1.1 Scientists’ responses to climate change

Scientists have a history of engaging directly in social and environmental protest. Notable examples include Carl Sagan’s protests against nuclear testing [15,16] and NASA climate scientist James Hansen’s multiple arrests [17]. Recent years have seen a marked increase in both the visibility and scale of scientist participation in activism. In the present day, groups like S4XR and Scientist Rebellion (SR) have engaged in high-profile actions, including obstructing fossil fuel infrastructure, leaking IPCC reports, and pasting scientific papers on government buildings [18–21]. These actions challenge conventional expectations of scientific neutrality [8]. While norms of impartiality and objectivity discourage political action [12,13,22,23], many argue that the scale and urgency of the crisis make such detachment untenable [10,11]. These tensions reflect diverse scientist identity constructions [8,9], shaped by differing epistemological commitments and views on public communication of science [24]. Understanding how scientists come to adopt activist identities, feel empowered as part of activist groups, and act raises critical questions about the psychological and social processes underpinning this transformation.

1.2 Becoming a scientist-activist: Identity, empowerment, and change

Protests are dynamic spaces that both reflect society and act as spaces for social change [25,26]. Crowd actions are guided by shared social identities that align personal goals with the group’s objectives fostering cohesion, solidarity, collective efficacy, and empowerment [26–29]. Within these spaces, the extent to which scientists identify as activists is a critical factor in determining both the likelihood and sustainability of their engagement [9,14]. This mirrors findings in the wider literature on collective action, where activist identification is strongly linked to participation [30–32].

Collective action emerges through both intergroup and intragroup interactions. Intergroup interactions with governments, media, corporations, or police can catalyse identity re-categorisation, shifting people from personal identities to a shared activist identity in response to perceived injustice [27]. Moments of opposition or repression, such as clashes with police or corporations, can redraw group boundaries and strengthen a unified sense of “we” [27,29,33]. Intragroup ties, by contrast, provide the social glue that sustains activism, offering emotional reinforcement, trust, and intellectual validation [33–35]. Shared, emotionally intense experiences tied to a common identity can further strengthen solidarity and commitment [36].

Emotions are central to mobilisation. Shared intense experiences strengthen solidarity and commitment [36] and emotions linked to collective efficacy and injustice appraisals are associated with intentions to act, including support for non-normative protest when civil disobedience is seen as effective [37–40].

Shared norms also shape tactics and align behaviour with collective goals [26], such as commitment to nonviolent action or collective decision-making. In environmental movements, coalitions of subgroups with distinct norms and values, these norms are continually negotiated. For example, faith-based groups may emphasise moral and spiritual responsibilities, while scientists leverage disciplinary expertise [8,41,42]. Such diversity can enrich collaboration but also generate friction over messaging and tactics. For scientists professional norms of objectivity, neutrality, and rationality may conflict with activist norms of emotional expression, moral urgency, and disruption [8]. Scientists may struggle with the certainty with which non-scientist activists present scientific evidence.

For scientists, the inflection point, their initial active involvement, marks a critical juncture in assessing whether their professional identity fits within the collective, a process that can be understood in terms of inter-identity fit between scientist and activist identities [9]. Participation can reshape identities [25] and trigger biographical changes, new relationships, skills, and political identities, that sustain involvement [29,33]. Positive reinforcement, such as peer support or public validation, can foster empowerment, solidarity, and moral conviction, reinforcing their commitment to collective goals [28].This reflects a bidirectional relationship between activism and moral conviction: engagement strengthens moralised attitudes, which then drive continued participation [43]. Symbolic actions, such as wearing lab-coats during protests, can support this transformation by affirming expertise while signalling ethical commitment. Over time, these dynamics can redefine what it means to be a scientist, enabling individuals to frame activism as an extension of their professional responsibility to act on evidence. This can lead to a hybrid “scientist-activist” identity that integrates disciplinary expertise with the moral and strategic aims of the movement [8,9], and is often accompanied by a scepticism toward techno-solutionism and a preference for systemic change over purely technological fixes [9,42]. Scientists’ constructions of the future, whether seen as fixed and inevitable or contingent and transformable, further shape both the urgency and scale of their preferred solutions [42].

However, this research tells us little about how these positions are performed, negotiated, and sustained within collective action over time, or how professional identity is managed in situ. This ethnography addresses this gap by tracing the critical moments through which scientists enter, negotiate, and sustain activism, and develops a three-stage framework to analyse these processes over time. The framework captures both the social psychological mechanisms underpinning these transitions and their practical implications for mobilising scientists in climate action.

2.1 Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Lancaster Faculty of Science and Technology Ethics Board for both fieldwork (approval reference FST-2022–0731-RECR-4) and interviews (approval reference FST-2021–0617-RECR-2). The study involved overt participant-observation with ongoing disclosure of my researcher role. Participants were informed of the researcher’s role and the aims of the study, and participation was voluntary. Given the open, fluid, and evolving nature of the group, consent was approached as a collective and ongoing process rather than a single one-time event. Verbal consent was established publicly in group settings and reaffirmed through continued dialogue with members throughout fieldwork. Participants were given repeated opportunities to ask questions, provide feedback, or withdraw.

For the interview component, participants provided signed informed consent prior to participation. Interviews were conducted from June 2022 through December 2022.

2.2 Research context

Scientists for Extinction Rebellion (S4XR), founded in 2019, is a UK-based network of roughly 400 natural and social scientists aligned with Extinction Rebellion. Members use disciplinary expertise and professional credibility to foreground the scientific basis for protest, employing symbolic actions such as wearing lab-coats and pasting peer-reviewed articles in public spaces. The group facilitates scientist participation across a range of roles, from science communication to civil disobedience, and provides visible scientific support to XR campaigns [44]. It has produced resources for outreach and education, including The Emergency on Planet Earth guide [45]. S4XR have four goals: (1) Facilitating scientist engagement in activism and civil disobedience [46]; (2) Providing visible scientific support for XR through media and public demonstrations [47]; (3) Enhancing XR’s scientific communication efforts, bridging the gap between research and activism; and (4) Building connections between XR and scientific institutions.

2.3 Data collection

Access was obtained through open public online S4XR meetings advertised via the group’s website. I joined as a member prior to formal ethical approval in order to familiarise myself with the group, build trust, and openly disclose my research intentions. The aims and nature of the proposed research were first disclosed in an open S4XR meeting in early 2021, where I introduced the project as examining why scientists do and do not engage in activism, and explained my role as a researcher to group members. This period provided multiple opportunities to communicate research aims in group meetings and individually. This time informed my reflexive and auto-ethnographic understanding of the field, but no observational data from this period were treated as formal research data. Formal ethnographic fieldwork began following ethical approval, 28^th of March 2022–25^th of April 2023, extending slightly beyond the anticipated end date stated in the original ethics application (31^st of March 2023). No changes were made to the approved procedures.

Dialogues with participants continued after fieldwork concluded, including opportunities for member checking and review of representations of actions and statements used in this paper. These dialogues informed the survey and interview research, reflecting questions participants raised regarding scientist activism and their own experiences [8,9,42].

2.3.1 Field sites and key actions observed.

The author was an active S4XR member from 2021 to 2023, participating in meetings, trainings, and protests. Four major actions form the empirical core of this paper, all taking place between the 28^th of March 2022 to the 25^th of April 2023 (see Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Field sites and key actions observed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000828.t001

2.4 Data analysis: A narrative and abductive approach

This study employed an abductive approach [55], in which analysis emerged iteratively from fieldnotes, participant dialogues, and additional data sources. Themes were refined in dialogue with literature on scientist-activism [8,9,14,42] allowing for interplay between observations and theory. Rather than applying a strictly inductive or deductive framework, this process engaged both emergent patterns in the data and conceptual developments in the literature, leading to the identification of key identity processes, symbolic actions, and mechanisms of sustained activist engagement.

Discussions with S4XR members during fieldwork also informed the development of question prompts later used in related survey and interview research within the project [8,9,42]; in turn, emerging patterns from that work fed back into the abductive analysis here. This iterative exchange sharpened categories around identity performance, credibility management, and role strain.

Reflexive writing was integral to this process. Rather than coding data in isolation, meaning was constructed through narrative, with categories developing in tandem with the writing process. Key moments of activism, such as mass mobilisations, group actions, and interactions with police or the public, were treated as identity-relevant episodes, through which the lived tensions of scientist-activism became visible. This narrative-based approach [56] ensured that analysis remained situated within the temporal and social context of activism, rather than being reduced to decontextualised themes. The final structure of the results, initial engagement, identity negotiation, and sustaining high-cost action, reflects this iterative process of abductive reasoning, reflexive engagement, and theoretical refinement.

2.5 The ethics of activist research

Ethical considerations in activist research extend beyond formal procedures to the situational, reflexive decisions required throughout data collection, analysis, and write-up [57]. This requires careful attention to issues of anonymity, researcher positionality, participant representation, and harm mitigation. Given the public nature of many scientist-activist actions, balancing transparency with participant protection presents a unique challenge [58]. A relational ethic of caring and compassion [53,59] was adopted so that published findings “do no harm” to those being studied. Strategies included anonymisation, selective attribution, member checking, and continuous consent [60].

This also involved ‘taking the side’ of scientist-activists [61], reflecting my pre-existing alignment with the movement. While this can deepen insight, it raises concerns about bias, as researchers may be perceived as advocates rather than neutral observers, potentially undermining credibility. At the same time, attempts to adopt a detached stance may restrict access, as researchers risk being seen as untrustworthy or duplicitous, limiting the quality of data collected [61]. Rather than claiming neutrality, I incorporated autoethnography to examine how my positionality shaped both access and interpretation. Acknowledging the risk of over-identification, I mitigated bias through triangulation with external data sources, including media reports, movement documents, and social media records. The extensive public documentation of many activist events, through traditional media, photography, and video, ensured that the analysis did not rely solely on insider perspectives, further strengthening analytic validity [62,63]. A comprehensive account of the ethical strategies adopted in this study, including procedural safeguards, relational ethics, and reflexive documentation, is available in the Supplementary Materials (see S4 Appendix).

3.1 Introducing the scientist-activist trajectory

Large-scale XR actions such as the April Rebellion in 2022 [64], and the Big One in 2023 [65,66], serve as identity-centring spaces where participants can consolidate belonging and enact alternatives to the status quo [67,68]. These identity-aligned spaces shape activist identities, reinforcing solidarity, agency, and collective efficacy, empowering participants and sustaining engagement [28,67,69,70]. For scientists, such spaces can function as gateways into activism. As one newcomer explained after joining the Big One “It was important to me to see how many people are passionate about this issue […] especially other scientists. It made me feel less alone in both my concerns and my actions” (fieldnote).

Scholars have long explored how individuals move from concern to engagement. Klandermans and Oegema [71] proposed a four-step model; sympathy, mobilisation, motivation, and overcoming barriers. Dablander et al. [14] distinguished between barriers that deter willingness and those that deter action. These barriers can be intellectual, questions of legitimacy and identity, or practical, such as fears about career repercussions or not knowing what to do. Scientists’ professional identities introduce unique challenges to activism, requiring careful identity negotiation to maintain credibility while embracing advocacy [8,9].

The findings are structured around a process-oriented framework that emerged organically through the analysis of data, reflecting the temporal progression of how scientists experience and evolve within activism. This three-stage model reflects how scientists transition into activism, negotiate their identities within it, and sustain engagement over time (see Fig 1):

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Three stage process model of scientists’ pathways into activism, identity negotiation, and sustained engagement.

Note. This model is most applicable to scientists who draw on their scientific identity in public-facing activism; engagement in activism itself is optional rather than normative for scientists. However, some of the processes identified here (e.g., identity negotiation, audience expectations, and the role of social support) may extend to scientists engaged in advocacy more broadly. Among those who do engage, the outlined processes may support sustained involvement. For some, these processes may make higher-cost forms of action feel possible. Escalation is not an expected progression for all scientist-activists, rather the model highlights the psychological and relational conditions that make such actions feel possible for some. Figure icons and graphical elements created by Dr. Nuri Kwon (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0503-1343) (Table 2).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000828.g001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Stages of scientist–activist transformation and identity negotiation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000828.t002

1. Pathways into Activism
2. Managing the Scientist Identity: Negotiation and Performance
3. Sustaining Action: Motivation and High-Cost Actions

Each stage involves distinct psychological and social processes, shaped in part by how the “scientist” identity is symbolically performed and perceived, especially through visible markers such as the lab-coat. The table below summarises these stages alongside identity dynamics and S4XR’s role in enabling participation.

3.2 Pathways into activism

For many scientists, the decision to engage in activism is preceded by uncertainty and self-reflection. Questions such as “Is activism right for me?”, “Am I the right kind of scientist?”, “What will others think?”, and “What can I do?” reveal intellectual and practical barriers shaped by professional norms, identity, and risk appraisal. A primary deterrent is fear of professional or legal consequences. Many worry that civil disobedience could trigger institutional backlash, reputational damage, or arrest. Low-risk actions therefore provide accessible entry points for those willing to engage but hesitant to take on high personal risk. The Big One, a large-scale XR demonstration in April 2023, was explicitly non-disruptive and police-sanctioned, offering a safer space for first-time participants, scientists included, who may “worry about the risk of arrest.” One scientist described why they chose it as their first action:

While I have followed XR actions in the past, The Big One offered an easy entry point to joining an action, for me at least [...], as the focus was very clearly on peaceful demonstration rather than civil disobedience, which felt less daunting for a newcomer.

(participant communication)

By lowering perceived risk, events like The Big One helped bridge the gap from sympathiser to actor [71,72]. Scientists who start with lower-risk, socially sanctioned actions may develop feelings of legitimacy, belonging, self-efficacy, and empowerment, increasing confidence to take further steps [28,70,73]. However, even in low-risk contexts, many experience deeper discomfort stemming from a cultural mismatch between scientific and activist norms: neutrality versus advocacy, restraint versus urgency. These tensions can inhibit even sympathetic scientists from taking first steps.

3.3 Managing the scientist identity: Negotiation and performance

Scientists who enter activist spaces navigate tensions between professional norms of objectivity and neutrality and the emotional, disruptive, morally charged nature of activism. These negotiations occur internally, as participants reconcile their roles as scientists and activists, and externally, as they engage with the public, media, and other activists. Over time, the scientist identity may evolve, becoming moralised and hybrid, blending scientific expertise with activist urgency.

3.4 Sustaining action: Motivation and high-cost actions

We sheltered discreetly in an alley around the corner from the government department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, my heart pounding. Lab-coats with the freshly printed “New Oil and Gas = Death” message were hidden beneath long coats. Moving in small groups to avoid rousing attention, we positioned ourselves across from the building. Suddenly, a loud cry and flare smoke signalled XR activists’ distraction at the BEIS entrance. S4XR members seized the moment. No time to think, I darted across the road, weaving through traffic to film the action. Scientists pasted peer-reviewed papers to the windows; others glued their hands beside them. A vanguard held placards aloft. Within two hours nine scientists were arrested.

This episode opens a window on how commitment is sustained and higher-cost action becomes possible. Most do not begin with a readiness to risk arrest. Participation builds through a gradual layering of moral commitment, group bonding, and a sense of efficacy.

4.1 What this study shows

This ethnography traces a three-stage trajectory in scientist-activism: identity-aligned entry, negotiation and performance of the scientist identity in public action, and the non-linear work of sustaining commitment and escalating action. The psychological mechanisms familiar in collective action, collective efficacy, empowerment, solidarity and moral conviction, are not unique to scientists [73], but here they intersect with professional norms, credibility concerns and the social meanings attached to scientific expertise. This extends recent work showing that scientists’ willingness hinges on identity fit, credibility, and risk management [8,9,14] by making visible the practices through which those concerns are negotiated in situ.

4.2 Identity-aligned spaces and unifying symbols

Entry points that align with scientific identity, such as public science communication and clearly scoped roles, lower first-step costs by legitimising participation and modelling how to “be a scientist” in action. In these identity-aligned spaces, peer support and learning foster belonging, self-efficacy, and empowerment, easing the transition into activism and helping participants work through tensions between science and protest [8,28,35,73]. Scientific symbols such as the lab-coat make scientist-activists visible and unified, and help seed a hybrid scientist-activist identity as a vehicle for social change [26]. Yet such symbols delimit who feels able to participate, particularly for social scientists who do not identify with laboratory dress [75,79].

4.3 Sustaining and escalating action

Factors associated with sustaining action include moralisation and politicisation of the scientist identity; moral emotions (especially anger and moral outrage); feeling useful; and perceptions of collective efficacy and psychological empowerment within supportive groups. These align with prior work linking identity, emotion, moral values, and efficacy to continued participation [28,37,43,73]. In practice, care practices, self-determined skills-matched roles; explicit permission not to escalate; on-site wellbeing; and post-action debriefs, lowered perceived costs and buffered burnout.

These processes are further reinforced by the alignment of collective and individual aims: contributing to a group’s goals can confer tangible psychological and social rewards such as enhanced self-esteem, empowerment, personal efficacy, relationships, and purpose (‘feeling one is doing the right thing’) [29,37,91]. In this way, individual benefits are intertwined with, and often emerge through, participation in collective action.

For some, these processes, combined with frustration at the perceived limits of conventional science communication, made non-normative tactics (including civil disobedience) feel proportionate, possible, and necessary, but not for all. Risk thresholds shift unevenly with experience and adaptation, while professional, personal, and ethical considerations continue to gate decisions [8,38,39,100]. In sum, sustained engagement reflects an ongoing calibration among identity, emotion, efficacy, and care rather than a linear progression to higher risk actions.

4.4 Identity performance and audience interactions

Public action required performing a scientist identity before multiple audiences: public, police, fellow activists, media, each with different expectations. Dress and artefacts (e.g., lab-coats; pasted papers) signal role and status, shaping interactional openings and constraints [79,76,92]. Authority is interactional and contextual while the boundaries of “real science” are drawn and redrawn continually [89,102]. Symbols amplified visibility and sometimes smoothed interactions but also invited expectations of universal expertise and exposed intra-movement gatekeeping (e.g., “are you a real scientist?”). To mitigate the risk of straying beyond one’s proximate expertise [88], participants clarified specialisms, used collaboratively prepared materials by respective experts, and, at times, stated scope and limits.

Evidence on the credibility impacts of scientist advocacy are mixed and depend on audience, context, and the form of action, as identified in a recent review into the reasons for, and consequences of, scientist advocacy [103]. Policy advocacy does not, in general, diminish credibility [104,105], and in certain cases can increase credibility [106]. However, context, political orientation of the audience, and the specific policy, affect this [105,107–110]. Initial work on more activist and disruptive forms of engagement has produced mixed results. Some experimental research found that civil-disobedience involvement did not undermine research credibility [111], while other research found no negative source or general credibility impacts when comparing environmental scientists who endorse protest with scientists who participate in either legal marches or civil disobedience [112]. However, other experimental research has found that scientists engaging in conventional activism (i.e., holding a protest sign) were perceived as slightly less competent and more hypocritical than non-activist scientists, with stronger negative effects observed for scientists engaging in civil disobedience [113]. In addition, presenting oneself as an ‘activist scientist’ was found to negatively affect the scientist’s perceived reliability [114]. This mixed picture emerging from the most recent experimental work, coupled with contested views of advocacy and activism within the scientific community, highlights the need for more empirical research [103]. Relatedly, these credibility concerns sit within a broader political climate that is itself changing, shaping both the risks associated with public action and how scientists weigh decisions about whether, and how, to participate.

4.5 The wider political context

Globally, the political climate has grown increasingly hostile toward climate activists alongside rising populism and misinformation [2,115,116,117]. In the UK, recent government rhetoric has framed climate activists as “extremist,” and introduced harsher penalties for peaceful civil disobedience, raising the material costs of participation [115,116,118–120]. For scientist-activists, these developments heighten concerns about personal risk, professional security, and reputational consequences, particularly for those in precarious positions or with immigration constraints.

At the same time, science itself has become politically charged, with public debates over neutrality, institutional independence, and the appropriate boundaries of scientific authority [121–124]. Recent ‘Stand Up for Science’ demonstrations across the USA and Europe [121], echoing 2017’s ‘March for Science’ [77], illustrate how scientific identity has been drawn into broader struggles over democratic norms and truth claims.

These broader shifts, alongside debates about the ‘right methods’ of activism [125], complicate decisions about whether, and how, to act: they heighten the stakes of public action, intensify scrutiny of scientists’ credibility and legitimacy, and make the performance of scientific identity in activist contexts an increasingly delicate task. This points to the strategic necessity of offering varied levels of engagement within movements, allowing individuals to participate meaningfully, even if they cannot afford high-risk roles.

4.6 Implications for groups and institutions

This case study of S4XR points to practical design choices that helped some scientists participate and stay involved: clearly signposted low-risk entry roles; skills-matched, identity-consistent tasks during actions; optional pathways to higher-risk roles; and care woven into operations. Beyond street protest, scientists can contribute in a variety of ways to social movements (e.g., research and teaching) [126].

There are trade-offs. Bringing a distinct “scientist” identity into protest risks gatekeeping and misaligned expectations. To protect credibility while widening participation, groups should make expertise boundaries explicit, keep scientists’ roles transparent, and offer adjacent ally roles for non-scientists. Additionally, groups could diversify visual signifiers beyond the lab-coat and normalise a wider repertoire of “what a scientist looks like” in action.

Finally, insofar as some scientist-activism reflects frustration with the limits of conventional science communication, universities, funders, and professional societies may wish to revisit the science–society contract: broaden recognised routes to impact; acknowledge evidence-led public and policy engagement as legitimate scholarly work (e.g.,[10]), and offer clear guidance on rights, responsibilities, and reputational risk.

Of course, while this study focused on scientists who choose to enter activist spaces, it represents only one of several routes for engagement with the climate crisis. These include conventional science communication, adjusting personal behaviour, or engaging in activism as a private citizen thereby separating their scientist and activist roles.

4.7 Limitations and future directions

As a single-case ethnography, the aim was not population-level generalisation but to offer process insights that readers can assess for applicability in comparable contexts. The author’s positionality negotiated access to processes that are hard to capture otherwise but also risks over-identification. Triangulation with public documentation and academic literature helped mitigate this. The study does not quantify audience effects, nor does it compare alternative iconographies or organisational models across settings.

Nevertheless, the research has identified various avenues for future research. First, performance of scientist identity and expertise: when and how do visible cues and role claims unify or divide scientists across disciplines and career stages; what alternative ways of signalling expertise make diverse contributions legible without reproducing hierarchies? Second, how does performance of expertise shape interactions with different audiences: under what conditions does public action by scientists maintain, enhance, or erode perceptions of credibility and trust in science, and how do these effects vary across political orientations, media framings, and repertoires of action? Third, biographical consequences: what are the longer-term trajectories of participants, do they remain in their disciplines and roles, shift agendas, or move into new ventures? Comparative ethnographies and longitudinal designs (across countries, disciplines, and movement contexts), coupled with experimental and mixed-methods studies of audience reception, would test the scope and limits of these processes beyond this case.

4.8 Concluding reflection

As a researcher and participant in these spaces, I find myself continually reflecting on what it means to respond to a crisis of this scale. The growing urgency of climate change, alongside the political and social constraints on action, prompt difficult questions about responsibility, risk, and impact. My research and experience attest that there is no single “right” way to contribute. Rather, scientists, and indeed all members of society, must navigate a spectrum of possible responses, balancing professional, ethical, and personal considerations in responding to the climate and nature crisis.