Identity Development in Chemistry: The Social Functionality and Moral Significance of Being (Considered) a “Real” Chemist

Abstract

As chemistry expands across interdisciplinary boundaries and diverse career sectors, examining how professional identity is constructed becomes crucial for understanding field dynamics and career development patterns. This study investigates how individuals at various levels of education and professional careers in chemistry define and describe chemistry identity. Using semistructured interviews with undergraduate students and chemistry professionals across academic, industry, and government job sectors, we investigated the ways participants (N = 43) described and characterized a chemist or a “chemistry person,” including how this characterization influenced self-identification and evaluation of others in the field. Drawing on Social Identity Theory, our analysis reveals that there is a notion of a “true” or more “legitimate” chemist within the community based on a “pure chemist” stereotype, which is characterized by having a chemistry degree, conducting research in academia, and doing molecular-level work. In practice, this means that there are groups within the community excluded, including biochemists, chemical engineers, chemistry education researchers, and chemists in industry, based on ideals of “academic purity” that privilege and reserve rigor only to certain chemistry subdisciplines and job sectors. The results indicate a basic tension between the characterization of chemistry as the “central science,” and the increasingly bounded identity practices that limit impositions of interdisciplinary views. Deeper examination of our data reflects how chemistry identity is constructed within practices of morality that place “pure” chemistry at the top, while systematically marginalizing those who work across disciplinary lines. These exclusionary practices continue, as they are framed to be maintaining scientific integrity, and not bias, making them difficult to challenge while also creating sustained problems for diversity and retention in the field.

Introduction

Recent analyses of U.S. chemistry programs reveal the field of chemistry faces a significant decrease in student enrollment, dropping 23% from 2019 to 2024, which is approximately six times the reduction seen across all undergraduate enrollment. This troubling decline reflects a broader challenge within the discipline where, despite extensive efforts over several decades to enhance participation, the field continues to experience difficulties with attracting and retaining professionals at all career stages. This has a disproportional impact on Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial chemistry faculty at top-50 research institutions whose representation decreases as they progress through academic ranks. Further, this extends to similar patterns in industry where employers face difficulties in both filling positions and retaining early career chemists. These declining participation patterns across the field of chemistry signal that the problems may transcend the typical reasons people attribute to attrition (like challenging degree programs or salary concerns) and point to more complex social and psychological factors that may be influencing people’s decisions to enter or remain in chemistry.

Building on seminal work on science identity formation, we know that the development of a chemistry identity is important, since over two decades worth of research in STEM education has demonstrated that identity plays a crucial role in educational persistence, career choices, and long-term engagement with the field. − Students who develop strong chemistry identities show greater resilience in facing academic challenges, maintain higher levels of engagement, and are more likely to persist in chemistry-related educational pathways. However, current understandings of chemistry identity formation remains limited in several critical ways. First, existing research has primarily focused on high school students in chemistry classes , or on undergraduate students in introductory chemistry courses, − leaving gaps in our understanding of how identity develops across diverse postsecondary chemistry experiences. This narrow focus can exclude important perspectives from individuals who have left chemistry programs, transitioned to industry, shifted to adjacent fields, or engaged with chemistry through alternative pathways. Second, although quantitative measures such as the Measure of Chemistry Identity (MoChI) have been commonly used in this area of research and offered valuable insights into the broad patterns of identity development, they are unable to capture the rich, qualitative experiences that influence how individuals conceptualize what it means to identify as a chemist or “chemistry person.” Developing a deeper understanding of these lived experiences is crucial for identifying and addressing barriers to inclusion, especially for historically marginalized groups. − Third, little research has explored emerging chemists’ perceptions of what constitutes a “proper” chemist and/or “chemistry person”. Research suggests that meeting the standards of what constitutes a “proper” group member is crucial for inclusion and respect within a group (including professional groups, religious groups, ethnic groups, etc.). These standards for inclusion may be particularly challenging to meet for individuals navigating multiple facets of personal and professional identity.

The present study addresses these gaps by examining how individuals with diverse postsecondary chemistry experiences describe the characteristics they associate with being a chemist or “chemistry person,” and how these perceptions influence their self-identification and views of others within the field. This research aims to inform efforts to broaden participation in chemistry by: (1) identifying limiting beliefs that discourage certain groups from seeing themselves as “chemistry people,” (2) understanding how different pathways through chemistry degree or training programs shape identity development, and (3) revealing whether current cultural models of “being a chemist/chemistry person” may inadvertently exclude diverse perspectives and experiences. It is essential to comprehend these dynamics to make progress toward more inclusive chemistry environments that validate different ways of being a chemist and/or “chemistry person” and support diverse pathways into and through the field. As chemistry faces increasingly complex global challenges, the field cannot afford to continue losing talent due to narrow conceptions of who belongs in chemistry or what it means to be a chemist.

Literature Review

Early research connecting identity and educational contexts emphasized identity development as a profoundly social phenomenon. James Paul Gee made a significant contribution to this conversation in his 2000 paper “Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education,” proposing that identity serves as a dynamic analytical tool for understanding schools and society better, thereby presenting an alternative framework to what he termed the “sometimes overly general and static trio of race, class, and gender.” Gee’s fundamental insight was that identity is not merely an internal stateit materializes through social recognitionspecifically, through being acknowledged as “a certain kind of person in any given context.” That is, a chemist presenting at a conference must use specific language, demonstrate particular ways of thinking, and interact according to prescribed norms to be recognized as appropriately “chemistry-like.” These criteria for credibility shift across contexts, whether in a research lab, department meeting, or classroom. As Lewis added regarding African Americans in science, career attainment is fundamentally a social process where aspiring scientists rely on the judgment and invitation of practicing scientists throughout their educational and career progression. Building on these foundations, Carlone and Johnson developed their “science identity” model, drawing from cultural production theory to explore how historical patterns (like the predominance of white men in science) get reproduced in everyday practices, while also showing how certain groups (like women of color studying science) might challenge these patterns and create new meanings. − This approach illuminated how science identities develop at the intersection of our immediate environment and the broader social world we live in.

Subsequent efforts to make identity more measurable (e.g., through survey instruments) have shifted the focus of identity frameworks toward individual, quantifiable factors. This shift toward quantification has been driven by several practical research needs. Researchers sought to establish measurable constructs that could be tested across multiple settings and populations, allowing them to generalize findings about identity’s effects on student persistence. They also needed valid and reliable measures to assess how educational interventions impact chemistry identity, and instruments designed specifically for chemistry contexts rather than adapted from other disciplines. However, this movement toward measurement introduces significant limitations when studying something as inherently complex as identity. Quantitative approaches necessarily reduce the multifaceted, socially negotiated nature of identity to numerical ratings and discrete factors, potentially losing the rich contextual dynamics that qualitative research reveals as fundamental to identity development. As Hosbein and Barbera themselves acknowledged, even their most successful quantitative models explained only 52–66% of identity variance, suggesting that “there are other constructs involved in identity...that are not being captured with these measures.” The assumption that identity can be meaningfully captured through Likert scales may itself be problematic, given that identity formation is an emergent, fluid process that unfolds through ongoing social interactions rather than static individual characteristics.

Of the two main frameworks that have shaped current chemistry identity research, Hazari and colleagues developed the first, originally as a framework for physics identity. Their model, which defines identity as “seeing oneself as a physics person,” reduced the complex social dynamics of identity formation to three measurable factors: interest (personal curiosity and desire to learn physics content), recognition (acknowledgment by others as a “good physics student”), and performance/competence beliefs (beliefs about one’s ability to understand and execute physics tasks). This framework was eventually adapted to chemistry identity studies by simply exchanging the word “physics” for “chemistry” in the identity survey items developed by Hazari et al., thus further disconnecting it from the cultural situation of chemistry as a discipline. Though this framework includes some social components via its recognition component, it is mostly concerned with individual self-concept concerning identity, thereby isolating identity as an internal psychological state and ignoring the widely adopted notion that identity is fundamentally social and contextual.

Hosbein and Barbera developed the second commonly used framework in chemistry identity research, and the first model designed specifically for undergraduate chemistry contexts. While Hosbein and Barbera’s framework retained the structure of Hazari et al.’s model, it introduced additional consideration of factors like mindset (beliefs about whether chemistry intelligence is fixed or can be developed through effort). The limitations of these individual-focused frameworks become clearer when we think about how identity operates in practice; as Dou and Cian pointed out, the relationship between these factors and disciplinary identity is not linear or simplistic. For example, just because students are interested in or excel at chemistry, does not necessarily mean that they consider themselves a “chemistry person,” thereby challenging the assumption that possessing certain characteristics, like being interested or highly proficient, automatically equates to having a strong disciplinary identity. The same authors further critique that surveys developed from these models often emphasize aspects of performance that can be observed and validated by others (e.g., exam and class scores), since performance aspects involved with a scientific community often extend beyond measurable objectives. Moreover, while studies have identified science identity as “the most powerful predictor of high school students pursuing an undergraduate STEM major,” there are currently no chemistry identity frameworks that can explain why there are some students that turn away from chemistry despite having the necessary academic competence. Given these limitations, it would be beneficial to scale back to frameworks that honor the fundamentally social nature of identity formation. This approach would recognize that identity development occurs not merely through individual achievement and interest, but through complex social processes where novices gradually acquire the practices, language, and cultural knowledge that mark authentic membership in the discipline of chemistry through meaningful interactions with established members and peers. This perspective aligns closely with Lave and Wenger’s Situated Learning Theory and their concept of Communities of Practice, which describes how newcomers to any communityincluding academic disciplineslearn through legitimate peripheral participation, a process by which novices gradually become full participants in the sociocultural practices of a community. In chemistry contexts, this means that students do not simply acquire chemical knowledge; they learn to become chemists through authentic participation in chemistry communities such as research laboratories, study groups, and classroom discussions, where experienced members serve as guides who can either facilitate or constrain newcomers’ movement toward being recognized as legitimate contributors who can lead research, mentor others, and participate as peers in the chemistry community. From this perspective, developing chemistry identity is about becoming a “chemistry person” through doing what chemistry people dodesigning experiments, presenting research, contributing original ideas, and being trusted with meaningful responsibilitiesnot just knowing what chemistry people know. This alignment further supports returning to social frameworks to understand how chemistry identity develops through the social processes that current chemistry identity models overlook.

Theoretical Framework: Social Identity Theory

Foundations of Social Identity Theory

For this study, we draw on Social Identity Theory (SIT) to explore understudied aspects of chemistry identity. SIT asserts that much of our identity (i.e., how we see ourselves) comes from the social groups we belong tolike our academic discipline, professional organizations, or lab groups. Tajfel and Turner refer to this as our “social identity” and explain that it develops through three main processes: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison. When we categorize socially, we sort ourselves and others into groups, creating the classic “us” versus “them” (or in-group versus out-group) distinction. This helps us make sense of our social environment and figure out where we fit. Social identification happens when we adopt a group’s norms and behaviors as part of who we are. This shapes how we act and think as we try to reinforce our connection to the group. The third process, social comparison, is when we compare our group to others to evaluate our status or worth. We tend to view our own group favorably since this boosts our self-concept and reinforces our pride in belonging.

While SIT is often characterized as focusing primarily on social processes, it can recognize constructs like competence and interest, but conceptualizes them in fundamentally social ways that differ from individual-focused frameworks. Rather than ignoring internal components of identity formation, SIT reconceptualizes them as socially constructed and socially recognized phenomena. From this perspective, competence and interest are not purely internal states but are demonstrated, validated, and reinforced through social interactions within disciplinary communities. For instance, chemistry competence becomes visible and meaningful through social performance and recognitionwhen students correctly answer questions in class, demonstrate laboratory skills, or solve complex problems, they are not merely building internal confidence but establishing their competence as group members in the eyes of both others and themselves. Social markers such as the professors’ approval, peers asking for help, or getting selected for research opportunities serve to establish and affirm scientific competence. Similarly, interest in chemistry extends beyond internal feelings to encompass socially expressed and recognized behaviors. How individuals talk about chemistry, the depth of questions they pose, their willingness to engage in optional activities (e.g., seminars, conferences, etc.), and their visible enthusiasm become social demonstrations that others observe and respond to. When peers comment that someone is “always talking about chemistry” or when professors notice sustained engagement, interest becomes socially constructed and validated through community recognition. This social reconceptualization of seemingly internal constructs aligns with SIT’s fundamental premise that identity categories like “chemist” gain meaning through social processes rather than individual introspection alone.

Applications of SIT in STEM and Chemistry Education Research

While SIT has not been specifically used in chemistry identity research, scholars have used it effectively in adjacent STEM fields to understand how social factors (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity) and social comparisons can influence the development of STEM identity. , Kim et al. found that a stronger STEM identity links directly to feeling accepted and belonging in the STEM community, especially for girls; thus, their study showed how social environments can either nurture or hinder STEM identity development. Steinke used SIT to show how media portrayals of STEM professionals affect girls’ STEM identity formation. Specifically, this work suggests that girls identify most strongly with women STEM role models who share their social identities (gender, race, ethnicity), and when they view both themselves and other women as belonging to STEM. However, stereotypical media portrayals can create problems when they suggest girls must choose between being feminine and being a STEM personas if the two identities cannot coexist. These applications of SIT in STEM education contexts have established its utility for understanding how disciplinary communities establish boundaries, how newcomers negotiate membership, and how identity conflicts may lead to attrition.

Why SIT Matters for Chemistry Identity Research

The current study builds on the STEM applications of SIT described above while addressing gaps specific to chemistry identity research. Unlike current frameworks that focus on individual factors like interest and performance as primarily internal phenomena, SIT provides the tools to examine how chemistry identity develops through social processesspecifically, how people learn who “belongs” in chemistry and who does not through the social construction and recognition of competence, interest, and other possible identity markers. In this study, we use SIT’s three processes to structure our investigation. Through examining social categorization, we explore how participants define the boundaries of the chemistry communitywho they see as chemists or “chemistry people” and what characteristics mark membership. Through social identification, we investigate how individuals align (or do not align) themselves with these chemistry group norms and values. Through social comparison, we examine how participants evaluate their own fit within chemistry relative to others. This approach allows us to address our research aims: identifying limiting beliefs about who can be a “chemistry person,” understanding how different pathways shape identity development, and revealing whether current models of being a chemist inadvertently exclude diverse perspectives. By returning to a fundamentally social understanding of identity, this study can examine the complex dynamics that current individualistic frameworks missdynamics that may be driving the concerning attrition patterns we see in chemistry today.

Study Purpose and Rationale

Given the gaps in the literature, the aim of this study is to investigate how individuals at various stages of chemistry education and professional practice develop, negotiate, and/or maintain their chemistry identities. Using Social Identity Theory as our framework, we seek to explore what characteristics individuals associate with a “chemistry person” and/or chemist, and how these perceptions influence both self-identification and evaluation of others within the field. By focusing on individuals with a diverse set of postsecondary experiences in chemistry, our goal is to learn more about how different paths through chemistry education and careers can shape identity development and how the chemistry community collectively creates and preserves ideas of legitimate membership as a social group. This approach allows us to explore both individual identity formation processes and broader group-level dynamics that influence who is recognized as a legitimate member of the chemistry community.

An intrinsic part of undertaking an investigation to discover and classify people’s conceptions of a “chemistry identity” requires including individuals who have borne different experiences in chemistry contexts through their positions and relations with the discipline. For this reason, this work focused on four different populations (illustrated in Figure ) and sought to categorize what conceptions of chemistry identity each group articulates. The reasoning behind choosing each population and time point is explained in the following sections.

1.

Populations whose conceptions of a “chemistry identity” were studied.

Early and Late Practicing Chemists

Engaging with chemists directly is essential to grasp what constitutes someone’s identification as a chemist and how “earlier” conceptions of chemistry identity may originate and/or evolve. Therefore, this study focused on two groups of practicing chemists, which we loosely categorized based on their workplace settings: academic chemists, who work in higher education institutions, and nonacademic chemists, employed in industry and government sectors. Even though only about 30% of chemists with degrees (across all levels) work in academia according to data from the American Chemical Society (ACS), this group of chemists are typically the most encountered by students, giving them a significant role in shaping future chemistry professionals. Conversely, although students typically have limited access to professional chemists in industry and government during their academic preparation, these professionals comprise the careers where the majority (about 70%) of people with a degree in chemistry go on to occupy. Drawing attention to chemists from both areas was important to encompass a broader range of experiences within the diverse career contexts that shape these identities. Additionally, it was further essential to include a balance of professionals at various stages of their career (early career and late-career). We anticipated people in the middle of their career, with five to ten years of experience in their job sector, to have some attributes of both early- and late-stage professionals in that context; thus, to promote simplicity, we selected individuals from two different time points (under five years or over 10 years of experience). We deliberately focused on populations with the most distinct chemistry experiencesfrom early undergraduate coursework to established professional practiceto maximize contrasts in our analysis. While graduate students and postdocs represent important intermediate stages that were beyond the scope of this initial study, their experiences were embedded within the perspectives of our established academic professionals who reflected on and discussed their own experiences during those formative career stages.

First and Fourth Year Chemistry/Biochemistry and STEM Majors

Since the bulk of undergraduate students’ experiences with chemistry are in the classroom, it is important to include students spanning across various stages of their undergraduate preparation to identify what factors may be influencing the way students view themselves with respect to chemistry. Current research largely focuses on general student populations within introductory chemistry courses but overlooks how chemistry identity develops specifically in chemistry/biochemistry majors. Additionally, not much is known about how chemistry courses beyond general chemistry affect students’ identity development. These gaps are significant because (1) chemistry/biochemistry majors are likely to have different experiences and motivations that influence their identity development compared to nonmajors, and (2) capturing later points of identity development can help inform how a chemistry identity develops over the span of an undergraduate academic career. To bridge these gaps, undergraduate chemistry/biochemistry majors at the beginning of their path (i.e., in their first year of coursework) and those nearing graduation (i.e., during their fourth year or later) were selected as a distinct group to be able to bound the students who are inherently closer to the professional chemist community and concentrate on their experiences with identity development as a group of their own. Similarly, STEM majors (excluding chemistry/biochemistry majors) were also included at corresponding stages of their academic progression to not undermine the variance individuals experience with chemistry identity or pose a potential risk to the validity of our study. Including STEM majors from fields related to chemistry was done to provide a more comprehensive and representative understanding of chemistry identity (i.e., provided an “outside” viewpoint). Collecting these perspectives was critical to enhancing the scope and applicability of our findings and contribute to broader conversations in STEM education and identity research, since a chemistry identity does not exist in isolation and can intersect with other STEM identities and academic experiences.

Research Question

Given that most individuals do not consciously or systematically reflect on why (or whether) they see themselves as “a chemistry person” (or what makes someone a professional chemist), the overarching goal was to analyze how individuals across a separation of levels in chemistry articulate their perceptions of chemistry archetypes in relation to their own identities when asked to reflect on their personal experiences. Specifically, this study focused on the experiences and perceptions of both undergraduate chemistry students and practicing/professional chemists when addressing the following research question: How do individuals with diverse postsecondary chemistry experiences describe the characteristics of a chemist or “chemistry person,” and how do these perceptions influence their self-identification and views of others within the field?

Methods

Research Design

The use of qualitative methods was crucial for expanding the perspectives and discourse on chemistry identity with sufficient depth and flexibility. Selecting hermeneutic phenomenology as the philosophical standpoint and qualitative approach for this study was motivated by an interest to understand the meanings that surround people’s conceptions of chemistry identity and the complexities of how people (who appear to have similar experiences) can come to internalize diverse interpretations. Hermeneutics characterizes what is “beneath the subjective experience” (i.e., interprets how the meaning is created between a person and an event) “to find the genuine, objective nature of things.” It allows for reflections of experiences to be compiled and then translated into interpretations with sensitivity to details such as, “subtle undertones of language” and “the way language speaks” in participants’ responses. When combined with phenomenology, which is the study of life experiences from the subject’s perspective and treats human subjectivity as a valuable source of scientific knowledge, this approach ensures an adequate analysis of the subject’s consciousness and preserves the fundamental components of their internal and external experiences. The choice of methodology for our research design was semistructured interviews. In hermeneutic phenomenological research, interviewing around five to six participants per analytically relevant category is often sufficient, as studies have shown that within five to six interviews, researchers can uncover most of the significant insights and patterns related to the phenomenon under study. Data analysis happened concurrently to the data collection process to assess the need for any additional participants from groups that may represent different and/or uniquely relevant perspectives.

Positionality

Since hermeneutic phenomenology enables the coconstruction of meaning between the researcher and participant, it is crucial to be mindful of how our team’s personal backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, and values may have influenced our interactions with participants and interpretation of data to enhance the integrity of our research findings and mitigate bias. Our research team is based at a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and composed of three undergraduate students (Andrea, Nadya, and Ngan), one graduate student (Giselle), and two associate professors (Remy and Sonia). Being part of an HSI, where diversity is a cornerstone, we are particularly attuned to the importance of exploring identity through a lens that is inclusive and representative of varied experiences. The institutional context in which we work has greatly motivated us to question and broaden conventional definitions of what it means to be a chemist, recognizing that identity in this field is multifaceted and often intersects with race, ethnicity, and cultural background.

Three of usGiselle, Sonia, and Remyhave all taken nontraditional paths in our careers, navigating various fields like engineering, meteorology, biology, forensics, and math before reaching our current roles in chemistry and STEM education research. Our interest in understanding the development of identity for individuals in certain disciplines is largely driven by the fluidity and evolution of our own disciplinary identities over time. This breadth of experience has equipped us with a capacity to consider diverse perspectives and make interdisciplinary connections that might otherwise be overlooked by a more homogeneous group and positioned us to challenge narrow or traditional definitions of what it means to be a chemist or “chemistry person.” To complement this, our undergraduate team membersAndrea, Nadya, and Nganrepresent the most common type of chemistry student at our institution: chemistry/biochemistry majors on a premedical track. Their firsthand experiences navigating identity development in chemistry/biochemistry as well as other academic fields, such as business and psychology, provide valuable insights that resonate with many of the students we aim to understand through our research.

As a group, our collective experiences are marked by a sense of not always finding a natural fit in chemistry, having to reconcile different aspects of our identities, and overcoming barriers in the academic and professional community of chemistry. These experiences, as women, first-generation and international college students, individuals from low socioeconomic and minoritized racial/ethnic backgrounds, as well as members of the LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent communities, have uniquely positioned us to connect with our participants that have experienced marginalization or lack of identification within the field. While these experiences have shaped our perspectives, they have also fueled our deep interest in understanding how others successfully form and navigate their identities as chemists. This shared curiosity is evident in the extended conversations that often surpassed our initial interview plans, demonstrating the depth of connection established with our participants. We have reflected on how these shared experiences may lead us to empathize more deeply with certain participants or to view particular characteristics as more significant in defining chemistry identity. However, we have been cautious to ensure that we do not overly focus on aspects of chemistry identity that are more relatable to our own experiences, while neglecting elements that are more central to those who strongly identify as chemists.

Data Collection

Sampling

The total number of individuals we interviewed (N = 43) across the four subgroups (early and late-career or first and fourth year) shown in Figure allowed us to capture a wide range of perspectives and experiences on the different ways people engage with and perceive chemistry identity. Analyses revealed that these amounts of interviews were enough to identify significant patterns and differences between groups (chemistry/biochemistry majors, STEM majors, academic chemists, and nonacademic chemists). Moreover, these quantities were effective in highlighting common themes without needing to differentiate between more granular distinctions, such as within groups (e.g., juniors vs seniors). Since the study’s focus was on broader categories of experience rather than on detailed subgroup analyses, additional interviews were unlikely to yield substantially new insights or alter the emerging themes. This influenced our decision to cease gathering data for each population at the specific moments we did.

Practicing Chemists

Our pool of chemistry professionals was generated through a social network referral system known as “snowball sampling”, where individuals helped us identify other potential subjects of interest that might fit the characteristics of the targeted population. Although a limitation of this method of sampling is that an individual’s professional colleagues tend to work in the same field, we made concerted efforts to incorporate professionals from as many diverse specializations, degree levels, roles, gender and racial/ethnic backgrounds, and types of institutions as possible.

The academic chemist population (Table ) consisted of 13 professionals (6 early career, 7 late-career) from across eight national higher education institutions, including Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), R1 and R2 universities, and one Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). The nonacademic chemist population (Table ) included ten professionals (5 early career, 5 late-career) from seven industrial companies and two government organizations in the U.S. (Please be aware that the names given in the tables below are fictional and were either selected by the participant or generated at random upon their request.)

1. Demographic Information of Academic Chemist Participants.

Stage	Pseudonym	Gender	Race/Ethnicity	Highest Degree	Post-Doc Experience	Job Title	Specialization
Early (1–5 yrs)	Harrison	Man	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Assistant Professor	Inorganic
	Evelyn	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Assistant Professor	Chemistry Education (Organic)
	Avery	Gender- fluid	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Assistant Professor	Chemistry Education (Analytical)
	Grace	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Assistant Professor	Chemistry Education (Analytical)
	Stella	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	No	Assistant Director of General Chemistry	Chemistry Education (Organic)
	Kai	Man	Asian or Pacific Islander	PhD	No	Assistant Teaching Professor	Biochemistry
Late (>10 yrs)	Victoria	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	No	Associate Professor	Chemistry Education (Analytical)
	Charlotte	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	No	Professor	Chemistry Education (Inorganic)
	Theodore	Man	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Professor	Physical
	Scarlett	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Academic Specialist	Analytical
	Madison	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	No	Senior Academic Specialist	Biochemistry
	Nathaniel	Man	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Professor	Analytical
	Clara	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	PhD	No	Educational Designer	Chemistry Education (Inorganic)

2. Demographic Information of Non-academic Chemist Participants.

Stage	Pseudonym	Gender	Race/Ethnicity	Highest Degree	Post-Doc Experience	Job Sector	Job Title	Specialization
Early (1–5 yrs)	Lucas	Man	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Industry	Applications Scientist & Product Manager	Physical
	Simon	Man	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Industry	Field Sales Representative	Physical
	Priya	Woman	Asian or Pacific Islander	PhD	No	Industry	Associate Research Scientist	Biochemistry
	Elena	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	PhD	No	Government	Chemist	Analytical
	Aaron	Man	White or Caucasian	Master’s	No	Industry	Machine Learning Software Engineer	Physical
Late (>10 Yrs)	Dominic	Man	White or Caucasian	PhD	Yes	Industry	Senior Scientist & Product Manager	Analytical
	Elisa	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Bachelor’s	No	Industry	Scientist	N/A
	Rachel	Woman	White or Caucasian	PhD	No	Government	Lead Programming Engineer	Physical
	Toby	Man	White or Caucasian	PhD	No	Industry	Field Service Engineer	Bioinorganic
	Carmen	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Master’s	No	Industry	Senior Lab Analyst and Chemical Hygiene Officer	Medicinal and Pharmaceutical

Undergraduate Students

Five chemistry/biochemistry majors in their initial year and five senior chemistry majors were invited to participate from Florida International University (FIU)a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) located in Miami, Florida (Table ). Additionally, a total of 10 STEM majors at either the beginning or concluding stages of their undergraduate education were enlisted from the same institution (Table ). The students were recruited through convenience sampling (drawn from the institution that is most conveniently accessible to the researcher), to be able to study students’ initial understanding of chemistry identity and the evolvement of that understanding. We made sure to sample chemistry majors both on and off the premedical track, as well as individuals from various other STEM majors to capture a broad range of academic experiences. Additionally, we aimed for diversity in gender, racial/ethnic backgrounds, and career aspirations.

3. Demographic Information of Chemistry and Biochemistry Majors.

Year	Pseudonym	Major	Gender	Race/Ethnicity	Job Sector(s) of Interest
1st	Max	Biochemistry	Man	White or Caucasian	Academia, Government
	Lily	Biochemistry	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Medicine
	Ethan	Biochemistry	Man	Hispanic or Latino	Medicine
	Harper	Chemistry	Woman	Black or African American	Industry
	Omar	Chemistry	Man	Hispanic or Latino, Middle Eastern or North African (MENA)	Medicine
4th	Aurora	Biochemistry	Woman	Black or African American, Afro-Caribbean	Industry
	Seraphina	Biochemistry	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Healthcare
	Isabella	Chemistry	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Academia, Industry, Government
	Ashton	Biochemistry	Nonbinary	Hispanic or Latino	Academia, Industry, Government
	Violet	Biochemistry	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Academia, Industry, Government

4. Demographic Information of STEM Majors.

Year	Pseudonym	Major	Gender	Race/Ethnicity	Job Sector(s) of Interest
1st	Emily	Environmental Engineering	Woman	White or Caucasian	Academia, Government
	Olivia	Biomedical Engineering	Woman	Black or African American	Industry
	Ava	Psychology	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Medicine
	Mia	Biology	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Academia
	Benjamin	Behavioral Neuroscience	Man	Black or African American	Medicine
4th	Sophia	Behavioral Neuroscience	Woman	Hispanic or Latino	Academia, Medicine
	Martin	Mathematics	Man	Hispanic or Latino	Industry
	Alex	Environmental Studies	Nonbinary	Hispanic or Latino	Government, Independent Study
	Nora	Natural and Applied Sciences	Woman	Hispanic or Latino,White or Caucasian	Academia
	Leah	Biological Sciences	Woman	White or Caucasian	Medicine

Study Context and Methodological Boundaries

Every qualitative study operates within specific parameters that shape both its scope and insights. Rather than viewing these as limitations, we frame these as methodological boundaries that contextualize our findings and clarify the particular social and institutional spaces from which our insights emerge.

Our sampling approach prioritized access to participants who could provide rich, reflective insights into chemistry identity formation. This strategic sampling resulted in several important contextual factors that enhance our ability to examine identity dynamics while also defining the boundaries of our findings. For example, a substantial proportion of our academic chemists are actively involved in chemistry education research. This composition is methodologically advantageous because these participants are professionally attuned to issues of inclusion, identity, and disciplinary boundariesprecisely the themes central to our investigation. Rather than representing a sampling bias, this concentration provides valuable insight into how chemists who bridge traditional chemistry and educational communities understand and articulate identity dynamics. These participants offer nuanced views on identity formation that might be less accessible through researchers focused exclusively on bench chemistry. Since they have “a foot in both worlds,”that is, as they are trained chemists who also study how chemistry is learned and taught, this dual perspective makes them particularly well-positioned to discuss identity formation because they think professionally about how people become chemists (through education) while also being chemists themselves.

Furthermore, the majority of our professional participants hold PhDs, reflecting our strategic focus on individuals who have navigated the complete academic chemistry identity development trajectory and can provide retrospective insights into that process. While this may not reflect the educational distribution across all chemistry sectors where master’s and bachelor’s degree holders comprise larger proportions, it enables deep exploration of identity formation across extended professional development. Additionally, our sample’s geographic concentration within U.S. academic networks reflects our access to participants willing to engage in detailed discussions about identity experiences, though it may not capture identity dynamics in industrial, government, or international chemistry contexts. Lastly, we intentionally recruited across ethnic backgrounds to access diverse perspectives on chemistry identity formation, particularly given that chemistry remains demographically homogeneous (recent OXIDE surveys , show 79% white, non-Hispanic and 80% male faculty at top U.S. institutions). This strategic diversification allows us to examine how identity processes vary across different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, providing insights into experiences often underrepresented in chemistry identity research.

Moreover, our undergraduate participants were recruited exclusively from a single Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), a choice that reflects our strategic focus on accessing students who could provide detailed reflections on identity formation within a supportive, diverse educational environment. This institutional context allowed us to capture perspectives from a student population often underrepresented in chemistry identity research, while also reflecting the specific cultural and educational dynamics of an HSI setting. The identity negotiation processes observed among students navigating chemistry at an HSIwhere cultural diversity is valued and students see reflected representationmay differ significantly from those occurring at predominantly white institutions, elite research universities, or community colleges, where different institutional cultures, peer demographics, and support structures shape identity development.

These contextual factors specify rather than limit the validity of our findings. Future research should examine chemistry identity across different institutional contexts, professional networks, and educational backgrounds to build upon these contextualized findings and develop a more comprehensive understanding of identity formation across the broader chemistry landscape.

Interview Protocol

A semistructured interview protocol consisting of two sections was developed for the populations indicated in Figure . The purpose of the first segment of the interview was to provide an introduction, gather background information, establish rapport with participants and create a comfortable environment for data collection. The second section, grounded in SIT and shown in Figure , focused on addressing the current research question, so we will delve deeper only into this specific part of the interview.

2.

Interview protocol for this study, grounded in Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner.

Our interview questions examine all three dimensions of social identity formation: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison. By asking participants in our study to describe the characteristics they attribute to chemists or “chemistry people,” we examine how individuals classify themselves and others as part of the “in-group” in the field of chemistry (i.e., social categorization). We further explore the boundaries of this categorization by asking professionals whether they consider their colleagues as chemists and whether these characteristics apply across sectors or specializations to evaluate how individuals define group membership within different contexts. The protocol also examines how individuals internalize the group’s characteristics and whether they see those traits as part of their personal identity (i.e., social identification) by encouraging participants to reflect on whether they see themselves as part of the “chemistry” group and how they align with its defining characteristics. Lastly, the questions in Figure provide ample opportunities for participants to engage in social comparison, asking them to evaluate how much they (or others) align with their idea of a chemistry person. These comparisons illuminate how participants perceive their status and sense of belonging within the broader chemistry community, shedding light on the intricate dynamics of chemistry identity formation from this theoretical perspective.

Interview Collection and Analysis Process

All interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom and lasted between 1 and 2 h (averaging 1.5 h), allowing for both breadth (covering a wide range of experiences) and depth (providing rich descriptions). Given that FIU is a commuter school, conducting interviews virtually allowed us to maximize recruitment and reach a more diverse group of participants, thereby enhancing the representativeness of the sample. It also allowed us to take richer field notes and document key points in real-time without distracting or discomforting participants. After collection, the data generated from the interviews was deidentified in compliance with Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements. The interview recordings were transcribed using Otter.ai and thoroughly reviewed for accuracy.

In analyzing the transcripts, authors GC, NM, AL, and NL developed a lit of a priori codes that aimed to capture the various facets of our theoretical framework (i.e., SIT). These codes aimed to capture interviewees’ perceptions of themselves and others as chemists in social contexts (e.g., classrooms, industry laboratories). In addition, author GC also developed a list of grounded codes to explore unique ways interviews described their perception of chemist archetypes (e.g., “pure” chemists). Some of the grounded codes were inspired by literature on STEM identity formation, such as our focus on how interviewees described their perceptions of what types of performances legitimize individuals as chemists. ,, Author GC then shared and discussed the list of codes with authors RD and SMU. Several discussions related to the code list took place throughout the analysis of the data, each time resulting in the fine-tuning, removal, or addition of codes with the express purpose of identifying evidence more closely aligned with our research questions.

During the coding process we employed a discursive coding approach that allowed us to home in on key patterns of language used by the participants to construct, negotiate, and reinforce social boundaries, paying attention to not only what was said about chemistry people, but how they said it. Through this lens, we coded for instances where participants used language that reflected boundary-setting, in-group/out-group distinctions, and expressions of pride or commitment, as these illuminated how participants constructed and reinforced a shared chemistry identity. We identified that the nature of classification frequently invoked a notion of a “true” or more “legitimate” chemist. The language of classification often involved using evaluative language, such as terms like “pure chemist” and “real chemist” to distinguish a “true” chemist and establish hierarchies and boundaries that distinguished what they perceived as more legitimate members of the chemistry community from others. The fact that multiple participants spontaneously used these more specific qualifiers (e.g., “real”, “pure”) when we asked them about “chemistry person” or “chemist” is what made these terms analytically meaningful to us.

Given that this study employs hermeneutic phenomenology and discursive coding (methodologies less commonly used in chemistry education research), establishing trustworthiness is essential to demonstrate that our findings accurately capture participants’ lived experiences of chemistry identity formation rather than our own interpretive biases. This is particularly important when studying identity, a complex and contested construct that requires careful attention to how participants themselves make meaning of their experiences. Our systematic attention to participants’ own language, combined with collaborative coding involving multiple researchers, iterative refinement of codes, and regular team discussions, ensures that our findings faithfully represent participant experiences (i.e., are credible), are grounded in participant data rather than researcher bias (i.e., are confirmable), are consistent and dependable (i.e., are reliable), and our detailed descriptions of participants and contexts support transferability (i.e., allow readers to assess applicability to their own settings).

Results

In this section, we explore the characteristics that participants identified as central to one’s identity as a chemist or “chemistry person.” Specifically, we examine the criteria they used to categorize or qualify someone as a legitimate chemist and/or “chemistry person,” focusing on the underlying values and boundaries that shape their conceptions of a “real” chemist. Our analysis revealed that participants used the “pure chemist” as the foundational criteria for what constitutes a “real” chemist. These terms are not interchangeable: “pure chemist” represents the idealized archetype/stereotype of a chemist (the gold standard), while “real chemist” refers to those who actually meet the legitimacy criteria based on the pure chemist ideal. This archetype of a “real chemist” embodies a set of characteristics, values, or behaviors that are viewed as characteristic of a “pure chemist”, while also offering insight into those who are perceived as peripheral or not fully fitting this identity. While we preserve participants’ original language in direct quotes, we primarily use “real chemist” in our analysis as this was the term most commonly used when participants evaluated specific individuals or groups within the chemistry community. These distinctions will be further explored in the following sections.

Characterizing the “Real” Chemist

Figure captures what our participants described as the in-group of “real” chemists. Throughout our interviews, we noticed consistent patterns in how participants defined a legitimate chemistry identity. They emphasized that “real” chemists have chemistry degrees and typically work in academic research settings. In addition to the association with academia and research, many participants drew lines between different chemistry fields, seeing organic and inorganic chemists as more authentic than those in analytical or physical chemistry. For example, when asked to describe the characteristics of a chemist, Simon, an early career physical chemist in industry, said, “I identify as a chemist, however, when somebody says, oh, well, I do synthesis as my main focus, I’m like oh, well [making a bowing motion with his hands] that’s a real chemist. Somebody who knows how to use the chemistry to actually make something, because that’s another big piece. I’m not a chemical maker, right? I’m more of an instrument maker or at least my background is.”

3.

Defining characteristics of “real” chemists, according to participants.

Similarly, Priya, an early career biochemist in industry explained, “If I try to see a person as a chemist...I would say someone who was doing more like inorganic chemistry or organic chemistry, like pure chemists with those test tubes wearing goggles...changing color of the solution when you mix two things. Sometimes precipitation happens, sometimes some other reaction happens. Maybe ACS chemists, you know?”

These descriptions reinforce the stereotypical image of a chemist as someone engaged in hands-on laboratory work and reveals the community’s view of pure chemistry as an empirical, experiment-driven science. Working at the atomic and molecular level was emphasized as particularly important, whether in a lab or through computational modeling. Participants also expressed greater value for those who “actually apply chemical knowledge” and those that are “more interested in understanding materials and their interactions,” with a primary focus on chemistry-specific research questions.

Naturally, defining the characteristics of “real” chemists (i.e., the in-group) also revealed who falls outside these boundaries (i.e., the out-groups) as shown in Figure . Our analysis revealed several distinct groups that participants positioned as peripheral or “not real” chemists, along with the reasoning for their exclusion and differentiation. Below, we examine how participants rationalized the exclusion of each group and the boundary work that maintains these divisions. Drawing on Gieryn’s concept of boundary workthe ideological efforts by scientists to distinguish their work from “non-scientific” activities to protect their professional authority and resourceswe can understand these exclusions as broader efforts to define and protect disciplinary status rather than simply individual identity negotiations. Gieryn demonstrated that scientists strategically emphasize different characteristics of scienceempirical versus theoretical, pure versus applieddepending on which ones best help them justify their claims to authority or resources in specific competitive contexts. For example, he showed how Victorian scientist John Tyndall strategically portrayed science as empirical and practically useful when competing with religion, but as theoretical and culturally valuable when competing with mechanical arts. Our findings reveal how chemistry’s exclusionary practices function as boundary work aimed at controlling who has professional credibility by defining certain practitioners as less legitimate. As Gieryn’s foundational work from 1983 demonstrates, these exclusionary dynamics reflect long-standing patterns of disciplinary boundary-making rather than contemporary responses to current political debates. While we are not simply revisiting established ground, our findings across different chemistry contexts underscore the persistent nature of these patterns and their important implications for inclusive disciplinary identity.

4.

Chemistry community’s in-group (i.e., “real” chemists) versus out-groups (i.e., “not real” chemists).

Biochemistry: “Not a Chemistry Field, It’s Biology”

Even though biochemistry as a scientific discipline encompasses chemical principles, our participants often expressed that it is not generally recognized as “real” chemistry, and that biochemists are not seen as “real chemists” by the community. Priya, an early career biochemist in industry, exemplified this tension by sharing: “If I see a biochemistry person I would still call them chemists because they do chemistry, but yeah, that might not be how people look at them...as chemists.” Our findings clearly show that this exclusion can have profound professional impacts, as Madison, a late-career biochemist in academia, recounted:

“When I first started at [university name]...I was coming into a chemistry department...I was asked what my sub discipline was...I said biochemistry, and I was told by several people that ‘Oh, well, that’s not a chemistry field, it’s biology’...I was angry because I was just originally discredited because of something that I chose to study without really anyone knowing a whole lot about me. Just that one word biochemist just made them think of me as not a real chemist.”

This association with biology carries a distinctly negative connotation within chemistry circles. Toby, a bioinorganic chemist in industry, observed: “I’ve had a few of my colleagues in other jobs that they’d look down upon the technicians that had a bachelor’s degree in biology, because they’re like, ‘Oh, it’s not chemistry, it’s not a hard science. They’re just memorization.’” This view was echoed by students like Ethan, an undergraduate biochemistry major, who admitted: “I used to like bio a lot, because I thought that that was the major where you had to think, but I don’t like it too much, because it’s more memorization than anything...” Participants further justified the boundary between chemistry and biology through methodological differences. Violet, a fourth-year biochemistry major, elaborated on this by saying: “I think chemistry people are more like analytical compared to like biology people...They think through every single step.” Aurora, another fourth-year biochemistry major, further distinguished: “In chemistry I think you have to take chances. I mean, in biology, you’re just looking at evolution, what chance do you have to take for that? You identify things that are there.” Across these accounts, participants consistently invoke notions of intellectual “rigor” to distinguish chemistry from biologypositioning chemistry as requiring analytical thinking and problem-solving while characterizing biology as mere memorization. This construction of rigor as a disciplinary boundary-making mechanism will prove central to understanding how participants organize and rank scientific fields throughout our findings.

Chemical Engineering: “If You Don’t Have That Specific Degree, Then You Are Less Than”

Even further removed from the “pure chemistry” ideal is the field of chemical engineering, whose members often struggle to claim legitimacy as chemists at all. As Charlotte observed about a colleague with a chemical engineering background:

“She actually doesn’t perceive herself as a real chemist...She’s actually been in the department for, gosh! Close to 10 years at this point...she’s got some industrial experience, but there’s this weird thing in academia where it’s all about the pedigree, and so, if you don’t have that specific degree, then you are less than. And it’s just like, okay, that’s so wrong...even if it’s not in the discipline, it’s still related to chemistry, right? Like, it’s chemical engineering...I don’t see the difference. But she sees it so acutely that I’m like, yeah, we need to scale this back.”

Chemistry Education: “The Last Resort and the Easier One as Well”

Chemistry education researchers, in particular, reported persistent challenges to their recognition as legitimate chemists. As Stella, an early career chemistry education researcher explained, “With chemistry education, a lot of the time there’s pushback of, 'Oh, you guys aren’t real chemists', or, 'you’re only kind of chemists'...they still get that in departments that are like, 'Oh, you’re just like kindergarten teachers', or 'you’re just babysitting the students and teaching'.” This marginalization is further evidenced in how chemistry education is perceived within departments. As Simon recounted:

“When I was in grad school, that line of 'Are Chem Ed real chemists?' seemed pretty fuzzy to me for sure. And my professor definitely didn’t think Chem Ed was real chemistry, right? So yeah, that was another perception I noticed throughout the students of the class I came up with...Several other people changed and dropped into Chem Ed from other disciplines. And what’s interesting to me about that is it sort of gave this perception that Chem Ed was your last resort to get a PhD. It’s like the last resort, and the easier one as well.”

Traditional chemists’ skepticism toward chemistry education research appears deeply rooted in how they view scientific evidence. As Charlotte explained: “We want to know the rationale of why. We want to know what the endgame is. We want to know the purpose. We’re not going to sit back and just say, ‘Oh, you think that’s a good idea? Okay, we’ll just go with that.’ Convince me that that’s a good idea. Show me the evidence. Show me the proof. And it can’t just be because you think so, like, you’ve got to show me legit. And this is actually where a lot of educational research gets into trouble because they don’t necessarily see the legitimacy of educational research. Right? They’re just like, ‘Oh, somebody just gave a survey. These are just student opinions.’ And there is so much more to it than that. But yeah, so I think that because chemists want the evidence before they’re going to do something, educational evidence is so hard to nail down because it is so different for different contexts, at different institutions.”

This skepticism about the validity of educational research methods often manifests as outright dismissal. Another early career chemistry education researcher, Evelyn, experienced this when a colleague referred to chemistry education research as “the [expletive] I don’t trust”this captures how apprehensions about methodology easily form into total dismissal of the entire legitimacy of a research area. Despite this dismissive attitude toward chemistry education research, its importance is clear. As Rachel observed, “Thank goodness for Chem Ed people, you guys are the only ones that actually enjoy the process of teaching. Because it’s just not like that in universities.”suggesting that despite their marginalization, chemistry education researchers play a vital role in education that traditional chemists may be unwilling or unable to fill.

Industry: “Not Dedicated Enough”

Industrial chemists also found themselves positioned as less authentic than their academic counterparts. The primary reasoning behind this boundary centered on perceived motivations and commitment to “pure” science. As Lucas, a physical chemist in industry, observed:

“I work in industry. And so, even though I can interface with chemists who use lasers [in academia] for these very specific measurements, there’s automatically a divide that’s been put up of: ‘Oh, I went to industry, so therefore I’m not dedicated or I must have failed out somewhere, and that’s why I joined industry,’ when for me it was a decision made more on, am I happy rather than am I capable?”

The Academic Purity Scale: Participants’ Reasoning for Why These Groups Are “Out”

These internal hierarchies are systematically organized through what participants called the “academic purity scale”a framework that ranks disciplines based on their perceived proximity to “pure” science (Figure ). Simon described this scale by referencing a comic that illustrates it and said, “Have you heard of the purity scale, the academic purity scale?...So there’s this XKCD comic...It was like, you have sociologists, psychologists, biologists, chemists, physicists, and then way up the hill over here, you have math, right? So yeah, the idea is like, math is the purest form of science. Physics is applied math, chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry...”

5.

Academic purity scale, showing fields arranged by perceived purity and scientific rigor, with mathematics positioned as the most “pure” and rigorous discipline.

This framework helps explain why certain interdisciplinary fields, despite all being “hybrid,” occupy different positions relative to chemistry’s purity ideal. Physical chemistry, with its connection to physics and mathematics, maintains greater legitimacy within the chemistry community. Theodore, a late-career physical chemist in academia, articulated this by likening chemistry to applied physics, explaining that chemistry “combines the rigor and basic character of science in physics but leads to much more useful applications.” According to Theodore, “chemistry has a very special role” because it retains the rigor of theoretical disciplines like mathematics and physics while also addressing practical problems. He argued that as one moves further down the scalefrom chemistry to biology and medicine”the rigor of science is lost.” (Figure ) This perception of biology as less rigorous extends beyond professional chemists to students, who readily articulate these disciplinary hierarchies as well. Martin, a fourth-year mathematics major, explicitly referenced the same concept behind the academic purity scale while elaborating on his views of a chemistry person. He said, “I’ve gotten to know people from physics. And biology well, it’s not like pure science...Medicine and biology are more focused in memorizing and are studying, studying, studying and printing the pictures of whatever they need...And chemistry is like in the middle, right? Like they have to memorize classes, and also like, use math.” These early perspectives demonstrate how the next generation of scientists are being socialized into understanding legitimacy through theoretical rigor.

This hierarchical organization through the academic purity scale not only defines chemistry’s position relative to other sciences but also creates multiple levels of outsiders within the broader chemistry community. Those working in physical chemistry can maintain closer ties to the purity ideal through their connection to physics and mathematics, while biochemists must constantly negotiate their legitimacy due to their association with biology. Meanwhile, chemical engineers and chemistry education researchers often find themselves furthest from this disciplinary standard, having to justify their very inclusion within the chemistry community. These distinctions reflect not just intellectual categorizations but deeply embedded values about what constitutes legitimate chemical workvalues that privilege theoretical rigor and distance from application as markers of purity.

These dynamics within the chemistry community mirror broader sociological patterns of group identity formation and maintenance. Just as Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory suggests that group members derive their sense of identity not just from their affiliation but from distinguishing themselves from out-groups, “pure” chemists construct their identity in opposition to those they view as less legitimate practitioners. Simon offered a unique perspective on why these boundaries might be particularly strong in chemistry, explaining:

“[In the academic purity scale] Physicists can be more isolated, because, you know, there’s that big gap to math, right? So, their bleeding over still feels physics-y, whereas I feel like chemistry is a little bit narrower, and it bleeds more into the other fields. So, there’s a greater penetration or a ‘higher tunneling probability’ to circle that one back for you.”

This observation suggests that chemistry’s position as the “central science” might actually intensify concerns about maintaining disciplinary boundaries and purity. This pursuit of disciplinary purity draws intriguing parallels with nationalism (i.e., the ideology of promoting and preserving a distinct national identity, such as with the United States’ emphasis on “American values” and resistance to foreign cultural influences). Just as nationalism often strives for cultural homogeneity to preserve the identity of a nation by emphasizing “pure” or “traditional” practices while rejecting foreign influences as a means to maintain cultural distinctiveness and superiority, the “pure” chemist archetype seeks to maintain an unadulterated vision of what it means to be a chemist as a means to preserve disciplinary uniqueness and status.

These rigid boundaries and narrow definitions of chemical identity can ultimately prevent chemists from embracing broader, more inclusive visions of their discipline. As Avery reflects, “If we only think of ourselves as the central science...we never ask where our chemicals come from, or what happens to them after EHS takes them away. We don’t ask ourselves, ‘Oh, if we’re going to do this work with electric chemistry and batteries, where do those minerals come from?’ They come from the Global South. So then, all of a sudden, all these sociological things come in. That’s when I feel more like a chemist: when we talk about the whole system. So, I guess by my previous definition, I wouldn’t consider myself a chemist. But if I think about it more broadly in interdisciplinarity, I do a little bit more.”

Avery’s reflection reveals a profound irony: the very practices meant to preserve chemistry’s disciplinary identity may actually limit its potential impact and relevance. By enforcing rigid boundaries of what counts as “pure” chemistry, the discipline risks excluding those who might help it engage more meaningfully with broader societal challenges. This suggests that the pursuit of disciplinary purity comes at a costnot only to individual chemists who find themselves questioning their legitimacy, but to the field’s ability to fully address the complex, interdisciplinary problems of our time. This critique aligns with systems thinking approaches in chemistry education, which argue that chemistry should not be taught in isolation from the broader world. Rather than weakening chemistry education, research shows that connecting chemical concepts to environmental, social, and economic contexts actually helps students understand chemistry betterthey learn more meaningfully when they can see how chemistry connects to real problems and familiar experiences. Studies across STEM fields demonstrate that systems thinking approaches help students develop higher-order thinking skills, become more active participants in their learning, and make stronger connections both within and between disciplines. In fact, systems thinking has been developed into practical pedagogical tools specifically for chemistry education, providing concrete frameworks for designing instruction that helps students think holistically about chemical phenomena and their broader implications. This directly challenges the “purity” argument: instead of diluting chemistry, engaging with broader societal issues makes chemical thinking stronger and more comprehensive. For chemistry educators, this suggests that engaging meaningfully with broader societal challenges is not only pedagogically valuable but essential for preparing chemists capable of addressing the complex, interdisciplinary problems facing society.

The “Real” Chemists vs Minoritized Racial/Ethnic and Gender Groups

Since chemistry identity does not exist in isolation, the picture becomes significantly more complex when examining how other intersecting layers of identity interact with disciplinary boundaries. The “real chemist” archetype is not merely about academic credentials or research focus; it is also implicitly gendered and racialized, creating multiple, reinforcing systems of exclusion (Figure ).

The academic purity scale that participants used to establish disciplinary legitimacy reveals a striking correspondence with traditional gender hierarchies in STEM. As Simon, a physical chemist in industry, observed: “I mean in biology to chemistry actually, you can definitely see that there are way more female professors in biology compared to chemistry. So I’d say, that’s about where, on that scale that I discussed, it divides. It’s really where the masculine versus feminine ideology could be applied.” (Figure ) This gendered mapping of the purity scale indicates a double burden for women in chemistrynot only are they relegated to a category of less legitimacy for reasons of gender, but also for their choice to work in an area of chemistry that is viewed as more applied or “less pure.”

6.

Academic purity scale revealing gendered hierarchies in STEM, where disciplines with higher female representation are positioned as less rigorous and “less pure.”

In industry, we found this unequal hegemonic masculinity to be especially pervasive. Toby, a bioinorganic chemist in industry, explained: “There is still this whole mentality in a lot of the industrial sector of ‘It’s a man’s world.’ To where: if you’re a male chemist, great. You’ve worked through the ranks. If you’re a female chemist, you don’t have what it takes.” This quote is another demonstration of how the academia/industry divide discussed previously works differently for different people, perhaps even directing women more toward academic careers while reinforcing the idea that work done in industry is masculine.

One of the most substantial descriptions of these dynamics was offered by Simon, who said “There is a good old boys mentality in chemistry.” The “good ol’ boy mentality” refers to a system of informal networks and behaviors, often associated with white males, where loyalty and shared social characteristics, rather than merit or qualifications, are prioritized, potentially leading to exclusionary practices. This reference establishes loyalty and ‘fit’ (as opposed to qualifications or merit), as the basis for belonging in chemistry, far outside of the scientific or technical competence that most disciplinary identity frameworks currently emphasize. These exclusionary practices directly contradict chemists’ self-image as an objective, meritocratic fielda tension we plan to explore further in future studies.

The intersection of disciplinary boundaries with gender and racial/ethnic identity creates multiple levels of outsider status, where individuals must navigate not only questions about their subdisciplinary legitimacy but also assumptions about their fundamental belonging in chemistry based on their demographic characteristics. These intersecting identities reveal that the construction of the “real” chemist is not simply about scientific credentials, but about maintaining a particular vision of who belongs in chemistry’s most valued spaces.

Discussion

Chemists often refer to the discipline itself as the “central science”positioned between physics and biology, connecting to engineering, medicine, materials science, etc. Logically, one could argue this central position would naturally characterize chemistry communities as more open to valuing interdisciplinary work and the professionals who carry it outnot less. However, this study’s findings reveal the opposite: chemists across academic and industry sectors report perceptions of their field as increasingly defensive of who counts as a “real” chemist. This creates a fundamental contradiction between the discourses chemists tend to use to characterize the discipline (i.e., “We’re the central science that connects everything”) and their actual practice or beliefs (“Unless you do pure chemistry in an academic lab, you’re not really a ‘true’ chemist.”). The field is caught between two incompatible visions of itself: the expansive vision, where chemistry is seen as a broad, connecting discipline that bridges multiple fields and applications, and the restrictive vision, where chemistry is viewed as a pure, theoretical discipline that must be protected from the “impurity” of the “not-real-chemistry” fields. The “academic purity scale” becomes a way to explore this tension by mapping the discursive hierarchies through which chemists maintain the field’s “central” status while still excluding those who actually work at the interfaces (biochemists, chemical engineers, etc.). Modern scientific problems (climate change, drug discovery, materials for renewable energy) require interdisciplinary collaboration. Yet, precisely when chemistry communities should be embracing their interdisciplinary connections, our data shows that it is becoming more insular and exclusionary. This suggests that chemistry communities, more broadly speaking, may be struggling in similar and/or related ways to adapt to a scientific world that increasingly requires collaboration over disciplinary purity. The field currently does not know how to be both distinctively “chemistry” and productively interdisciplinary.

The chemists that we interviewed embodied this tension. Their responses to questions about what makes someone a good chemist presented what appears as a cognitive dissonance: while recognizing the scientific and entrepreneurial contributions that chemists have made as a result of interdisciplinary collaborations, they organize internal members of various chemistry communities along hierarchies that are preferential to those carrying out the least amount of interdisciplinary work. They described the traits of a chemistry person using terms like “rigor” and “purity”, which some defended as neutral, scientific criteria and objective measures of quality. However, our data reveals these are not neutral at all; they consistently favor certain groups while disadvantaging others in predictable patterns. The correlation patterns this study revealed include:

• •“Rigor” correlates with masculine-coded disciplines: The fields deemed most “rigorous” (math, physics, chemistry) have higher male representation, while those deemed less rigorous (biology, chemistry education) have higher female representation.

• •“Purity” correlates with white-dominated academic spaces: The “purest” chemistry happens in traditional academic research laboratories, which are disproportionately white spaces, while “applied” or “interdisciplinary” work (often in industry or education) is devalued.

These criteria do not accidently correlate with existing demographicsthey actively maintain them. As Lather states, “Scientists firmly believe that as long as they are not conscious of any bias, they are neutral and objective, when in fact they are only unconscious.” , This dynamic aligns with broader critiques of scientific objectivity: “Research programs that disclose their value-base typically have been discounted as overly subjective and, hence, “nonscientific”. Such views do not recognize the fact that scientific neutrality is always problematic; they arise from a hyperobjectivity, premised on the belief that scientific knowledge is free from social construction.” − When chemists define excellence in ways that grant discursive and structural advantages to those who hold academic research positions, the majority of whom identify as white men, the definition lacks objective quality. The chemists who participated in our study used the language of scientific objectivity to justify and/or critique existing power structures. The deeper implication here is that chemistry’s diversity crisis is not an unfortunate side effect of maintaining high standardsit is a predictable result of how the field has chosen to define those standards.

Significance: Social Identity and Morality

While we have seen how individuals make sense out of their perceptions and experiences through the academic purity scale, Ellemers and colleagues, who have conducted extensive research on the moral dimension of social identity, offer more profound insight into what is happening in the chemistry community. Morals, in general, are understood as a set of principles that help guide people’s perceptions about what is considered acceptable, good, or praiseworthy. , While moral principles are crucial for guiding individuals’ behavior toward what is “right”, Ellemers et al. argue that when members of a group (e.g., political, religious, or professional) agree on which traits or values are “supremely important”such as scientific rigor or objectivity in a community of chemiststhey go on to become part of the collective understanding of what is considered acceptable, good, or praiseworthy, setting the standards for evaluating who truly represents the group’s identity and qualifies as a “real” or “proper” group member (Figure ).

7.

Moral dimension of chemistry identity development: “real” chemists are maintained as morally superior (acceptable, good, praiseworthy) while out-groups are positioned as morally inferior (i.e., “less rigorous,” “less pure”).

Ellemers et al.’s work emphasizes that these moral standards are socially constructed and context-dependent, meaning that they are often selectively elevated by the group to reinforce key social identification processes. Specifically, these shared moral standards support social categorization by helping to define the traits and qualities associated with “true” members (i.e., the in-group) and those associated with “outsiders” (i.e., the out-groups). From this, individuals can evaluate whether they identify with the group norms, values, and take actions to either accept and internalize them, or reject them (social identification). With these shared moral values, members can also feel a sense of commonality and understanding, which helps strengthen group identity and individuals’ commitment to the group’s collective goals. As a result, group members view their own actions as part of a larger, meaningful collective mission, reinforcing behaviors consistent with the group’s identity and creating a strong alignment between personal identity and group identity.

Furthermore, since these standards define what is morally valued and “right,” they facilitate social comparison processes that allow in-group members to view their group favorably against others. Building on Ellemers et al.’s work, this process is psychologically crucial because individuals derive part of their self-concept from their group memberships. When in-group members can establish that their group is positively distinct from out-groupssuperior rather than merely differentit directly enhances their own sense of self-worth and validates their group membership. The key insight here is that, in a morality-based culture, it is not enough for a group to just be different from othersit must be better. If chemistry were just seen as “different but equal” to other fields, it would not give its members that positive boost to their identity. However, if chemistry is viewed as more rigorous, more scientific, more intellectually demanding, then being a chemist makes people feel good about themselves.

Why Exclusions Persist

When groups establish what makes them “positively distinct,” they often do so by defining standards that favor their own members while disadvantaging others. So, “rigor” becomes the valued trait, and systematically, the way the group defines and measures “rigor” tends to favor people who are already insiders while making it harder for others to be seen as belonging. In this way, exclusion is framed as maintaining quality/scientific integrity rather than bias or discrimination, making it harder to challenge.

Within social groups (in this case, chemistry communities), members typically navigate the pressures to secure their own belonging and acceptance within that group to avoid the psychological distress of rejection or marginalization. Since these standards determine one’s status, belonging, and respect within the group, people often prioritize in-group judgements and conform to established norms, even when these standards may be harmful and disadvantage others. In effect, exclusion persists because people have psychological needs around acceptance and belonging. However, it also persists because it remains largely invisible to those who perpetuate it. The very people with the power to change these systems are also those who benefit from them, and they genuinely believe they are upholding important scientific principles rather than perpetuating exclusion.

While these systemic dynamics create powerful pressures toward conformity and exclusion, it is important to recognize that individuals within the chemistry community are not passive recipients of these norms. Some chemists, including those who might be considered part of the ‘pure’ chemistry establishment, actively work to challenge these exclusionary practices and advocate for more inclusive definitions of scientific rigor and legitimacy. The patterns described here reflect broader structural forces within the chemistry community that emerged consistently across our participants’ experiences, rather than universal behaviors of all community members.

Impact

These dynamics create a double bind for marginalized out-groups: speaking up marks them as even less of a “true” member, while conforming to the group requires denying aspects of themselves or their experiences. For in-group members who are invested in maintaining current practices, our analysis suggests the cost of change may feel existentialaltering these practices could threaten not just established ways of doing things, but their core sense of professional identity and self-worth. Unfortunately, we found this identity-based exclusion to have a direct impact on persistence and retention in chemistry. When individuals cannot see themselves as legitimate members of the chemistry communityor when the community consistently signals that they do not belongthey often make the rational decision to leave. Clara, a Hispanic, female, chemistry education researcher in academia, described such an experience and said, “I moved institutions, and the environment was incredibly toxic and then I realized I don’t have to be here. It doesn’t matter that I’m a woman or I am the only one who looks like me in my department, I don’t have to take this.”

Similarly, Evelyn, a White, female, academic chemist who conducts chemistry education research shared:

“I know of very good colleagues in the field, who I care about a lot that have been very successful doing chemistry education research. In their departments, however, they have not received the respect they deserve and did not receive the support of their department chairs, despite being tremendously successful. And I’m talking about just amazing achievements and recognitions and awards. They are dismissed by colleagues in the departments to the point where these people, they transferred universities because it’s very hard to be in that kind of environment.”

These voices reveal a troubling reality: while students today navigate increasingly interdisciplinary environments and employers seek graduates with collaborative skills across multiple fields, some chemistry programs may maintain a culture that tends to prioritize disciplinary purity and traditional rigor. This disconnect can create an identity crisis for students, who may find themselves caught between the narrow specialization valued in their academic training and the collaborative interdisciplinary orientation often required for their future careers. The result appears to be a fundamental mismatch between how their educational training in chemistry shapes them and what their lived experiences and professional prospects actually demand. Our findings suggest that the chemistry community is not just losing members or experiencing difficulties with attracting and retaining diverse membersit is fundamentally excluding whole perspectives and methodologies that could contribute to the advancement of the field. When belonging is contingent upon and cultivated through conformity to arbitrary cultural markers, the field undermines its own stated commitment to empirical rigor and evidence-based thinking. This creates a troubling contradiction: chemistry demands critical thinking about scientific problems while discouraging critical examination of its social problems.

Conclusions and Implications

The critical question now becomes: is chemistry’s pursuit of disciplinary purity making it less effective at solving the problems it should be solving? This study suggests the answer might be yesand that this problem extends far beyond chemistry alone. This presents a fundamental challenge for science policy and education: how can we maintain disciplinary expertise while fostering the interdisciplinary collaboration necessary to address complex global challenges? While there exist a variety of solutions we might propose, the qualitative nature of our study prompts us to frame this study as a generative tool that readers can adapt and apply in their own institutional contexts, rather than offer prescriptive recommendations. Our findings and methodology provide concrete starting points for examining and potentially transforming boundary work in chemistry communities.

For chemistry departments and professional organizations, this work offers a framework for examining how disciplinary boundaries are drawn through hiring practices, curriculum design, and informal definitions of legitimate chemistry. The interview prompts we developed could be adapted for focus groups or surveys within departments to surface implicit assumptions about who counts as a “real” chemist and how these perceptions influence evaluation processes.

For researchers and educators, our conceptual framework of the “academic purity scale” and analysis of moral dimensions of identity provide analytical tools for studying boundary work in their own settings. The patterns we identifiedcorrelations between “rigor” and masculine-coded disciplines, between “purity” and white-dominated academic spacesoffer specific phenomena to investigate in local contexts.

For practical implementation, departments might use our findings to:

• Audit language in job descriptions, promotion criteria, and departmental communications for exclusionary assumptions

• Examine whether evaluation criteria inadvertently devalue interdisciplinary work

• Create structured opportunities for dialogue about what constitutes legitimate chemical practice

• Develop mentoring programs that explicitly address identity navigation for chemists working across disciplinary boundaries

For reflection and alignment, we invite stakeholders (e.g., administration and CEOs) to engage in dialogue using questions such as:

• What types of achievements does your community celebrate publicly (in newsletters, Web sites, meetings, awards)?

• When colleagues are introduced at conferences or meetings, what accomplishments are typically highlighted?

• Which types of work lead to the highest professional recognition and respect in your community?

• What types of valuable work tend to go unrecognized or receive little acknowledgment?

• What standards are used to assign value to professional practices? To what extent do these grant value to interdisciplinary work?

• What structures exist to thoughtfully question evaluation standards? Whose opinions carry the most/least weight in these discussions?

• Do the archetypes of those who embody your community’s standards reflect the characteristics of the community you wish to create?

• How might changes to evaluation practices favor interdisciplinary approaches? To what extent might those changes challenge your own position in the community?

In answering these questions, we invite chemists and other stakeholders to embrace what we term as “confident interdisciplinarity”: the recognition that true disciplinary strength comes not from excluding others but from engaging productively with diverse perspectives and methodologies. This shift demands that chemistry move beyond defensiveness about its boundaries toward curiosity about what lies beyond them.

Ultimately, this study suggests that chemistry’s future vitality depends on resolving the tension between its aspirations as the “central science” and its practices of disciplinary exclusion. The field must choose whether to continue policing narrow definitions of legitimate chemical practice or to embrace the broader, more inclusive vision of chemistry that its central position in the sciences both enables and demands. The cost of maintaining current exclusionary practicesmeasured in lost talent, missed innovations, and diminished capacity to address global challengesfar exceeds any benefits of disciplinary purity. The question is not whether chemistry can afford to change, but whether it can afford not to.

Glossary

Abbreviations

MoChI

Measure of Chemistry Identity

SIT

Social Identity Theory

ACS

American Chemical Society

HIS

Hispanic-Serving Institution

MSIs

Minority Serving Institutions

FFRDC

Federally Funded Research and Development Center

FIU

Florida International University

IRB

Institutional Review Board

The manuscript was written through contributions of authors GC, RD, and SMU. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

We would like to thank Florida International University and University of Miami for institutional support for this project. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations are expressed by the authors.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.