Between two worlds: the scientist’s dilemma in climate activism

The paper addresses how environmentally concerned scientists navigate a core dilemma: reconciling traditional scientific norms of objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality with the perceived moral imperative to act amid the climate and ecological crisis. In recent years, the March for Science (2017) and the rise of scientist-led movements (e.g., Scientists for Extinction Rebellion, Scientist Rebellion) have catalyzed engagement beyond conventional roles, expanding the scientist-as-communicator to include public advocacy and activism. The authors distinguish advocacy (persuading in support of a cause) from activism (direct, noticeable action for social or political outcomes) and focus on activism as an active form of advocacy. Despite increasing legitimacy for scientist advocacy within academia and public discourse, actual engagement lags behind willingness due to factors such as workload, efficacy doubts, institutional constraints, and concerns about credibility. This study aims to examine, through analysis of scientists’ language, the strategies (linguistic repertoires and subject positions) scientists use to manage this ideological dilemma and to legitimize or constrain activist engagement.

The paper situates its inquiry within debates on the science–advocacy boundary and the value-free ideal, including arguments for maintaining separation to protect integrity and alternative views that science is inherently entangled with social, cultural, and political contexts. Prior work highlights scientists’ evolving roles from neutral experts to advocates/activists, the social identity processes shaping collective action, and public trust in scientists. Surveys indicate broad public and scientific support for evidence-based advocacy, yet perceived threats to credibility and institutional barriers persist. The literature also notes pluralistic ignorance—scientists privately support advocacy but assume peers do not—and mixed recommendations about whether scientists should directly participate in activism or support movements by supplying facts and materials. This backdrop frames the study’s focus on how identity constructions and discursive choices enable or inhibit engagement.

Design and approach: The study used a qualitative critical discourse psychology (CDP) approach to analyze how scientists linguistically construct identities and manage ideological dilemmas around climate activism. CDP emphasizes interpretive repertoires and subject positions, and how discourse reflects and shapes social identities and power relations. The preregistered intent to use thematic analysis shifted to discourse analysis as the data’s rhetorical and dilemmatic nature emerged. Participants and recruitment: Natural and social scientists concerned about climate change, regardless of their activism status, were recruited via an invitation appended to a larger online survey on scientist activism engagement (final survey N = 239; 77 indicated interest in interviews). Recruitment occurred via Twitter and scientific societies/centers (e.g., CAST at Cardiff, Lund Sustainability Institute, Lancaster Environment Centre). Interviews were conducted June–December 2022; survey data were collected February–October 2022. Participation was unpaid and opportunistic, aiming for disciplinary and demographic diversity. Sample: N = 27. Gender: ~59.26% male, ~41% female. Age: M = 40.19 years (SD = 12.93; range 24–77). Nationality: UK 44.44%, USA 11.11%, Australia 7.4%, Belgium 7.4%, Ireland 7.4%, Estonia 3.7%, Germany 3.7%, Malta 3.7%, South Africa 3.7%, Spain 3.7%. Country of residence: UK 74.07%, Australia 11.11%, Ireland 7.4%, Austria 3.7%, Spain 3.7%. Education: PhD 59.26%, Masters 37.04%, Bachelors 3.7%. Disciplines spanned natural and social sciences (e.g., Biology, Ecology, Physics, Psychology, Economics, Earth Science). Activism profile: 48.14% belonged to direct-action groups (e.g., Scientists for Extinction Rebellion); 37.03% had taken arrestable action; 9 participants had been arrested at least once; 33.33% were members of scientist-identity-based direct-action groups (e.g., Scientists for Extinction Rebellion, Scientist Rebellion). Data collection: Semi-structured interviews used an extensive schedule (e.g., identity as scientist/activist, compatibility of science and activism, actions taken, motivations, barriers, perceived effectiveness, moral considerations, and role of scientists). Interviews explored how participants framed their roles, responsibilities, and actions. Analysis: Authors conducted multiple rounds of reading and coding, focusing on talk about scientist activism, environmental issues, moral values, and relationships. Using CDP, they identified interpretive repertoires and subject positions that managed ideological dilemmas, then elaborated the rhetorical/argumentative functions (e.g., legitimizing activism). Credibility strategies included triangulation with external sources (social media, publications), member checking with involved and non-involved scientists, and reflexivity about researchers’ positionalities. Anonymized survey data and analysis code are available in OSF repositories; interview data are not publicly available to protect participant identity.

- Core dilemma: Participants viewed knowledge production alone as insufficient to drive needed societal change; when policymakers fail to act on evidence, scientists feel pressure to ensure knowledge is acted upon. Many sought to balance activism with maintaining their scientific identity and responsibilities. - Two interpretive repertoires managed the dilemma: 1) Reconceptualizing Scientist Identity: • Activism is Objective and Rational: Activism framed as a logical, evidence-based extension of scientific inquiry; acting on scientific findings is part of being a good, rational scientist. • There is No Objective Researcher: Challenges the ideal of complete objectivity; public engagement is inherently persuasive, and transparency about values legitimizes activism. • Activism is a Scientist’s Moral Duty: Scientists’ expertise and truth-telling roles create ethical obligations to advocate, communicate urgency, and “sound the alarm.” 2) Reframing the Work that Scientists Do: • Research (and Teaching) as an Activist Choice: Topic selection, pedagogy, and scholarly outputs are positioned as activism, shaping culture and empowering students. • Strategic Environmental Advocacy: Deliberate use of “advocacy” vs “activism” to preserve credibility and leverage institutional/policy channels while distancing from contentious tactics. - Functions of these positions: Primarily to legitimize or adapt action while aligning with scientific norms and maintaining credibility and autonomy. Some participants acknowledged potential risks (e.g., polarization, perceived loss of objectivity). - Relevant descriptive data: N = 27; 48.14% in direct-action groups; 37.03% had taken arrestable action; 9 had been arrested; 33.33% in scientist-identity direct-action groups. Participants spanned diverse disciplines and career stages, with a majority residing in the UK.

The findings show that scientists negotiate the activism–objectivity dilemma by redefining what it means to be a scientist and by reframing their activities as compatible with activism. Reconceptualizing identity leverages core scientific values (objectivity, rationality, truth-telling) to legitimate action, challenges the myth of a purely objective researcher, and invokes moral duty. Reframing action allows individuals to align engagement with their skills and contexts—integrating research, teaching, outreach, and policy-oriented advocacy—while managing perceived credibility risks. These strategies address the research question by revealing how discourse functions to legitimize or constrain activism within the scientist identity. While some fear polarization or credibility loss, the broader context suggests room for engagement: public trust in scientists is generally moderate to high (e.g., a 67-country study, N = 71,417), and many scientists privately support advocacy despite perceiving peers as less supportive (pluralistic ignorance). Symbolic use of scientific identity (e.g., lab coats, referencing peer-reviewed evidence) can lend epistemic authority to social movements, but careful framing (advocacy vs activism) is often used to preserve trust and influence policy. Overall, the study illuminates how scientists balance integrity, effectiveness, and moral responsibility in the climate emergency.

This study maps the discursive repertoires and subject positions scientists use to reconcile professional identity with climate activism, demonstrating that identity (re)construction and action reframing are central to legitimizing engagement. By showing how scientists frame activism as rational, acknowledge the limits of objectivity, and invoke moral duty—while aligning research, teaching, and outreach with advocacy—the paper contributes a nuanced account of how scientists can act without abandoning scientific values. Future research should: (1) conduct longitudinal studies to track identity and framing changes over time; (2) expand beyond primarily Western/WEIRD contexts to include Global South and underrepresented regions; (3) examine additional determinants of activism (e.g., community bonds, interpersonal ties, moral values) alongside ideological dilemmas; and (4) explore how institutional settings and identity contexts shape choices between advocacy and direct action.

- Sample characteristics: Predominantly Western/WEIRD and UK-resident, limiting generalizability; self-selection of climate-concerned scientists may bias toward engagement-positive views. - Qualitative design: CDP-based discourse analysis focuses on language and rhetorical functions; results are interpretive and not statistically generalizable. - Recruitment channels: Social media and academic networks may skew the sample toward more engaged or connected individuals. - Scope: Ideological dilemmas are not the sole drivers of activism; other factors (e.g., community ties, risk tolerance) are acknowledged but not deeply analyzed in this paper. - Researcher reflexivity: Authors’ environmental concerns could influence interpretation, though mitigated through triangulation and member checking. - Data availability: Interview data cannot be shared publicly due to identifiability constraints.