INTRODUCTION

The anthropocene requires more scientists (doers of science) and citizens (users of science) who are prepared to address emerging and complex environmental and scientific challenges (Clayton, 2003; Tugurian & Carrier, 2017). Previous research has argued that the development of science identity (SCID) or environmental identity (EID) can encourage individuals to develop skills, interests, and passions in environmental problem-solving (Blustein et al., 1989; Olivos & Aragonés, 2011; Shinbrot et al., 2022). In particular, a strong identity association in these two areas is important because strong identifying tendencies are associated with targeted career outcomes, cognitive/emotional development, and the development of environmental care (Carrier et al., 2013). Additionally, education is a key mechanism to encourage the development of both an interest in science and an interest in nature, yet science and nature are not always clearly connected for students in the classroom (Cobern et al., 1999; Tugurian & Carrier, 2017). These processes are particularly salient for learners in K-12 and college, a time when a great deal of personal, professional, and citizenship development occur. Helping learners develop identities as doers or users of science can prepare them to use scientific information in making decisions about the environment and taking action, which is an outcome of a strong EID.

Identity is also an important feature of this landscape because of the current relationship between science and other identities. In this time of great need for scientific inquiry, levels of trust in science are in decline (Funk, 2017; Rynes et al., 2018). In particular, science is seen as a threat to some social identities (Nauroth et al., 2015; Wynne, 2016) and the disciplinary siloing of scientific identities can limit the scientific community’s ability to consider broader environmental and social impacts of decision-making (Stirling, 2014). Additionally, we know that both scientists and citizens tend to value/express interest in science that validates our own identities and promotes solutions in which we have an interest (Morton et al., 2006). Thus, we need a population that views the pursuit of scientific environmental problem-solving as an identity-affirming endeavor.

In this paper, we describe existing literature at the intersection of EID and SCID by identifying and exploring content within emergent themes of diversity, educational programming, methods, and identity theory. We then collect and curate existing survey and interview questions from each area of research to propose data collection tools that could be used in future research to simultaneously explore EID and SCID. This information can help practitioners and researchers better understand how both types of identities are affected by and developed through educational interventions, and how these changes might affect environmental and science-related outcomes.

What is Identity?

Identity can be roughly described as how one sees oneself in relation to others and the world around us–one’s response to the question “Who am I?” (Vignoles et al., 2011). Identity theory is not monolithic, but there are a few key ways scholars have envisioned identity. According to Stets and Burke, most scholars describe identity as either being synonymous with culture, membership to a social category, or as “parts of a self composed of the meanings that persons attach to the multiple roles they typically play in highly differentiated contemporary societies” (Stets & Burke, 2000, p. 284). In other words, identity has a social and an internal/cognitive component, both central to Mead’s (1934) foundational work in identity but often explored separately by scholars (Burke & Stryker, 2016; Hogg et al., 1995). Within internal and external worlds, all individuals hold multiple and intersecting identities at one time - professional identities such as a student or researcher; social identities such as a Democrat, parent, Taylor Swift fan, or an environmental activist; and cultural and ethnic identities such as South Asian or Francophone. While identity is somewhat stable over time, there is a constant and evolving mediation process between the self, other people, and their environment (Marcia, 1980; Stapleton, 2015). There is also a narrative component to identity, as it is reinforced by the stories we tell ourselves and others tell about us (Holland et al., 2001).

While scholars continue to dispute finer points of identity theory, identity remains a powerful concept in social science, largely because of its power in shaping lives. A variety of empirical studies have found that identity features greatly influence life decisions, such as schooling, career, leisure, and relationship within and without membership groups (Blustein et al., 1989; Grotevant, 1987; Vignoles et al., 2011). Educational experiences also impact identity development, partly because they tend to occur in adolescence, when identity formation is a central aspect of overall development (Amiot et al., 2007; Grotevant, 1987), and partly because an educational intervention can teach skills, values, and pathways associated with certain identities (Prévot et al., 2018; Verhoeven et al., 2019). In the latter case, identity presentation in education programs has been explored as a key mechanism to increase diversity in various professional fields, as the cultural image of who is a scientist, lawyer, doctor, etc., has reinforced social and cognitive barriers to minoritized groups and women in particular (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Capobianco, 2006; Jacobs, 1971; Kim‐Prieto et al., 2013).

Identity has been a frequent area of inquiry in education research, both in terms of how educational settings can help develop students’ identities (e.g., Kaplan & Flum, 2012; Veerhoven et al., 2018) and how the intersecting identities students bring with them affect learning in multiple settings (e.g., Altugan, 2015; Falk, 2016). Types of identity that have been studied in regards to their intersection with learning in in and out of school include racial and ethnic identity (e.g., Battey & Leyva, 2016; Giampapa, 2010; Stevenson et al., 2019), gender identity (e.g., Barton et al., 2013) and sexuality (e.g., Watson, 2005). Educators and researchers are interested in supporting students in developing disciplinary identities related to their content area, such as reading and writing (e.g., McCarthey, 2001), math (e.g., Berry et al., 2011), and science, which is explored in more depth below.

In this paper, we focus on two identities that have exceptional potential to help us address our environmental crisis, EID and SCID. While we make no claims that these two identities are necessary nor sufficient to produce the change needed to address the most pressing environmental issues of our time, we argue that we need people across professions, cultures, and other identity categories to increase their commitment to addressing environmental problems; in particular, those who have science skills in all types of science are needed in this fight (Shaman et al., 2013). Science and the environment have also been shown to complement each other in the classroom; for example, the inclusion of environmental/nature topics in science lessons improve emotional connections to and interest in science (Blatt, 2013; Tugurian & Carrier, 2017).

While a full accounting of both EID and SCID is beyond the scope of this paper, in the following sections we highlight some of the major trends in each area of theory and research, so that we can then consider potential intersections between the two.

Science Identity

While SCID’s theoretical underpinnings largely reflect that of the wider identity literature, SCID scholars have proposed that SCID is comprised of competence, performance, and recognition by self and others (Carlone, 2022). Recognition refers to being seen by oneself and others as a scientist (e.g., Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). How those are developed and interact is viewed differently by researchers in social psychology and those who use socio-cultural learning theories. Social psychologists Simpson and Bouhafa (2020) describe five different ways that SCID studies conceptualized identity:

1. as individual attributes,

2. as narratives or stories,

3. as relationships with science practices/disciplines or a sense of belonging,

4. as a way of acting, and

5. as afforded or constrained by local practices.

In socio-cultural theories, identity develops through interaction between micro-, meso-, and macro-educational contexts (Carlone, 2022). Micro-contexts are the social settings with which we interact each day - family, school, clubs and macro-contexts are societal structures such such as social norms and culture. Meso-contexts are where the two interact (Tudge & Rosa, 2019). As Barton (2022) describes, “Who one is and wishes to become is always in development, always shaped through social interaction with and against powered relationalities, always political, and always on the move” (p. 361). In this way, SCID is often viewed as a process, or as a “landscape of becoming” (Avraamidou, 2019, p. 325). As such, SCID has been used with groups across the lifespan and education - students (e.g., Barton et al., 2013), college students (e.g., Hazari et al., 2013), teachers (e.g., Avraamidou, 2019; Moore, 2016), and scientists (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). There are different ways researchers can observe identity as well–what Carlone (2012) describes as snapshots and patterns over time. Snapshots look at moments in time, often using a questionnaire. This affords comparing different groups and evaluating the effectiveness of intervention and programs. Looking at patterns over time can illustrate the intersectional nature for identity, and requires commitments to examining structure/agency dialectics, looking at multiple grain sizes of analysis, and moving away from “artificial linearity” in understanding SCID over time (Carlone, 2012).

As scientists have historically been characterized as cisgendered, white, and male, many scholars in the field are interested in how education programs can be designed to expand science identity to be more inclusive of other intersectional identities in these areas (e.g., Avraadimou, 2020; Barton et al., 2013; Brickhouse et al., 2000). This can include innovations in content, style, format, recruiting, etc (Cohoon, 2007; Colvin, 2013; Davenport et al., 2021; Likely, 2022; Wyss et al., 2012) to increase diversity in the field. At a societal level such an increased diversity is seen as important both because of issues of social and epistemic justice addressing historical inequities in science and embracing non-Western ways of thinking) and because an increased diversity of scientists helps create a greater plurality of ideas (Hunter & Richmond, 2022; Stets et al., 2017).

Environmental Identity

Like SCID, environmental identity (EID) is not uniform in its definition throughout the literature (Simms, 2020), but EID research can be broadly divided into two groups: one which sees EID as alignment or relationship with the environment (usually nature) and the other which is more socially-oriented and sees EID as identifying with a social group who is interested in or advocating for the environment. A foundational example of the former is Clayton (2003), who describes EID as

“one part of the ways in which people form their self-concept: a sense of connection to some part of the nonhuman natural environment, based on history, emotional attachment, and/or similarity, that affects the ways in which we perceive and act toward the world; a belief that the environment is important to us and an important part of who we are” (p. 45).

As such, it includes emotional, cognitive, and behavioral aspects of that relationship (Clayton et al., 2021). The triadic model constructed by Bruni et al. (2021) suggests that connectedness to nature, attitudes towards nature, and self-esteem together constitute EID.

Other researchers favor the socially-oriented perspective on EID. Kempton and Holland (2003) developed a stage-based model of “social environmental identities, that is, self-definitions with respect to one’s reference group, the environmental movement, the government, the marketplace, and lifestyle choice” (p. 318) to explain why some people can hold environmental values yet not engage in environmental behaviors. Simms and Shanahan (2024) built upon Kempton and Holland (2003) to examine students’ EID development in a school setting and found that in addition to the components from the original work with adults, emotional responses and personal meaning were important forces in student EID development. Stapleton (2015) employs “sociocultural identity theory to explore how practice, action, and recognition can facilitate environmental identity development” (p. 94). While this perspective is prominent in theoretical descriptions of EID, environmental education research tends to favor Clayton’s physical interpretation of EID (Simms, 2020).

Like SCID, EID is considered to be important to scholars largely because it connects to other desired outcomes, including improved wellbeing (Hinds & Sparks, 2009), increased pro-environmental behavior (Miao & Cagle, 2019), care for animals (Clayton et al., 2011), and commitment to protect the environment (Kals & Ittner, 2003).

There are several constructs that overlap and intersect with EID such as environmental ethics (Des Jardins, 2012), worldview (Dunlap et al., 2000) perceptions, beliefs (De Groot & Steg, 2007), connectedness to nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Olivos et al., 2011; Schultz, 2002), and environmental agency (Huffling, 2015). These concepts are similar, but each uses different measures that focus on different underlying constructs (Balundė et al., 2019). Thus, for this paper, we chose to focus only on the construct of “environmental identity,” because this term is generally grounded in the same broader psychological socio-cultural identity theories described earlier (i.e., Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Gee, 2000; Holland et al., 2001; Stapleton, 2015), and thus EID's relationship with other identity concepts can be more readily theorized and measured.

As described above, one can hold multiple identities simultaneously, sometimes these conflict and often they intersect - changing the experience of or manifestation of one or the other, or both. Taking these intersectional identities (not to be confused with intersectionality theory) into account is important for science education as a whole (Avraamidou, 2019) and supporting student success (e.g., Rodriguez et al., 2017). Research that addresses intersecting identities makes for rich narratives of identity development and maintenance. We offer that SCID and EID intersect as well, in multiple ways, and that understanding their intersection and interaction can benefit both science education and environmental education research as well as the development of a sustainable society.

Research Gap & Objectives

Both SCID and EID have rich literatures related to education, which is seen as a key mechanism by which to encourage the development of said identities (Blatt, 2013; Reidinger, 2015; Zaniewski & Reinhold, 2016). However, the two literatures have very little communication/overlap, even though they share important goals (Stapleton, 2015). More specifically, while they are both theorized to be important to the development of environmentally-committed scientists (Krasny & Tidball, 2009), and citizens who are prepared to “acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes, commitment, and skills needed to protect and improve the environment” (UNESCO/UNEP, 1978), very few studies collect data on both constructs. We argue this area of research needs expansion because environmental and science identities use similar underlying constructs (identity theory) and should be better understood in tandem in order to design education interventions that can address the above societal goals. This work also answers calls in the science/STEM identity literature for more research on intersecting components of identity, as most papers in STEM work only focused on one element (Miao & Cagle, 2020; Simpson & Bouhafa, 2020).

We explore the selected papers to identify areas of potential communication between the works. However, because there are so few papers in this nexus, we also combine our limited data with research instruments from other EID and SCID literature to imagine how a shared research agenda might move forward, using constructs from both to envision a combined E/SCID metric suitable for future intersectional research. Ultimately, we hope that this work can help researchers and practitioners consider ways to encourage the development of interwoven environmental and science identities so that we, as individuals and as a society, can be better equipped to address the myriad environmental problems we now face, including but not limited to anthropogenic climate change, environmental racism/injustice, and ecological systems collapse (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2022; Parris et al., 2014, 2021; Vesely et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021).

MATERIALS & METHODS

In preparation for our scoping review, we conducted a multi-stage literature review. We first conducted a grounded theory recursive literature review search (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Lo, 2016) on science identity, environmental identity, and both together, selecting approximately 40 of the most relevant articles for more detailed review. We chose these articles based on a combination of focus (we selected articles that were centrally focused on either EID or SCID, not just using it as part of a larger work) and visibility (we favored works that had at least 50 citations according to Google Scholar). We read these articles to familiarize ourselves with key ideas presented in these literatures and to identify areas of shared inquiry, in order to put the two literatures in conversation with one another over thematic topics. We took notes on the general topics and findings of each paper, and through discussion, generated a list of emergent thematic topics that would help us compare content across the different papers. These topics reflect the key concerns in the ID literature noted in the background section:

1. the authors’ definitions/theories of identity,

2. the value of identity development for change,

3. measurement techniques and instruments,

4. population/diversity concerns, and

5. role of education and mentorship in fostering change.

After we had identified key themes and became familiar with the literature, we conducted a scoping review to ensure we had found all relevant work. According to Munn et al. (2018), “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” A scoping review approach is more flexible than a systematic review in that it does not require a minimum sample size, and it allows more diverse inputs such as dissertations (Gutierrez-Bucheli et al., 2022; Lohr et al., 2021). Once we identified scoping review methods as the most appropriate choice, we followed Tricco et al.’s (2018) checklist for article structure and content.

Eligibility Criteria & Search Strategy

For our scoping search, we limited our search to the exact use of “environmental identity” AND “science identity”. We used these exact phrases because we were looking for literature embedded in these specific discourses within the larger field of identity theory, as opposed to similar constructs embedded in other discourses. We also performed the same search using “STEM identity” in place of “science identity” and did not uncover any additional resources that were not already found with “science identity” and “environmental identity.”

We searched for these terms in Google Scholar as well as the meta-search databases for both of our academic institutions. Our University databases did not turn up any resources that Google had not already found. Our last search was conducted on June 29th, 2022. We had access to all sources except for one, for which we contacted the author and obtained access to the work.

Our scoping search identified 47 articles. Due to the small initial sample, our search was not limited by year or by any other criteria, but all except for one (2007) of the 47 sources were from 2013-2022.

We then examined how each of the 47 sources employed both EID and SCID. If the text for either or both of the phrases was only present in the citations and not in the main text, we excluded the article from our sample. We eliminated 38 sources at this stage of the analysis, leaving 15 for additional review. From the remaining articles, nine articles measured either SCID or EID, and then included the other construct theoretically; those were also eliminated. We were then left with six sources that measured both EID and SCID empirically.

Data Items

We collected data from the six sources on their general attributes as well as our thematic categories. First, we summarized the basic details of our sample, including each study’s conceptual focus, methods, population studied, data collected for EID/SCID, and results. We then collected additional information on the attributes selected during the grounded phase of our work:

1. stated connections between EID and SCID constructs,

2. authors’ definitions/theories of identity,

3. the value of identity development for change,

4. diversity concerns, and

5. role of education and mentorship in fostering change.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

We present and discuss the results from our general and thematic comparisons, and then use this work alongside other existing EID and SCID research to envision a shared research agenda for environment & science identity (E/SCID).

Limitations

While each work included some conceptual inclusion and data collection for both SCID and EID, we noted that all studies presented weak theoretical connections between EID and SCID. None of them devoted more than a few sentences to the topic, and very little if any analysis was focused on the intersection of the two concepts. Identity results were also often presented as part of a larger statistical model, so its effects could not be fully separated from other variables. However, despite these limitations, we share data about these works so that they can inform future data collection efforts at the intersection of EID and SCID.

Description of Sources

Out of the six sources that met our criteria for inclusion, four of them are academic dissertations (Table 1). We searched for articles resulting from these dissertations, but we could not locate any other published results. We found that comparing dissertations was difficult, as they were variable lengths and formats, and extensive results were difficult to summarize. Dissertation format also makes mixed-methods more feasible, which also increased complexity of the work.

The lack of published journal articles inclusive of both EID and SCID could in part reflect the bias in academic publishing in favor of the “least publishable unit” (Broad, 1981).

In other words, it is possible that beyond these dissertations, there are other projects that have included both SCID and EID in their variables, but their published outputs separated the results out to maximize publication count. We also found that all six of the sources were published between 2018 and 2020, suggesting that

1. this is a relatively new field of inquiry and

2. these dissertations may still have publications forthcoming.

Study Focus

In all six works, the authors examine the effect of an educational intervention or experience, and they are either interested in how EID/SCID shift as a result of the intervention (ID as dependent variable), or how EID/SCID scores influence other outcomes (ID as independent variable). The interventions in these six cases included citizen science projects (James, 2020; Wallace, 2018), an environmental film academy (Walsh & Cordero, 2019), student eco-clubs (Silovsky et al., 2019), a place-based urban ecology mentoring program (Aloisio et al., 2018), and sustainability values exposure for participants in a women in STEM leadership program (Jones, 2020).

In previous work, education programs including elements of citizen science, mentor programs, and artistic endeavor all have been shown elsewhere to be effective at increasing engagement and diversity in the field (Carlone et al., 2015; Matuk et al., 2021; Olson & Jackson, 2009). This trend also reflects a general call in STEM education for innovative programming to increase diversity in the field (Barton et al., 2013; Tsui, 2007), which is a promising first step for work in this shared space. However, interestingly, while SCID tends to be more of a rigid, career/education focused concept and EID encompasses more types of constructs, both groups struggle with diversity and representation, being seen as historically white spaces. Thus, more effort is needed to diversify both the people who participate AND the socially constructed image of a person who does this work. These activities can happen simultaneously, and researchers should give voice to both of these in their work in this field.

Population Studied

Four of the six studies focus on young people (middle schoolers, high schoolers, or university students) and two on adults. This distribution could reflect the general developmental view in identity work that dictates that identity is formed when young, and becomes more stable over time (Crocetti, 2017; Grotevant, 1987; Marcia, 1980), and that educational interventions are more likely to be effective when administered in key developmental stages (Luyckx et al., 2011). However, because our sample size is so small, and our sample displayed no real convergence on specific age group, we argue that more work is needed on all stages of shared EID/SCID development.

Methods & Findings

Five of the six studies employed mixed methods. Two of the mixed-methods studies explored the general experiences of groups of interest (Jones, 2020; Silovsky et al., 2019), two of the studies employed a pre-post model surrounding an educational intervention (Aloisio et al., 2018; Walsh & Cordero, 2019), and one compared two groups of individuals, participating and nonparticipating in citizen science (James, 2020). The last study was a quantitative study with a quasi-experimental design that explored the effect of an educational program (Wallace, 2018). All mixed methods studies used a combination of surveys and either interviews, focus groups, or semi-structured interviews. However, while qualitative work was included, data on identity was more commonly found in the quantitative arm of the study (Table 1).

Generally speaking, all studies found some significance related to EID and/or SCID. When the goal was to increase SCID and/or EID scores in response to the intervention (citizen science or film-making program), this was achieved (Wallace, 2018; Walsh & Cordero, 2019). In the studies in which identity measurements were independent variables, existing strong identification tendencies helped them achieve their goals to participate in pro-environmental behavior (Silovsky et al., 2019) or to pursue of ecology-related degrees (Aloisio et al., 2018). James (2020) did not measure the impact of a specific intervention, but instead developed a typology in which identity-related interests could be better targeted to improve participation in citizen science projects. Finally, Jones (2020) found that retrospectively, her interviewees believed time in nature and exposure to sustainability principles (the theoretical interventions) can help individuals develop science identity. These results suggest that a future shared E/SCID agenda might be a fruitful space in which to achieve educational goals.

EID/SCID Conceptual Overlap

All six studies evoke a common narrative in which the authors argue that we need to develop both science and environmental identities in participants in order to solve environmental crises. However, the exact way in which this relationship was framed differed across projects (Table 2).

For James (2020) and Wallace (2018), citizen science is the crucial mechanism needed to solve environmental problems, and science and environmental identities are both embedded within a citizen science identity. For Silovsky et al. (2019), the desired outcome is an increase in pro-environmental behavior, and both SCID and EID are presented as antecedents to behavior change. For Aloisio et al. (2018), the goal is to increase both the amount and diversity of environmental science professionals, and an environmental version of science identity is the one that has the most potential for diversity and inclusion. Similarly, Jones (2020) sees both science and environmental identity as necessary for women’s persistence in STEM fields. And finally, for Walsh and Cordero (2019), both SCID and EID are needed for the development of individuals who can address the climate crisis. As Wallace states, there is a gap in the literature for “developing conservation and environmentally-minded STEM (CEmsSTEM) interest and perceptions” (2018, p. 13).

Definitions of Identity

Despite the long format of a dissertation and the centrality of identity to these works, only three of the six sources provided an explicit definition of identity. These sources devoted variable amounts of space to the definition–as short as a single sentence (Wallace, 2018) to a longer paragraph (Walsh & Cordero, 2019), to an entire section (James, 2020). All three invoked social identity theory, and two went into more nuance related to developmental and cultural theory (Table 2).

This suggests that the theoretical grounding of identity was rarely considered, and instead the construct was equated with an instrument often built with borrowed items. Without a robust conception of EID and SCID, there is no way to know the construct validity of the instruments used (with the exception of the authors that used previously validated measures such as Clayton, 2003). It also makes it difficult to deeply compare across studies, because the definition becomes “squishy”.

This lack of focus on identity theory is problematic because without a clear concept of the theoretical underpinnings of the construct at hand, the case for the theory of change/mechanisms of change is harder to justify. However, one interesting finding was that the authors in our sample favored social identity theory, which addresses some criticism in the EID literature that researchers have not included social aspects of identity more meaningfully in measurement and definitions (Stapleton, 2015). Authors who described identity seemed to be aware of this critique and have envisioned environmental identity as a social phenomenon, not just one related to the environment directly.

Value of Identity Development for Change

Across all six sources, the authors identified and combined the key justifications for identity work embedded in existing SCID and EID literature. Namely, in SCID literature, the ultimate goal is often to get students to enter and/or remain in the sciences/STEM fields (Chen & Wei, 2020), and in EID literature, the goal is to cultivate EID for the purposes of cultivating pro-environmental behavior and support for environmental policy (Blatt, 2013; Clayton, 2003; Schmitt et al., 2019).

In this shared space, these two narratives combine to conclude that in order to address environmental crises, passionate and talented scientists are needed, so we must cultivate both an interest in understanding environmental science AND solving the environmental problems. The conclusion largely reflects the previously-discussed literature about the value of identity and the importance of considering intersecting identities in identity research (e.g., Avraamidou, 2019).

Diversity Concerns

Diversity concerns have grown consistently over time both within both the environmental movement and the STEM community, and our sample reflects these trends. All of these authors express concern about lack of diversity in environmental groups and/or science careers, and five of the six studies has an explicit goal of increasing diversity in their areas of focus, whether it be racial (Aloisio et al., 2018; Jones, 2020; Wallace, 2018; Walsh & Cordero, 2019) socio-economic (Silovsky et al., 2019), or gender (Jones, 2020; Walsh & Cordero, 2019). Yet only two studies (Aloisio et al., 2018; Jones, 2020) provided demographics for study participants. Two studies used surveys of students in schools, and so provided the demographics of the school (Walsh & Cordero, 2019) or the geographic region (Silovsky et al., 2019).

This lack of clarity about study participants limits the potential for understanding the intersectional nature of science and environmental identity at the individual level–not only how the two interact, but also how they are influenced by individuals’ other identities, such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and (dis)ability. What most papers in the scoping review miss is that intersectionality is potentially tremendously impactful for developing the environmentally oriented scientists and citizens of future generations - how EID and SCID influence each other and together guide behavior, which is a rich area of future study. Attention to the diversity of study participants will greatly increase the impact and generalizability of this work.

Role of Education

All of the studies in our sample consider educational experiences to be a critical part of identity development, both EID and SCID. The merging of key elements of identity development and educational experiences represents the biggest contribution of these works thus far. In particular, the importance of outdoors, hands-on experiences (in particular through citizen science), diverse program cohorts, mentor relationships, and new types of education in science (e.g., filmmaking in Walsh and Cordero, 2019), represent potentially fruitful avenues for developing E/SCID in diverse populations.

One potential tension between EID and SCID comes back to the tensions between schooling and environmental education as a whole (Stevenson, 2007)–schooling is often hegemonic and environmental education (one of whose often–unspoken goals may be nurturing an environmental identity) often seeks to encourage dispositions and behavior that are anti-hegemonic in a capitalist society (González-Gaudiano, 2007; Stevenson, 2007). This is especially true for identities which align with social mobility goals of education. However, the two could both support democratic equality as an education priority, and we argue that the junction of the two is necessary for preparing all learners to effectively participate in a functional democracy.

Synthesis of Measurement Themes

Though EID and SCID were both represented in the studies analyzed here, they were represented very differently, as evidenced in the items used in instruments from the studies (Table 3). EID items were varied, including items which describe personal identities, such as “I am part of nature”, “I want to take care of the environment”, “individual/personal responsibility”, and “connection with the more than human”. Some of the instruments also included items that address a social identity (“I see myself as an environmentalist”) (Silovsky et al., 2019) and “I have a lot in common with environmentalists as a group” (Walsh & Cordero, 2019). Themes from the SCID items were very STEM pipeline oriented, focusing on liking science as a topic and STEM as a future career.

These trends within our small sample reflect the greater trends present in the larger literature in these two areas, which is problematic for two reasons. First, SCID theory would benefit from adopting a more multifaceted perspective similar to EID; moving beyond career choices to focus on one’s personal identities would help catch more elements of SCID. Second, the SCID focus on career alignment neglects social identity, or the identification with a group, in this case scientists. This is key to developing the self-perception of oneself as a person who does or uses science to better the environment, which is a necessary goal in a time of increasing environmental crisis and ecosystem destabilization (Colvin, 2013). Yet only two studies within our review (Silovsky et al., 2019; Wallace, 2018) really examined the intersection of EID and SCID that would lead to that goal. Jones (2020) addressed STEM and the environment in her study of women in STEM, but these items tended towards beliefs and away from identity. Future work should investigate that intersection alongside studying the co-development of EID and SCID. Further, we argue that a greater understanding of social identity in both SCID and EID is important because a social identity may lead to larger social actions on environmental issues that would be more powerful than individual identity alone. Finally, we note the potential problems with using the word “environmentalist” when collecting data on environmental identity, as this is a particularly loaded term that could perhaps muddle the relationship between underlying EID constructs and participant responses (Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2009).

Future Directions

Shared EID/SCID agenda

Given the clear need for a diverse community of scientists in all fields and citizens who are committed to tackling environmental problems (Hecht & Nelson, 2021), and the importance of identity formation to the commitment to both scientific inquiry and environmental behavior (Prevot et al., 2018), more empirical work is needed at the intersection of EID and SCID. The agendas within both areas have clear practical and theoretical overlap (Mileham, 2015), but this overlap needs to be clarified and the focus of further empirical development. And most importantly, scholars need to clarify how they define identity, as not all work in this field is clear on this question. Now that we have summarized some key insights from our limited intersectional sample, we will use constructs from these works as well as foundational literature in both EID and SCID to propose a potential way forward with intersectional research on EID and SCID.

Proposed E/SCID instrument

Looking at EID and SCID through a sociocultural perspective, one that recognizes that identity develops in the interaction of micro-, meso, and macrosystems and is intersectional, we begin to see alignment between the two constructs. Using the three components of identity used by Carlone and Johnson (2007), we describe how those components look in Table 4.

We present a proposed instrument (Table 5) that addresses each of the emergent themes identified from this review. It has not been validated empirically but can serve as a starting point for those researchers that wish to study the development of EID, SID, and their intersection (E/SCID). We do not intend for it to be prescriptive for program development, rather as a synthesis of the scholarship that exists and potential paths forward, and it would be adapted to the appropriate context. For example, the instrument could be used as a pre-post measure in a summer program for teens that focuses on both science research skills and practices, in an environmental context such as a field station. This could yield insight into the effectiveness of the program in preparing young adults that see themselves as aligned with the environment, science, or both and if that supports their action in addressing environmental problems through scientific and social avenues. As another example, the instrument could be used with practicing environmental professionals, say in an advocacy organization or lab, to develop an explanation of how these professionals identify with the environment, science, and their junction, and how this affects their work, which could help educators to understand the path towards that goal. Because so little work exists at this intersection, researchers and practitioners could consider the ways that EID and SCID intersect, but they could also envision a new, combined identity in environmental science (ESCID). At this point, we do not have enough data on this relationship to determine the best path forward. These questions could be presented in any combination, in both quantitative and qualitative data collection efforts, and could be used with diverse age cohorts in diverse settings. We recommend that it be supplemented by qualitative research that both seeks to understand the construct and helps build theory that assists in understanding their intersection.

Methods moving forward

Mixed methods were popular in our sample, which is again promising for the field. However, we found that the qualitative work exploring identity was somewhat underdeveloped. Some of the most powerful identity theory-building work has been qualitative (Brekhus, 2008; Hart & Hart, 2014), and so we argue that this area of inquiry needs some serious qualitative work to uncover more theoretical themes, which can then be tested for prevalence at a wider scale. This work could help modify and validate our proposed E/SCID instrument, as more information is needed about how participants characterize the relationship between their own environmental and science identities, especially in the context of environmental science education programs.

Limitations

The small sample size we uncovered was the most obvious limitation to our work, but there are several others worth mentioning. First, we acknowledge that while we were able to justify our choice of eliminating related constructs, doing so might have caused us to miss potentially valuable work in this relatively new field. Second, four of the six papers we reviewed were doctoral dissertations. Dissertations are written under substantively different constraints than journal articles, which makes them difficult to compare directly to other forms of work. Lastly, the research reviewed here was all conducted in Western countries, with little cultural or social diversity, and so represent a limited view of identity as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review has found that while there are solid theoretical calls for more work at the intersection of EID and SCID, there is scant empirical data exploring this intersection. Our review takes stock of the limited existing literature, exploring common themes in diversity, educational programming, methods, and identity theory. We use this analysis to produce an instrument that could simultaneously explore environmental and science identity (E/SCID). Next steps include validating these instruments with survey and interview data to better understand how EID and SCID develop within individuals and communities to inspire a diverse group of environmentally-minded scientists to address the most pressing environmental issues of our time.

Author contributions: All authors have sufficiently contributed to the study and agreed with the results and conclusions.

Funding: No funding source is reported for this study.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Marna Hauk and Ashley Alred for their contributions to earlier versions of this study. The authors would also like to thank the University of Montevallo (SC) and Michigan State University (RH), for supporting them during the writing of this manuscript.

Ethical statement: The authors stated that the study did not require a formal ethics committee approval letter. No primary data was collected for this study.

Declaration of interest: No conflict of interest is declared by the authors.

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author.