Participants received no compensation.

Data collection and recruitment

Natural and social scientists were recruited to the study via an advert included in a survey on scientist activism engagement. An invitation to be interviewed was included at the end of the survey. Seventy-seven participants, out of a final sample of 329, responded to the advert.

Participants were recruited to the survey via opportunity sampling on Twitter and via various scientific societies and were not paid for participation. Recruitment aimed for diversity among natural and social scientists concerned about climate change and who participated or not in climate-related advocacy and activism. Survey responses were collected between February 2022 and October 2022. Interviews were conducted from June 2022 through December 2022. Twitter was, at the time, a hub for scientific communication and connecting scientists75, and so served as a suitable platform for recruiting scientists. Since its takeover and subsequent change to X many scientists have now left the site76, though this occurred after data collection had ceased. Academic societies and environment centers were also targeted, including the Center for Climate and Social Transformations at Cardiff, the Lund Sustainability Institute, and the Lancaster Environment Center.

We specifically targeted scientists and social scientists concerned about climate change, whether engaged in activism or not. This focus was crucial for examining activism attitudes and behaviors within the scientific community. Although it excluded unconcerned or indifferent scientists, it aligned with understanding motivations and barriers to activism among those aware of and concerned by the issues. Additionally, both natural and social scientists were recruited to reflect the diverse representation seen in movements like Scientists for Extinction Rebellion and Scientist Rebellion, ensuring a comprehensive view of scientific activism on climate change and representing a wide range of scientific perspectives on environmental activism.

To ensure that a wide range of viewpoints, experiences, and contexts were captured the following selection strategy was adopted to choose interviewees. In the survey, we included a climate advocacy/activism behavior frequency scale. We calculated descriptive information about advocacy/activism frequency. We divided participants into low, average, and high engagement categories of activism. Fourteen did not engage in any higher risk/higher responsibility activist behaviors (see Supplement for a breakdown of activism behaviors). We aimed to interview 8 - 10 of them (approximately a third of the final interview sample), and a similar number from average and high activism subsets. Participants were chosen at random from each subset using a random number generator. If a participant opted not to be interviewed, another participant was randomly selected from these subsets until data collection ceased.

We aimed to conduct a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 30, interviews of approximately one hour in length. This was within the resources of the team and ensured a high likelihood of saturation being reached. Saturation, broadly, as noted by Saunders and colleagues, can be conceptualized as having been reached on “the basis of the data that have been collected or analyzed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary.”77 Saturation may be reached when there is enough information to replicate the study, the ability to obtain new information has been attained, and further coding is no longer feasible78. However, a variety of approaches exist in terms of both conceptualization and application77. Given these different approaches, and to assure the quality and rigor of our research, we applied the following strategy. Saturation, at the level of data collection, often refers to the number of interviews required until no new information emerges77. Applying an ‘informational redundancy’ approach79,80,81, we determined whether additional interviews were required once the minimum was reached. In contrast to grounded theory approaches, this is a data saturation approach rather than a theoretical saturation approach77. Two additional interviews were conducted to be certain that the interview content did not differ substantially from the previous entries.

Sample

Twenty-seven natural and social scientists were interviewed (59% Male, Mage = 40.19 years, SD = 12.93, range = 24–77). Members of direct-action groups identified more as activists, felt more strongly that science and activism were more compatible, were older, and engaged much more frequently in activism. Nine (33.33%) were members of direct-action groups that used the scientist identity as part of their actions, such as Scientists for Extinction Rebellion and Scientist Rebellion (usually denoted by wearing a lab coat). Of those, just 2 (7.4%) were from social science backgrounds. See Table 2 for full sample description.

Table 2 Sample description
Full size table

Interview procedure

Semi-structured interviews were conducted online via Microsoft Teams by the first author. The interviews aimed to investigate scientists’ views of the climate and ecological crisis, their own actions, and activism. A semi-structured interview schedule, which included topic lists and open-ended questions, was used to guide each interview (see Table 3). The interview schedule served as a topic guide rather than a prescriptive set of questions, allowing for flexibility and adaptation to each interviewee. The opening question was used to orient each interviewee, and questions were adapted as required to broadly ensure that the topics were covered.

Table 3 Interview schedule
Full size table

The development of this schedule was informed by the research question, the prior survey research, systematically collected fieldnotes with scientist-activists, and the literature on scientific environmental advocacy. Data was prepared manually by transcribing the interviews verbatim. To protect anonymity, identifiable information such as names and specific locations were removed from the transcript. Interviews ranged from 36 to 118 min (Mean = 63.41 min, SD = 20.50 min).

The first author did not disclose his own activism unless specifically asked about it, aiming to minimize potential bias in the interview process and ensure that participants felt comfortable expressing their genuine thoughts and opinions about activism. Where applicable, disclosure did stimulate insightful conversations about the role of activism in research. For further context on reflexivity and researcher positionality, see credibility strategies below.

Analysis

We drew on critical discursive psychology (CDP) concepts and principles, which underscore that individuals are both products of and active agents in shaping wider discourse57,59. CDP provides a framework for examining how language constructs social identities, negotiates power relations, and challenges or reproduces dominant ideologies58,82. CDP emphasizes the dynamic interplay between discourse and social practices, highlighting the role of language in shaping individual subjectivities and social realities.

We focused on scientist talk to explore how scientists draw on different linguistic repertoires to navigate ideological dilemmas19 and articulate their social identities66. CDP posits that thinking and subject accounts are often rhetorical56, therefore analysis of talk may reveal how subjects use language to manage dilemmas and position themselves wider discourse e.g., to persuade or convince themselves or others that scientists can be activists.

CDP necessitates attention to both linguistic repertoires58, culturally shared ways of talking about and understanding the world, and subject positions, the relational, social locations, that individuals may construct for themselves or others by drawing on these repertoires to position themselves in relation to the wider discourse57,58. Specifically, we were interested in how the speakers utilized repertoires concerning science and the climate and ecological crisis and how they claimed subject positions, particularly those incorporating the scientist identity, to manage the dilemma.

All analysis was completed by the authors following standardized steps for discourse analysis59. Analysis started with several rounds of reading and coding the transcripts This included multiple rounds of reading and coding transcripts, focusing on how scientists spoke about scientist and activist identities, their actions on environmental issues, moral values, and interpersonal relationships. We observed diverse perspectives on scientist activism, including varying conceptions of what it means to be a scientist and the actions scientists may take. To further this analysis, we applied an ideological dilemmas19 reading of the talk and attended to the interpretative repertoires and subject positions used to manage the central dilemma. The final stage involved elaboration of the discursive functions59 of each subject position for negotiating the central dilemma, such as legitimizing scientist advocacy.

Note. Although our pre-registration initially outlined the use of thematic analysis, as we began analyzing the data, it became evident that a discourse analysis approach would be more suitable for our research questions and objectives. The early stages of data analysis involved tagging and coding text, a process common to both thematic and discourse analysis methodologies. As we progressed with the analysis, it became increasingly apparent that the nature of the data, characterized by rich debates within the scientific community, necessitated a shift in analytical approach. Given the complexities of the discussions and the theoretical framework guiding our research, particularly focusing on ideological dilemmas and critical discursive perspectives, we determined that a discourse analysis methodology would better serve our research aims. Therefore, we proceeded with a discourse analysis approach to gain deeper insights into how scientists navigate ideological dilemmas and articulate their identities within the discourse surrounding environmental activism.

In presenting supporting quotes, we aimed to capture the richness and diversity of participants’ perspectives on scientist advocacy in environmental discourse. While we strived to include a range of voices, it’s important to note that some participants may be represented more prominently than others. This deliberate selection reflects our focus on providing comprehensive insights into the nuanced subject positions observed in the discourse. Our approach prioritized the depth and relevance of participants’ contributions while ensuring a balanced representation of the overall findings.

Finally, the analysis presented in the paper concerns how scientists manage the outlined dilemma. However, when it came to what motivates scientists to stay committed long-term, and especially when considering whether to engage in high stakes action e.g., civil disobedience, other factors were more important (see Supplementary Information Note 1).

Credibility strategies employed

We employed several credibility strategies to bolster the trustworthiness and validity of our findings. Triangulation with other data sources was used to validate and enrich our interpretations. This involved cross-referencing information gathered from interviews with data extracted from diverse sources such as social media and media accounts. By doing so, we aimed not only to corroborate the insights gleaned from our primary sources but also to gain a deeper understanding of how the events discussed during the interviews were covered by external sources. This rigorous triangulation process allowed us to verify the accuracy of the information provided by participants and provided valuable insights into the unfolding of events as reported by media and other sources.

Member checking was employed at various stages to check interpretation with interviewees. For example, the lead author presented the findings and interpretations to both involved and non-involved scientists, soliciting their feedback and validation. This process ensured the accuracy and relevance of our interpretations while also addressing any potential biases or misunderstandings.

Reflexivity was a fundamental aspect of our approach to credibility. We acknowledged the researcher’s subjectivity and potential influence on the data collection and analysis process. By practicing reflexivity, we aimed to maintain transparency and integrity in our research, recognizing and mitigating any personal biases that may have impacted our interpretations.

Reflexivity statement

Our research team consists of individuals with diverse perspectives on environmental engagement. While our motivations and actions vary, all of us share a dedication to advancing environmental awareness and understanding. As the lead researcher of this study, I acknowledge my personal stake in the environmental issues explored. I am deeply concerned about environmental challenges and recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus on the urgent need for ambitious action to address climate change and related crises. This recognition, shared by the co-authors, coupled with our interest in this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, collectively motivated our investigation into how scientists navigate ideological dilemmas surrounding environmental advocacy.

Throughout the study, we recognized the potential influence of our personal perspectives on the research process. We approached this challenge by acknowledging our motivations and actions while striving to maintain methodological rigor and impartiality. Our reflexivity extended to methodological decisions, including triangulating data from multiple sources (including empirical research, diverse perspectives in the literature, and media coverage of scientist actions) and accurately representing the diverse viewpoints of interviewees without imposing our own biases or preconceptions onto their views.

It is important to recognize that, despite our efforts to maintain objectivity, our motivation to conduct this research stems from a belief in its necessity. Understanding how scientists navigate these ideological dilemmas is crucial for fostering informed discussions within the scientific community about responses to the climate crisis. By elucidating the diverse perspectives and strategies scientists employ in engaging with environmental issues, this research aims to enrich our collective understanding of effective approaches to addressing climate challenges. Such insights can facilitate a more nuanced dialog among scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders, ultimately enhancing our ability to develop comprehensive and adaptive strategies that draw on scientific expertise while respecting individual and disciplinary perspectives. Our commitment to rigorous methodology, including triangulation with multiple data sources and reflexivity, underscores our dedication to producing credible and valuable research outcomes.