Scientist climate activism grew through belonging spaces and created hybrid scientist activist identities over time

An ethnographic study tracked how scientists entered climate activism, managed identity conflict, and sustained commitment.

Scientists who joined climate activism did so through identity-aligned spaces that made participation feel legitimate and socially safe. Over time, activism reshaped their professional identity into hybrid scientist-activist identities, while commitment depended on collective efficacy, peer affirmation, and care practices to buffer burnout. The same scientific symbols that legitimised action also created gatekeeping pressures and unrealistic expectations of universal expertise.

Quick summary

What the study found: Belonging-focused spaces helped scientists start; scientific expertise and symbols legitimised participation; activism reshaped identity; sustained engagement relied on collective efficacy, peer affirmation, and care practices; escalation of risk was non-linear.
Why it matters: It shows how “neutrality” norms and moral conviction can coexist through a hybrid identity, and what supports keep scientist advocates engaged without burning out.
What to be careful about: Scientific symbols can exclude people who do not identify with them and can fuel expectations that every scientist speaks for all science.

What was found

In the journal article Scientists as activists: An ethnography of the ‘critical moments’ in scientists’ transition to climate activism, researchers conducted a two-year immersive, longitudinal ethnography with Scientists for Extinction Rebellion in the United Kingdom.

The study reports that identity-aligned spaces legitimised initial participation and fostered belonging. Scientists strategically used professional expertise and scientific symbols, including lab coats and peer-reviewed papers, to legitimise action and build collective identification.

Those same symbols also had downsides. They could limit participation to people who identify with those symbols and create expectations of universal expertise.

Over time, activism reshaped professional identity. The study describes strengthening moral conviction and the emergence of hybrid scientist-activist identities.

What it means

This work treats activism as a trajectory, not a switch. Scientists are shown navigating tensions between professional norms of neutrality and objectivity and the pull of moral commitment.

The key mechanism is social: people persist when they feel effective together. The study highlights collective efficacy, meaning a shared belief that a group can achieve meaningful change.

It also points to relational protections. Peer affirmation and care practices supported autonomy and buffered burnout, suggesting that sustainable advocacy is partly an emotional and organizational achievement, not only a rational one.

Where it fits

The study advances social psychological models of identity conflict by showing a dynamic interaction between professional norms, moral commitments, and collective action over time.

Instead of framing “scientist” and “activist” as incompatible roles, it introduces hybrid identity formation as a process. That matters because identity conflict often predicts withdrawal, while identity integration can enable long-term participation.

How to use it

If you are organizing scientist advocacy, design identity-aligned spaces that reduce the perceived cost of “crossing the line” into action. Make belonging explicit: welcome newcomers, clarify norms, and normalize mixed feelings about neutrality.

Use expertise carefully. Scientific symbols can be powerful for legitimacy, but pair them with messages that limit gatekeeping, such as clarifying roles for different skill sets and avoiding the idea that every participant must represent all science.

Build durability into the group. Protect autonomy, create peer affirmation practices, and treat care as infrastructure, because the study links these supports to sustained commitment and burnout buffering.

Limits & what we still don’t know

This evidence comes from an ethnography of one activist context over two years, so it describes processes and meanings rather than producing universal estimates. The excerpts do not specify sample size, demographics, or outcome measures.

Escalation was non-linear: willingness to take risks increased with experience, but professional, personal, and ethical considerations also shaped decisions. We still do not know which considerations dominate under which conditions.

Closing takeaway

This journal article suggests scientist climate activism grows when people find legitimising communities, integrate their roles into a hybrid identity, and sustain each other with efficacy and care. Legitimacy tools like lab coats and papers can mobilize support, but can also narrow who feels entitled to act. The practical lesson is to build movements that protect belonging, broaden participation, and make sustainability a core design feature.

Data in this article is provided by PLOS.

Tagged Anthropology, Anxiety, Careers in research, Criminal justice system, Cultural anthropology, Emotions, Ethnography, Law and legal sciences, Law enforcement, Peer review, Personality, Police, Population groupings, Professions, Research assessment, Science and technology workforce, Scientists, Social psychology