How do Students’ Science, Social, and Personal Identities Influence their Experiences in Undergraduate Field Biology Courses?

INTRODUCTION

The Ecological Society of America-endorsed 4-Dimensional Ecology Education framework positions undergraduate field courses as an essential mode of instruction to support student learning and development in the life sciences (Klemow et al., 2019). Undergraduate field biology courses provide students with opportunities to directly engage with life science concepts in a real-world setting (Fleischner et al., 2017). By doing so, these courses can support student development in the cognitive, affective, and social domains (Mogk and Goodwin, 2012; Mason et al., 2018; Nicotra et al., 2022). Prior research shows that students enrolled in field courses can develop deeper conceptual understanding compared with students engaged in classroom-based instruction (Scott et al., 2012). These courses also can promote positive science affect (Treibergs et al., 2022) and formative social interactions between classmates and instructors (Peacock et al., 2018; Mason et al., 2018; Esparza and Smith, 2023). In addition to these benefits, student participation in field courses is associated with increased retention of underserved, excluded, and minoritized (UEM) students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degree programs (Beltran et al., 2020).

Though undergraduate field courses can be highly influential experiences for students considering a career in the life sciences and related disciplines (Mogk and Goodwin, 2012), several studies highlight inequities in field-based education. These inequities include barriers that hinder the participation of UEM students, such as limited pre-college exposure to the outdoors (O'Connell and Holmes, 2011; Mead et al., 2015; Treibergs et al., 2023), monetary cost (Shinbrot et al., 2022), and the lack of accommodations for students with physical, mental, social, or emotional disabilities (Nairn, 1999; Kingsbury et al., 2020). Such inequities may be reflected in the demography of field courses, as a landscape study of undergraduate field experiences found that, nationally, only 9.9% of over 6000 students who participated in undergraduate field experiences identified with minoritized racial/ethnic groups (O'Connell et al., 2018). These inequities persist throughout academic levels, resulting in fewer UEM field scientists and a lack of diverse perspectives in these disciplines (Cid and Bowser, 2015; Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016; Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; James et al., 2021).

While certain aspects of field courses, like immersing students in outdoor environments, may benefit some, they can also pose distinct challenges to students identifying as UEM (Scott et al., 2019; Morales et al., 2020; Zavaleta et al., 2020; Morales and Reano, 2023). UEM students are often equally prepared for field courses but may face additional challenges because the culture in field courses has historically accommodated those who identify as White, able-bodied, men, and “otherized” students who identify with UEM groups (Rose, 1993; Nairn, 1999; Posselt, 2020; Hall et al., 2004). For example, UEM students have described greater discomfort in outdoor learning environments relative to their peers (O'Brien et al., 2020). Likewise, given the long history of racism, colonialism, exploitation, and imperialism in outdoor spaces (Chaudhury and Colla, 2020), UEM students are more susceptible to safety risks during fieldwork due to their identification with marginalized races or ethnicities (Hall et al., 2004; Demery and Pipkin, 2021), gender identities (Clancy et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2017), and sexualities (Olcott and Downen, 2020). Further, disabled students may choose not to disclose their disabilities or overexert themselves in field courses due to social stigma, grade concerns, or fear of bullying from other students (Nairn, 1999).

For the reasons described, field experiences can affirm or destabilize a student's science identity, which refers to a student's self-perception and recognition by others as it relates to science (Gee, 2000; Carlone and Johnson, 2007; Hazari et al., 2010). A strong science identity can support improved academic performance in introductory biology lecture courses and is a strong predictor of the academic success of UEM students (Chen et al., 2021). Further, a student's science identity can influence their long-term professional trajectory, guiding their choices toward further education and career paths in STEM fields (Seymour et al., 2004; Stets et al., 2017; Estrada et al., 2018; Vincent-Ruz and Schunn, 2018). In field courses, students can grow in their identification with science by performing fieldwork (Goralnik et al., 2018; Treibergs and Esparza et al., 2022), interacting with classmates and professors (Esparza and Smith, 2023), and completing course-based research (Marshall et al., 2009). Conversely, experiences that conflict with students' science or other identities may have the opposite effect, potentially undermining a student's identity as a field scientist (O'Connell et al., 2022).

Given the importance of science identity to STEM career interest (Estrada et al., 2018) and the limited diversity in field course students (O'Connell et al., 2018; Morales and Reano, 2023), it is essential to understand the nuances, mechanisms, and intersections between students’ science and other identities in field courses. To better understand these facets of students’ identities, we used a card sorting task and semistructured interviews in alignment with the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Hazari et al., 2010). We investigated the following questions in undergraduate field biology courses:

1. What factors influence students’ navigation of science and social identities?

2. How are students’ social and personal identities intersecting with aspects of their science identities?

The findings highlight the structural and social factors that underlie students’ development and navigation of their science identities relative to their other identities. We further provide insight into how field course instructors and stakeholders can go beyond broadening the participation of UEM students in field courses to foster the development of their science identities. This work can help ensure that students are empowered by, rather than discouraged by, field biology coursework.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: EXPANDED MODEL OF SCIENCE IDENTITY

We used the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Hazari et al., 2010) to guide the design, methods, and analysis of this research (Figure 1). In the Expanded Model of Science Identity, a science identity is one such identity influenced by individual and societal elements and refers to a person's self-concept and recognition as it relates to science (Hazari et al., 2010). This model is based on the Model of Science Identity, which was initially proposed to explore the science identity of undergraduate and graduate STEM students who identified as women of color (Carlone and Johnson, 2007).

The Expanded Model of Science Identity posits that science identity has several key subconstructs: 1) competence, one's belief in their ability to understand and contribute to science; 2) performance, one's belief in their ability to successfully perform science tasks; 3) perceived recognition, or being acknowledged by others as competent in science; and 4) interest, which regards a person's desire and affinity to learn and engage with science. While the Expanded Model of Science Identity maintains alignment with Carlone and Johnson's (2007) initial model, Hazari and colleagues found that questions on students’ competence and performance loaded onto a single factor during a confirmatory factor analysis (Hazari et al., 2010). This analysis prompted them to combine these subconstructs into a single competence/performance construct (Figure 1). In the present study, we used these subconstructs to understand the aspects of students’ science identities that intersect with their social and personal identities.

The Expanded Model of Science Identity further considers how an individual's social and personal identities influence their science identities (Figure 1). Social identity refers to the part of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a social group, such as gender, race, or socioeconomic status. Personal identity refers to the unique background, set of characteristics, experiences, and personal choices that define an individual. Given the challenges to participation and inclusion that UEM students face in field courses (O'Brien et al., 2020; Morales and Reano, 2023), this model is particularly apt for the present research because it allows us to characterize the intersections between students' social and personal identities in relation to their science identities. By doing so, we explored which subconstructs of students’ science identities are supported or disaffirmed relative to their other identities in undergraduate field biology courses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Context and Participant Selection

Study participants represent a convenience sample of students enrolled in introductory (n = 16) and advanced (n = 12) field biology courses at a research-intensive university in the Northeastern United States in the Fall of 2021. Self-reported demographic information for the subset of students who participated in interviews can be found in Table 1. All interviewees consented to take part in the research, which was approved by the Cornell University Institutional Review Board under exempt protocol no. 2001009364.

Measurements

Semistructured Interviews.

We conducted semistructured interviews to determine factors that influenced students’ navigation of their identities in their undergraduate field biology courses. This interview had two components; a card sorting task to explore intersections between their science, social, and personal identities and semistructured interview questions aligned with the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Figure 1).

Card sorting tasks are used to understand how people categorize and organize knowledge and concepts (Grant and Berg, 1948). Similar to the card sorting task used in Le et al. (2019), we encouraged student reflection on connections between their social and personal identities to their science identities. Students first selected as many of the 20 cards representing the science and social identities with which they identified (e.g., “Field Biologist,” “Woman,” “First-generation College Student”). Students were also allowed to add cards if they felt one of their identities was not represented by the current set of cards. However, few students created new cards, instead verbally explaining additional identities in their answers to the semistructured interview questions.

Students were then asked to rank their identities from more important to less important to their experiences in their field course and provided with a line to guide this ranking process. After the ranking process, students were asked to: 1) explain their rankings; and 2) describe why they did or did not select one or more of the science identities. The rankings and the placement of the cards on the line were used to understand the relative importance of each identity to students’ experiences in their field course.

The semistructured interview questions focused on students’ self-assessments of: 1) their ability to perform and understand field biology, 2) their interest in field biology, and 3) the degree to which they felt others in their lives viewed them as field biologists. These questions were designed to elicit responses focused on the subconstructs of the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Figure 1) (Hazari et al., 2010). Students were also asked about aspects of the course that promoted or hindered their development in these subconstructs. We also asked students about career goals and formative experiences before college that could have influenced their field course experiences. We asked these questions to gain a more nuanced understanding of our participants’ past field biology and/or recreational outdoor experiences, given recent evidence of opportunity gaps in these experiences for UEM students (O'Connell and Holmes, 2011; Beltran et al., 2020; Shinbrot et al., 2022). Author D.E. conducted all interviews, which averaged approximately 40 min. Interview participants were compensated with $20. The full interview protocol, including the card sorting task, can be found in Appendix 1, Supplemental Material.

Qualitative Analysis

Thematic Analysis.

Authors D.E. and L.R.S. conducted a thematic analysis of the interview data to categorize, identify emergent themes, and highlight patterns in the dataset (Braun and Clarke, 2012). This process involved familiarizing ourselves with the data via hand transcription, making note of initial codes (e.g., a priori codes aligned to subconstructs in Figure 1, broad emergent patterns), separating the interviews into coding units, and summarizing initial codes to begin the coding process. We used “thought units” as the coding unit for this research. Thought units are analyzable segments of text ranging from one to a few sentences that describe one cohesive thought in which the student does not change the topic of discussion (Hatfield and Weider-Hatfield, 1978). We then coded these thought units using a mixture of inductive and deductive coding.

During inductive coding, we established updated codes from the initial codes to describe emergent patterns in the data. The inductive codes mainly describe the factors that mediate interactions between students’ science, social, and personal identities. The deductive codes align with the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Hazari et al., 2010) (Figure 1). The coders met several times throughout the thematic analysis process to establish reliability and collate codes into themes, or broad patterns in the dataset that are meaningfully relevant to the phenomenon under investigation. All qualitative analyses were performed in MaxQDA (VERBI Software, 2022). For a detailed description of our coding approaches and code definitions, please see Appendix 2, Supplemental Material.

We maintained an interpretivist research paradigm in the analysis and presentation of these data (Creswell, 2007). Through interpretivism, we focused on understanding the meaning of the qualitative data and how it was situated in the norms, culture, and values of undergraduate field biology courses. Because presenting qualitative data in counts violates the underlying assumptions of interpretivism (Suddaby, 2006) and can result in the loss of meaning in qualitative data (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006, p. 153), we did not quantify overall code frequencies in our data. Instead, we center student narratives and discuss associations between themes and theoretical constructs to provide instructors and researchers insight into the possible experiences of UEM students in field biology courses.

Analyzing Card Sorting Task Data.

To measure the relative importance of students’ identities, we analyzed the position of the cards that students placed on the standardized line provided in the card sorting task (Figure 2).

We first extracted an image of each student's card sorting task response (see Figure 2A for an example of a hypothetical student response). We then categorized each card selected by students as a “science identity” or “social identity” and marked the center of each card chosen by a student (Figure 2B). We then divided the line into five equally spaced segments and sorted each identity into numbered segments that designated cards as “more important,” “moderately important,” or “less important” (Figure 2C).

Trustworthiness, Validity, and Reliability.

We employed several methods to ensure the trustworthiness of our findings as well as the validity and reliability of our methods and analyses. We engaged in two validation procedures, the recommended number for qualitative validation (Creswell, 2007). These procedures—a positionality statement and a thick description—describe the positions of the researchers and encourage transparency around the context under investigation.

Coding Reliability.

Coders D.E. and L.R.S. independently coded an identical, random subset of interview transcripts comprising 14% of the entire dataset (∼4 transcripts). Following, the coders calculated Cohen's κ and overall percentage agreement in the assignment of codes to thought units. Cohen's κ is a statistical measure used to determine the observed coding consistency between coders when accounting for random chance agreement (Salkind, 2010). The coders achieved a Cohen's κ =0.79 with 78.98% total agreement; κ values ranging from 0.60 to 0.79 indicate a “strong” level of agreement between coders (McHugh, 2012).

Positionality Statement.

A positionality statement is intended to communicate how the positions (i.e., views, perspectives, values, beliefs) and identities held by the researchers relate to the research questions, study motivations, methods, results, and context under investigation (Rowe, 2014; Holmes, 2020; Secules et al., 2021). There are some limitations to positionality statements (Gani and Khan, 2024), but they can provide the context in which the researchers approached the work. Our team includes a graduate researcher, an undergraduate researcher, and a full professor, all with expertise in biology education research. Authors D.E. and L.R.S—who performed the qualitative analysis—identify as Latiné. Our analysis may have been shaped by our commitment to promoting educational equity and/or our identities as scholars of color. All authors have participated in field-based biology coursework and believe this context is an essential yet understudied mode of biology education. None of the authors were affiliated with teaching the field courses in the study. Therefore, we were outsiders to the field courses which potentially limited any bias but could have also diminished our understanding of the field course culture (Holmes, 2020). Based on previous science identity studies (e.g., Hunter et al., 2007; Estrada et al., 2018), all authors conjecture that a developed science identity is important to science persistence, and we assert that science courses are valuable contexts that help students construct their science identities.

Thick Description.

A thick description is a textual representation designed to provide readers with a comprehensive view of the study participants and context (Creswell, 2007). In providing a thick description, readers can discern the transferability of our findings or the degree to which the results are relevant to their own courses based on similarities to the course subjects, institutional context, and study setting (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The thick description of the study context can be found in Appendix 3, Supplemental Material. In summary, this research was conducted in two courses: an introductory field biology course and an advanced stream ecology course (Table 2). These courses are included in the curriculum for the Environment and Sustainability major (which includes a concentration in applied ecology and biology) and the ecology and evolutionary biology concentration of the Biology major.

RESULTS

What Factors Influence Students’ Navigation of Science and Social Identities?

To understand the nuances of student science identity, we asked students about how they developed domain-general (e.g., science learner, scientist) and domain-specific science identities (e.g., field biologist). We found that, when selected, students ranked all three science identities (field biologist, scientist, science learner) as important to their field course experiences. Of the 28 interviewees, 26 students selected the science learner card, 18 selected the scientist card, and 16 selected the field biologist card. Thirteen students selected all three cards, with most students ranking these identities as either their first or among their first choice(s). Collectively, these findings indicate that students found great salience of their chosen science identities to their undergraduate field course experiences. Given the salience of students’ science identities to their experiences in their field course, we investigated factors that influenced their formation. Through thematic analysis of the semistructured interview data, we found several emergent themes related to social factors inherent to the undergraduate field biology course. These social factors included 1) shared sense of identity; 2) social comparison of identities; and 3) an awareness of stereotypes (Table 3).

Shared Sense of Identity.

We found that students felt a shared sense of identity, particularly related to their science identities, with their peers. This shared sense of science identities most intersected with the competence/performance subconstruct of science identity. For example, a student attributed a collective sense of competence/performance and interest to group participation in fieldwork and other field exercises (Table 3, Quote A), which unified the course and promoted this shared sense of science identity. Through overcoming challenges during fieldwork, students also felt a shared sense of disciplinary science identity, as is exemplified in Table 3, Quote B. Of note, not all students who described a shared sense of identity did so in the frame of a domain-specific “field biologist” identity. For instance, a handful of students suggested that all students in the class likely viewed each other as students learning science or “scientists-in-training.”

Social Comparison.

Social comparison emerged as a prevalent theme among students discussing their science identities in the field course. Social comparisons regard students’ appraisals of their own abilities in relation to others around them (Hogg, 2000). In our study, students engaged in social comparisons of their science identities when discussing the competence/performance subconstruct of science identity. These social comparisons often regarded a variety of knowledge, skills, and prior experiences. For instance, one student described feeling apt at species identification; however, this student situated this ability relative to a peer who they perceived as having more experience and being more skilled at identifying species (Table 3, Quote C). These illustrations of prior experience and skills could also potentially make other students more aware of their own perceived competence/performance in the domain. For example, one student describes how they felt that others in the course had substantially more experience doing lab work and fieldwork (Table 3, Quote D). This student went on to suggest that these comparisons made them feel less apt in the course.

Awareness of Stereotypes.

We found that students were navigating their science identities while trying to avoid stereotypic perspectives held by family, friends, and classmates. Stereotypes are overgeneralized beliefs about the characteristics or attributes of a group (e.g., scientists) or domain (e.g., field biology) (Judd and Park, 1993). In this study, the stereotypes students were exposed to were communicated by members of their personal communities, such as their friends and family and intersected with the perceived recognition subconstruct of science identity. For example, one student talked about the perception that doing research outdoors has little to no earnings potential (Table 3, Quote E). Students also described that, while they wanted to take courses aligned with their interests, the stereotypes held by their family and friends made them question their major and career path. A few students described feelings that peers, friends, and family held stereotypes of field biology as lacking rigor (e.g., Table 3, Quote F), potentially communicating a lack of perceived recognition detrimental to their disciplinary science identity.

How are Students’ Social and Personal Identities Intersecting with Aspects of their Science Identities?

Given the limited number of UEM students and scientists in field biology and other field-intensive disciplines (Morales and Reano, 2023), we investigated how students’ social and personal identities influenced students’ field course experiences and how these intersected with aspects of their science identities in undergraduate field biology courses. We found that the social factors that influenced the formation of students’ science identities (Table 3) mediated intersections between students’ science and social identities. Students who identified with UEM genders, as having disabilities, or as first-generation/low-income saw greater importance of these identities in relation to their field course experiences (Figure 3).

Gender Identity and Science Identities.

We found that students identifying with UEM genders saw their gender identities to be more important to their field course experiences as compared with non-UEM gender students (i.e., men) (Figure 3). In describing the impact of these identities, students who identified with UEM genders highlighted issues related to systemic gender discrimination in STEM, such as difficult social conditions and a lack of representation in field biology (Table 4) (Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016; Grunspan et al., 2016; Matsuda, 2023).

For example, when thinking about the importance of their gender identity, women described how others, especially men, can act dismissive of their contributions and ideas during field biology exercises, for example Table 4, Quote A. One student (Table 4, Quote B) identifying with a UEM gender perceived men in the course to be engaging in social comparisons based on prior experience.

Gendered exclusion was also perceived by one woman during a field lab (Table 4, Quote C). This student describes being overlooked for formative fieldwork experience, despite their interest in the exercise. A subset of students also felt the impact of gendered exclusion rooted in broader systemic issues regarding representation in STEM. A nonbinary student mentioned that, while they had positive experiences in the course, they also perceived a general lack of gender representation in field biology as a discipline (Table 4, Quote D). Students who identified as nonbinary also described experiences of being misgendered. One of these students attributed this experience to not having the opportunity to indicate gender-affirming pronouns (Table 4, Quote E).

A subset of UEM gender students also suggested that the demographic makeup of the course—particularly, the representation of women—made them feel a shared sense of identity and a stronger identification with science, for example (Table 4, Quote F). Non-UEM gender students did not perceive this similar sense of comfort in a shared social identity. Instead, non-UEM gender students often placed the respective card as less important (Figure 3) and described that their gender identity had less or no influence on their field course experiences. One such student who identified as a man described a feeling of needing to perform a greater portion of physical labor in the field course for his peers that identify as women (Table 4, Quote G).

Race/Ethnicity and Science Identities.

Most interviewees found their UEM and non-UEM racial/ethnic identities to be less important (UEM = 75.0%, non-UEM = 70.8%) to their experiences in the field course (Figure 3). However, some students’ racial/ethnic identities intersected with the subconstructs of their science identities (Table 5). Interviewees related their marginalized racial/ethnic identity to structural factors specifically related to the opportunity gaps they have faced throughout their lives. Opportunity gaps refer to differences in opportunities students had or have access to resulting in differential success and outcomes (Milner, 2012). Instead of perpetuating a deficit model—in which students are to blame for lower performance—opportunity gaps recognize that the inaccessibility of opportunities is the result of structural issues often faced by those who identify with UEM groups (Shukla et al., 2022). For example, a student made comparisons to the experiences they perceived their peers to have when describing opportunity gaps which they associate with their UEM racial/ethnic identity (Table 5, Quote A). However, they also conveyed enhanced interest in field biology due to its novelty given their lack of prior experience.

While students identifying with UEM racial/ethnic identities described navigating pervasive structural issues in STEM, some non-UEM students described feelings of comfort and inclusion as being the reason why their racial/ethnic identity had less impact on their field course experiences (Figure 3). This sense of inclusion often involved descriptions of the demographic makeup of the field course, wherein they felt a shared sense of identity related to their non-UEM racial/ethnic identity, for example Table 5, Quote B. Several students further acknowledged the inherent privilege that accompanies this shared sense of identity, mentioning how academic spaces—such as field courses—are particularly welcoming for students with non-UEM racial/ethnic identities, for example Table 5, Quote C. Other students who identified with non-UEM racial/ethnic identities suggested that social identities, overall, held no importance in their undergraduate field biology course (e.g., Table 5, Quote D) when discussing their race/ethnicity.

To help the entire course become more aware of the structural inequities in field biology, the introductory field course held a session titled “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Field Biology” to discuss the experiences of UEM field biologists. This session asked students to reflect on how their racial/ethnic identities relate to their experiences in field biology. Students who identified as non-UEM reflected on the inherent privilege they possess in field biology courses and how it relates to the comfort they can feel in learning contexts, for example Table 5, Quote E. This module also encouraged students identifying with UEM racial/ethnic identities to reflect on their racial/ethnic identities. However, in contrast to feeling a shared sense of identity based on the demographic makeup of the course, some students described feeling more aware of their lack of representation in the demographic makeup of the course (e.g., Table 5, Quote F).

LGBTQ+ Identities and Science Identities.

During the card sorting task, approximately a quarter of our interviewees selected the card for LGBTQ+ identities. These students indicated that this identity was largely less important (75%) (Figure 3) within the context of their field course experiences, for example, Table 6, Quote A.

When discussing this identity, LGBTQ+ students described a shared sense of identity. For instance, students identifying as LGBTQ+ described working with students in group assignments who identified similarly, for example Table 6, Quote B. This shared sense of social identity most directly connects to students’ sense of comfort when engaged in fieldwork, for example, Table 6, Quote C.

First-generation/Low-income Identities and Science Identities.

Fewer than a quarter of our sample selected cards indicating that they identified with first-generation or low-income backgrounds. These students largely found these identities to be the more important to their field course experiences (Figure 3).

First-generation students often highlighted the prevalent opportunity gaps they face in navigating college, broadly, and field biology courses (Table 7). Specifically, a student described how their first-generation identity related to their lack of knowledge or experience in how to navigate field biology as a course (Table 7, Quote A). A subset of these students engaged in social comparison of their competence/performance, feeling that their peers—who were predominantly continuing-generation college students—held relevant experiences that improved their ability to work with equipment in the field, for example, Table 7, Quote B. One student also added a card for a “low-income” identity and described similar opportunity gaps in reference to their prior preparation for the field course, for example (Table 7, Quote C).

No students highlighted their continuing generation college student identity as being pertinent to their field course experiences. However, a small number of continuing-generation students described a sense of support as field biologists or scientists from their parents, for example, Table 7, Quote D.

Disability Identity and Science Identities.

A quarter of our interviewees selected the “Person with Disability” card. Many of these students found this identity to be more important in relation to their field course experiences (Figure 3), describing structural factors inherent to the design of field-based education (Table 8). These students described how structural factors related to the immersive nature of field courses provided them with additional challenges in navigating their science identities, for example, Table 8, Quote A.

Students with disability identities described managing invisible disabilities (i.e., conditions not easily apparent to others) in their field biology course. These students described how the conditions in the field can, on occasion, make it difficult to learn the course content, destabilizing their sense of competence/performance (e.g., Table 8, Quote B). Thus, while field-based instruction can serve as an engaging learning environment, the immediacy and immersion of this form of experiential learning can also pose unique challenges for students with different sensory needs, for example Table 8, Quote C.

A subset of students engaged in social comparisons related to their disabilities. This discussion often focused on students feeling as if their disability identities were not valid enough to report or be seen as impactful as compared with those with other disabilities. These statements were often framed in the context of these students downplaying the impact of their own disability identities on their ability to do fieldwork. One student, who identified as having a temporary disability, described that this identity impacted their ability to learn and participate in the field course (competence/performance), further explaining that the format of field instruction is largely inaccessible to students with disabilities (Table 8, Quote D).

Personal Identities.

When describing their personal identities, students did not make new cards but instead mentioned how they intersected with their science identities during the semistructured interview questions. Specifically, personal identities centered on where a student comes from appear to foster students’ interest in the course content (Table 9). For example, a student compared their home environment with their college environment (Table 9, Quote A).

Students also highlighted that their personal identities of where they were from also related to the environmental knowledge they possess, for example, Table 9, Quote B. Of note is that some students related their personal identities regarding where they were from to structural factors in the form of opportunity gaps in their access to the outdoors. These individuals often grew up in urban areas and/or lacked access to natural spaces, representing another opportunity gap, for instance, Table 9, Quote C.

Multiple Intersections Between Students’ Science Identities and their Social/Personal Identities

A subset of the interviewees (n = 3) described intersections between multiple social identities—particularly race and gender—and their science identities. Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and identity theory (Stryker, 1968) both postulate that multiple identities can be salient to an individual at once depending on context and situation (Stets and Burke, 2000; Stryker and Burke, 2000). This phenomenon can be referred to as “intersecting identities,” wherein individuals recognize overlaps between more than one of their identities (e.g., gender and race) at a given time (Jones and McEwen, 2000). Through the lens of intersecting identities, we considered the combined impact of students’ identities on their field experiences to gather insights that cannot be fully understood by examining their race or gender alone.

One student explained in their interview that they saw their UEM racial/ethnic identities as most important to their field biology course experiences (Table 10, Quote A). Here, this student describes an intersection between their multiple UEM racial and ethnic identities, describing that they did not want to make these identities important in the field course space due to their awareness of stereotypes centered around these identities. To avoid confirming the stereotype this student found to be associated with their racial/ethnic identities, they tried not to convey explicit interest when doing fieldwork.

During the card sorting task, two students described intersections between their UEM gender identity and non-UEM racial/ethnic identity as they navigated academic research spaces like field biology (Table 10, Quotes B and C). These students detail feelings of privilege via a sense of safety garnered by their non-UEM racial identity when doing field research for the course. Yet, this sense of safety is counterbalanced by their identification with a UEM gender identity. These identities combine to support a complex interplay between students’ many social identities and science identities as they work to navigate structural factors (e.g., systemic gender discrimination) during fieldwork.

DISCUSSION

Undergraduate field biology courses can serve as inspiring and formative experiences that develop students’ science identities (Treibergs et al., 2022; Esparza and Smith, 2023). Although, these courses can pose certain challenges to these students that may destabilize their science identities (O'Connell et al., 2022; Treibergs et al., 2023). We found that social factors (shared sense of identity, social comparison, and awareness of stereotypes) influence how students develop their science identities in undergraduate field biology courses (Table 3). In addition to these social factors, structural factors (e.g., lack of representation, privilege) further mediated intersections between aspects of students’ science identities and their social and personal identities (Tables 4–9), which varied in importance (Figure 3). Last, a subset of students described intersecting identities (Jones and McEwen, 2000; Stets and Burke, 2000; Stryker and Burke, 2000) between multiple social identities (e.g., race and gender identities) and their science identities (Table 10). In these cases, students perceived intersections between their multiple social identities, the combined effects of which resulted in perceived advantages and disadvantages in undergraduate field biology courses.

Based on these findings, we created the Model of Student Identities in Field Biology courses (Figure 4), a conceptual model representing the factors that mediate intersections between students’ science, social, and personal identities in undergraduate field biology courses. We use this model to discuss our results in the sections below focusing first on the structural factors that mediated intersections between students’ science and social identities, then on the social factors.

Structural Factors Related to Students’ Social and Personal Identities Impact Students’ Science Identities

Lack of Representation.

Despite maintaining some alignment with the Expanded Model of Science Identity (Figure 1), we found that students’ social identities intersected with their science identities in ways that often went beyond this model and toward the recognition of broader structural issues in field biology education (Figure 4A; Tables 4–10). For instance, students who chose cards for UEM genders (e.g., Table 4, Quote D) and races/ethnicities (e.g., Table 5, Quote F) discussed a lack of representation of those who share their identities in field biology. The demography of a scientific field reflects structural factors that best support those in dominant cultures (i.e., non-UEM identities) and systemic barriers that actively exclude others, resulting in the underrepresentation of those identifying with UEM identities (Asai, 2020; McGee, 2020; Morales and Reano, 2023). Field biology education has a legacy of accommodating those who identify with non-UEM identities (Nairn, 1999; Posselt, 2020; Nuñez and Posselt, 2022; Morales and Reano, 2023). As a result, field scientists identifying with minoritized genders (Matsuda, 2023), marginalized races and ethnicities (Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; O'Brien et al., 2020), sexualities (Olcott and Downen, 2020; Coon et al., 2023; Kamran and Jennings, 2023), and abilities (Nairn, 1999; Hall et al., 2004) have historically been and are currently underrepresented in field courses (O'Connell et al., 2018) and careers (Cid and Bowser, 2015; Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016; James et al., 2021).

This underrepresentation can communicate to UEM students that they do not belong in the discipline and, further, destabilize their science identity development (Hazari et al., 2020; O'Connell et al., 2022). Given the importance of identity development to success in STEM (Perez et al., 2014), field course instructors may wish to assign students with metacognitive, identity-centered assignments such as field biology-specific scientist spotlights. Scientist spotlight assignments showcase counterstereotypical examples of scientists across all axes of diversity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) and have been shown to help students personally relate to scientists and develop a science identity (Schinske et al., 2016). By doing so, instructors may be able to nurture the science identity development of all students and support a more welcoming and inclusive field biology climate.

Opportunity Gaps.

Students who identified with UEM races/ethnicities (e.g., Table 5, Quote A), as first-generation/low-income (e.g., Table 7, Quotes A–C), and or with certain personal identities (Table 9, Quote C) described structural factors in the form of opportunity gaps in pre-college access to recreational outdoor activities or research opportunities (Figure 4A). Several studies have showcased disparities in access to outdoor recreation, particularly for low-income and racially/ethnically minoritized individuals (O'Connell and Holmes, 2011; Winter et al., 2019). Historically, research on student outcome “gaps” places the fault of such disparities on the student or instructor (Menchaca, 1997). Rather than being the fault of the individual, such inequities are reflections of broader societal structures that have excluded people based on complex interactions between their social and personal identities (Shukla et al., 2022). Our results illustrate the tangible impact that structural factors like opportunity gaps can have on students’ feelings of preparedness to engage in undergraduate field biology courses, influencing how they conceptualize aspects of their science identities. Future research should examine the identities of those who have prior preparation for field biology courses and how it relates to students’ science identities and other outcomes.

Some students who identified with UEM races/ethnicities and as first-generation described increased interest and appreciation for the field course due to their lack of prior experience (e.g., Table 5, Quote A; Table 7, Quote A). These statements further aligned with our findings on students’ personal identities, wherein students described how the places where they grew up and specific biomes they were familiar with helped foster interest, knowledge, and an ability to identify certain organisms (Table 9, Quotes A and B). As such, field course instructors may consider adopting asset-based framing, such as community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2006), which focuses on acknowledging and affirming the strengths, knowledge, and identities that students bring into the field.

Systemic Discrimination.

Systemic discrimination describes forms of discrimination that are embedded in the practices and norms of a system—such as postsecondary STEM education—resulting in differential treatment of and outcomes for those with UEM social identities (Braveman et al., 2022). We found that students who identified with UEM genders and as disabled perceived systemic forms of discrimination.

Systemic Gender Discrimination.

Students identifying with UEM genders saw greater salience of their gender identities in field biology courses (Figure 3), with some describing structural factors related to systemic gender discrimination (Figure 4A). Specifically, a subset of students identifying with UEM genders perceived the climate as unwelcoming and dismissive (e.g., Table 4, Quotes A and B) destabilizing their perceived recognition (Figure 4C). These findings align with prior work showcasing that, despite comprising over 60% of the discipline, biology courses can still promote a “chilly” climate where the competence of women is underestimated (Grunspan et al., 2016). In field courses, prior ethnographic research further showcases that—considering a culture that reifies masculinity and ruggedness—women were relegated to supporting roles and spoke less often than men during fieldwork (Posselt, 2020). Our research suggests that forms of systemic gender discrimination may discourage women students from full participation in fieldwork and, therefore, may make it difficult for women to develop a sense of competence/performance and receive recognition from peers. To ensure that students identifying with UEM genders can participate fully and develop their science identities, future research should investigate the implementation of cooperative grouping strategies during fieldwork, wherein students are assigned rotating roles that allow for the equitable division of labor during groupwork (Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992). In doing so, instructors can create rotating teams or designate an “equipment manager” in each group and task them with finding the most efficient methods to bring equipment to and from the field sites. Because not all students may be physically able to move heavy equipment, those rotating in this role can practice collaboration skills through delegating to facilitate equipment transportation, possibly providing more opportunities for them to receive recognition.

The Field as a Disabling Space.

Students with disabilities felt great salience of their disability identity in their field biology course (Figure 3), the importance of which related to structural factors in the way field courses are designed (Figure 4A). Further, in discussing their physical, sensory, and emotional disabilities (i.e., their disability identity, Figure 4B), students described how it diminished their sense of competence/performance (Figure 4C) (Table 8, Quotes A–D). Social models of disability suggest that field courses, like many educational environments, reflect structural factors related to ableist norms, wherein they are designed for those with certain (i.e., abled) bodies and actively disable others (Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021; Shakespeare and Watson, 2001). Previous studies have outlined how field-based instruction can prevent the full participation of students with disabilities given these ableist norms and design principles that pervade the discipline (Hall et al., 2004; Kingsbury et al., 2020). Thus, by preventing their full participation in these spaces, students with disabilities may face difficulties in developing a sense of competence/performance.

Prior research that mitigated barriers for disabled students during field experiences, such as selecting sites accessible by buses, demonstrates that deliberate changes can promote inclusion for all students while maintaining academic rigor (Feig et al., 2019). Instructors can take steps to make their field course more accessible by offering course materials and field guides in different modes (e.g., three-dimensional maps, auditory guides) and limiting the number of sites visited in a single field trip, which can promote student interest and full engagement with course material (Stokes et al., 2019). Approaches like these may allow disabled students to practice and learn field biology, thereby supporting their enculturation to the field and supporting their construction of a science identity (Streule and Craig, 2016).

Privilege.

Privilege refers to the unearned advantages that are conferred to an individual based on their social identities and the social context in which they are embedded (Black and Stone, 2005). We found that a subset of students who identified with non-UEM identities mentioned privileges they held in their undergraduate field biology courses related to these identities (Figure 4A). These privileges included a sense of safety during fieldwork, access to opportunities in the domain before college, and comfort amongst similarly identifying peers (e.g., Table 5, Quotes C and E). These findings align with prior research that illustrates how identification with non-UEM identities provides number of privileges related to access to and safety in outdoor spaces (Filemyr, 1997; Rose and Paisley, 2012; Ho and Chang, 2022) and in STEM, broadly (e.g., Cech, 2022).

However, other students made no mention of the privileges granted to them by their non-UEM racial/ethnic (e.g., Table 5, Quotes B and D) and gender identities (Table 4, Quote G). In these cases, these students often ranked these identities as less important (Figure 3) and described that these identities had little to no impact on their experiences. Students identifying with UEM racial/ethnic identities also ranked these identities as less important to their field course, denoting little to no impact on their field course experiences and science identities. Previous research describes that undergraduate STEM majors with non-UEM identities and UEM identities can be unaware of the ways their social identities are privileged (e.g., higher wages, social benefits) or marginalized in STEM, respectively (Dancy et al., 2020). More broadly, studies of college student identity development further indicate that students with non-UEM racial identities often view these identities as less salient in college contexts (Jones and McEwen, 2000). However, through the implementation of a unit on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the introductory field biology course, many of the students who identified as White became more aware of the privileges they held in outdoor learning spaces (e.g.,Table 5, Quote E). To support a cultural shift toward equity in field biology education, field course instructors should consider implementing similar interventions (Binning et al., 2020; Flowers et al., 2021) that center the experiences of diverse students and encourage reflection on the structural factors responsible for inequities in field biology education.

Social Factors can Mediate how Students Form Their Science Identity while Navigating Their Social Identities in Field Courses

We found that several social factors (Figure 4A; Table 3) influenced how students formed and navigated their science, social, and personal identities in undergraduate field biology courses. These social factors further mediated intersections between students’ social and science identities.

Students described a shared sense of identity centered on their social and science identities. Herein, students felt a shared sense of being a field biologist or scientist when they were engaged in fieldwork (e.g., Table 3, Quote A) or through overcoming rough field conditions as a group (e.g., Table 3, Quote B). Furthermore, a subset of students indicated feeling a shared sense of their social identities, particularly in non-UEM racial/ethnic identities and LGBTQ+ identities (e.g., Table 5, Quotes B and C; Table 6, Quote B). Several studies documented the importance of the social environment in field courses to students’ experiences (Streule and Craig, 2016; Kim et al., 2018; Kim and Sinatra, 2018; Mason et al., 2018; Peacock et al., 2018). For instance, a previous study on college outdoor learning experiences describes the connective potential of challenging field conditions, highlighting how shared experiences in overcoming adversity in the field can promote both a sense of community and group identity (Breunig et al., 2010). Previous work links student interactions in field biology courses to their science identity (Esparza and Smith, 2023). As such, providing students with opportunities to overcome fieldwork challenges in groups may be an effective method of strengthening their science identities and, as our findings indicate, promoting group science identities (Treibergs et al., 2023).

We found that the social comparisons (Figure 4A) made by students further mediated how they formed a science identity in their undergraduate field biology courses. Through the lens of social comparison theory, students may compare their abilities with others who they perceive as more skilled than them (i.e., upward comparisons) or less skilled than them (i.e., downward comparisons) (Festinger, 1954). Such comparisons, according to social identity theory (Stets and Burke, 2000), allow an individual to verify or understand their own identities. We found that students mainly engaged in upward social comparisons based on their own perceived sense of competence/performance, ultimately disaffirming this science identity subconstruct (e.g., Table 3, Quotes C and D) (Figure 4C).

Social comparisons also mediated intersections between students’ science and social identities (Figure 4B). Students identifying with UEM race/ethnicities, first-generation/low-income, disability, and UEM gender identities described how their own perceived competence/performance compared with their peers (Figure 4C). For instance, those with UEM racial/ethnic and first-generation/low-income identities made social comparisons between their own perceived competence/performance and that of others, wherein they felt like their peers were more prepared to engage in fieldwork (e.g., Table 5, Quote A; Table 7, Quote B). A subset of students identifying with UEM genders perceived those identifying with non-UEM genders to engage in “downward” social comparisons, wherein they perceived men in the course to undervalue their ideas based on their prior experiences in the domain (e.g., Table 4, Quote B). Because an individual's identities are socially constructed and can be defined through social comparisons (Stets and Burke, 2000), future research should investigate the influence of social comparisons on science identity formation.

Increased awareness of stereotypes, on the other hand, originated from students’ parents and friends and centered on the earnings potential and prestige of field biology careers (e.g., Table 3, Quotes E and F). These stereotypes communicated a lack of support to students and further made them question their science identities. This awareness of stereotypes further mediated intersections between students’ science and social identities, wherein one student discussed downplaying aspects of their social identity to negate stereotypes they believed were associated with their identity (Table 10, Quote A). Students can perceive field-intensive disciplines as having low earnings potential or lacking academic prestige (Snieder and Spiers, 2002; Hoisch and Bowie, 2009). UEM students have further described decreased family support in pursuing field-intensive majors such as geoscience (Whitney et al., 2005) or ecology (Armstrong et al., 2007). Given the importance of family support and recognition to the development of a science identity (Rodriguez et al., 2019), future research should be conducted to more fully investigate the influence of these stereotypes on students’ science identities.

Students’ Multiple Social Identities May Intersect in Field Biology Contexts to Provide Students with Unique Advantages or Disadvantages

Most students mentioned how a single axis of their identity (e.g., gender identity, racial/ethnic identity) intersected with the subconstructs of science identity. However, a subset of students (n = 3) discussed how intersections between two of their social identities created additive privileges or disadvantages during fieldwork (Figure 4B). These privileges and disadvantages associated with their intersecting identities related to broader structural issues inherent to doing fieldwork associated with systemic discrimination related to race and gender identities (Figure 4A). For example, two students described how their non-UEM racial/ethnic identity afforded them with a sense of safety as they performed fieldwork for the course. However, their UEM gender identity made them feel less safe in remote areas (Table 10, Quotes B and C). These observed intersections between students’ multiple social identities are best captured through the integration of intersecting identities (Jones and McEwen, 2000; Stets and Burke, 2000; Stryker and Burke, 2000) into the Model of Student Identities in Field Biology Courses (Figure 4B). In field contexts, those identifying with UEM racial/ethnic identities can be more susceptible to safety risks at the hands of law enforcement and others engaging in vigilante behaviors who perceive them to be dangerous or trespassers (Demery and Pipkin, 2021; Morales and Reano, 2023). Furthermore, those who identify with UEM genders face a heightened risk of sexual harassment during field experiences (Nairn, 1999; Clancy et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2017). Through a lens of intersecting identities, students who identify with multiple UEM identities—such as with UEM races/ethnicities and gender identities—would likely be at greater safety risks in the field as compared with non-UEM students. Our work suggests that students perceive intersections between their social identities in field course contexts. However, more research should be done across a variety of field experiences (e.g., residential field courses, undergraduate research experiences) to understand how different contexts influence the salience of and intersections between students’ identities.

Limitations

While the card sorting task approach was effective in having students discuss their many science, social, and personal identities, it does not effectively measure the frequency at which students’ identities were elicited during the field course. Likewise, students may have not felt ready or comfortable discussing concealable stigmatized identities within STEM (e.g., LGBTQ+ identity, disability identities) and how they influenced their field course experiences and science identities. It is also likely that our data do not represent the full spectrum of diverse identities due to the prominent structural inequities and opportunity gaps in STEM that preclude students from field course—and college—participation (Engle and Tinto, 2008; O'Connell et al., 2018).

The semistructured interviews occurred approximately four months after students had completed their respective field courses. The researchers conducted interviews at this time to allow students to reflect on their field course experiences while also preventing the influence of retrospective recall bias (Berney and Blane, 1997). Even still, it is possible that other forms of biases, such as social desirability bias (Nederhof, 1985) or interviewer effects (West and Blom, 2017), could have impacted how students talked about their field biology course experiences and the identities they disclosed.

Prior work highlights that, to offer more targeted recommendations and better understand the experiences of historically underserved students, it is critical to carefully disaggregate student data (Teranishi et al., 2020; Shukla et al., 2022). We opted to aggregate a subset of student data by UEM and non-UEM identities in field biology to prevent compromising interviewee anonymity, given the sample size and methods. However, by aggregating our interviewee responses and interpretations based on their social (i.e., gender identity, racial/ethnic identity), we may be overlooking important differences in the experiences between diverse subgroups within our sample (Bhatti, 2021). Because of this, we recommend that future research uses a narrative inquiry approach framed in intersectionality theory to characterize students’ identities in field biology courses. Intersectionality theory posits that an individual's identities (e.g., racial/ethnic identities, gender identities) can intersect to shape their experiences of privilege and oppression (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). These intersections between identities can lead to unique experiences that differ from those expected if each identity were considered in isolation. Likewise, narrative inquiry studies can provide valuable insight into the students’ rich and storied experiences in the domain (Connelly and Clandinin, 1990; Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). A narrative inquiry approach would invite students to tell their stories about the identities they found to be salient and intersecting in field biology and, furthermore, allow them to share how these intersections related to concepts of power, privilege, and oppression in the field setting. Such a study would provide novel insights into how to support UEM and non-UEM students, alike, as they build their capacity to do science in field settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The study explores how students form their science identities in field biology courses and, further, how their science identities intersect with their social and personal identities. Through analyzing semistructured student interviews and a card sorting task, we discovered differences in how students perceive their science identities, influenced by social factors. These factors affected their feelings of competence, performance, perceived recognition, and interest in field biology. Additionally, students’ science identities and social identities intersected, with these connections being mediated by structural and social factors. Based on these results, we introduce the Model of Student Identities in Field Biology courses—a conceptual model showcasing factors that mediate intersections between students’ science, social, and personal identities in undergraduate field biology courses. Further, we offer practical suggestions in the form of evidence-based interventions and areas for future research. Even still, we argue that efforts to address inequities in field biology instruction must go beyond local measures and involve systemic changes to address structural inequities and foster true inclusion, equity, and justice in the discipline.

REFERENCES

• Arismendi, I., & Penaluna, B. E. (2016). Examining diversity inequities in fisheries science: A call to action. BioScience, 66(7), 584–591. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw041 Google Scholar
• Armstrong, M. J., Berkowitz, A. R., Dyer, L. A., & Taylor, J. (2007). Understanding why underrepresented students pursue ecology careers: A preliminary case study. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(8), 415–420. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1890/060113.1 Google Scholar
• Asai, D. J. (2020). Race matters. Cell, 181(4), 754–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.044 Medline, Google Scholar
• Beltran, R. S., Marnocha, E., Race, A., Croll, D. A., Dayton, G. H., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2020). Field courses narrow demographic achievement gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology. Ecology and Evolution, 10(12), 5184–5196. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6300 Medline, Google Scholar
• Bernard, R. E., & Cooperdock, E. H. (2018). No progress on diversity in 40 years. Nature Geoscience, 11(5), 292–295. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0116-6 Google Scholar
• Berney, L. R., & Blane, D. B. (1997). Collecting retrospective data: Accuracy of recall after 50 years judged against historical records. Social Science & Medicine, 45(10), 1519–1525. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00088-9 Medline, Google Scholar
• Bhatti, H. A. (2021). Toward “inclusifying” the underrepresented minority in STEM education research. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(3), e00202-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00202-21 Medline, Google Scholar
• Binning, K. R., Kaufmann, N., McGreevy, E. M., Fotuhi, O., Chen, S., Marshman, E., ... & Singh, C. (2020). Changing social contexts to foster equity in college science courses: An ecological-belonging intervention. Psychological Science, 31(9), 1059–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620929984 Medline, Google Scholar
• Black, L. L., & Stone, D. (2005). Expanding the definition of privilege: The concept of social privilege. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2005.tb00020.x Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In: H. CooperP. M. CamicD. L. LongA. T. PanterD. RindskopfK. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 Google Scholar
• Braveman, P. A., Arkin, E., Proctor, D., Kauh, T., & Holm, N. (2022). Systemic and structural racism: Definitions, examples, health damages, and approaches to dismantling: Study examines definitions, examples, health damages, and dismantling systemic and structural racism. Health Affairs, 41(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01394 Google Scholar
• Breunig, M. C., O'Connell, T. S., Todd, S., Anderson, L., & Young, A. (2010). The impact of outdoor pursuits on college students' perceived sense of community. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(4), 551–572. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2010.11950218 Google Scholar
• Brownell, S. E., & Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525–544. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 Google Scholar
• Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237 Google Scholar
• Cech, E. A. (2022). The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM. Science Advances, 8(24), eabo1558. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo1558 Medline, Google Scholar
• Chaudhury, A., & Colla, S. (2020). Next steps in dismantling discrimination: Lessons from ecology and conservation science. Conservation Letters, 14(2), e12774. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12774 Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Binning, K. R., Manke, K. J., Brady, S. T., McGreevy, E. M., Betancur, L., ... & Kaufmann, N. (2021). Am I a science person? A strong science identity bolsters minority students’ sense of belonging and performance in college. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(4), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220936480 Medline, Google Scholar
• Cid, C. R., & Bowser, G. (2015). Breaking down the barriers to diversity in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(4), 179–179. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-13.4.179 Google Scholar
• Clancy, K. B., Nelson, R. G., Rutherford, J. N., & Hinde, K. (2014). Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLoS One, 9(7), e102172. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 Medline, Google Scholar
• Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
• Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019005002 Google Scholar
• Coon, J. J., Alexander, N. B., Smith, E. M., Spellman, M., Klimasmith, I. M., Allen-Custodio, L. T., ... & Morrow, L. K. (2023). Best practices for LGBTQ+ inclusion during ecological fieldwork: Considering safety, cis/heteronormativity and structural barriers. Journal of Applied Ecology, 60, 393–399. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14339 Google Scholar
• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. Google Scholar
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
• Dancy, M., Rainey, K., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R., & Moller, S. (2020). Undergraduates’ awareness of White and male privilege in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00250-3 Google Scholar
• Demery, A. J. C., & Pipkin, M. A. (2021). Safe fieldwork strategies for at-risk individuals, their supervisors and institutions. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(1), 5–9. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01328-5 Medline, Google Scholar
• Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute. Google Scholar
• Esparza, D., & Smith, M. K. (2023). Professional social connections are associated with student science identity in a research-based field biology course. Ecosphere, 14(9), e4662. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4662 Google Scholar
• Estrada, M., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar9. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066 Link, Google Scholar
• Feig, A. D., Atchinson, C. L., Stokes, A., & Gilley, B. (2019). Achieving inclusive field-based education: Results and recommendations from an accessible geoscience field trip. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(2), 66–87. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i1.23455 Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 Google Scholar
• Filemyr, A. (1997). Going outdoors and other dangerous expeditions. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 18(2), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346972 Google Scholar
• Fleischner, T. L., Espinoza, R. E., Gerrish, G. A., Greene, H. W., Kimmerer, R. W., Lacey, E. A., ... & Zander, L. (2017). Teaching biology in the field: Importance, challenges, and solutions. BioScience, 67(6), 558–567. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix036 Google Scholar
• Flowers, S. K., O'Connell, K., & McDermott, V. M. (2021). Crafting Field Station and Marine Lab Communities for undergraduate diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 102(4), e01908. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1908 Google Scholar
• Gani, J. K., & Khan, R. M. (2024). Positionality statements as a function of coloniality: Interrogating reflexive methodologies. International Studies Quarterly, 68(2), sqae038. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038 Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. (2000). Chapter 3: Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167322 Google Scholar
• Goralnik, L., Thorp, L., & Rickborn, A. (2018). Food system field experience: STEM identity and change agency for undergraduate sustainability learners. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(3), 312–328. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/1053825918774810 Google Scholar
• Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card-sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 404. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/h0059831 Medline, Google Scholar
• Grunspan, D. Z., Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Wiggins, B. L., Crowe, A. J., & Goodreau, S. M. (2016). Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148405. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148405 Medline, Google Scholar
• Hall, T., Healey, M., & Harrison, M. (2004). Fieldwork and disabled students: Discourses of exclusion and inclusion. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(2), 213–231. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00050 Google Scholar
• Hatfield, J. D., & Weider-Hatfield, D. (1978). The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis. Communications Monographs, 45(1), 44–50. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/03637757809375950 Google Scholar
• Hazari, Z., Chari, D., Potvin, G., & Brewe, E. (2020). The context dependence of physics identity: Examining the role of performance/competence, recognition, interest, and sense of belonging for lower and upper female physics undergraduates. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(10), 1583–1607. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21644 Google Scholar
• Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363 Google Scholar
• Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17118 Google Scholar
• Ho, Y. C. J., & Chang, D. (2022). To whom does this place belong? Whiteness and diversity in outdoor recreation and education. Annals of Leisure Research, 25(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2020.1859389 Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A. (2000). Social identity and social comparison. In: J. SulsL. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison. The springer series in social clinical psychology. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4237-7_19 Google Scholar
• Hoisch, T. D., & Bowie, J. I. (2009). Assessment of factors that influence the recruitment of majors from introductory geology classes. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting Abstracts 2009, ED13C-0613. Google Scholar
• Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher positionality–A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research–A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232 Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173 Google Scholar
• James, R., Gibbs, B., Whitford, L., Leisher, C., Konia, R., & Butt, N. (2021). Conservation and natural resource management: Where are all the women?. Oryx, 55(6), 860–867. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001349 Google Scholar
• Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–414. Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.109 Medline, Google Scholar
• Kamran, M., & Jennings, K. (2023). Fieldwork and LGBTQ+ identities: Queering the outdoors. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 63(1), 79–85. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icad038 Medline, Google Scholar
• Kim, A. Y., & Sinatra, G. M. (2018). Science identity development: An interactionist approach. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 51. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0149-9 Medline, Google Scholar
• Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 589–625. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318779957 Google Scholar
• Kingsbury, C. G., Sibert, E. C., Killingback, Z., & Atchison, C. L. (2020). “Nothing about us without us:” The perspectives of autistic geoscientists on inclusive instructional practices in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 68(4), 302–310. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2020.1768017 Google Scholar
• Klemow, K., Berkowitz, A., Cid, C., & Middendorf, G. (2019). Improving ecological education through a four-dimensional framework. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2013 Google Scholar
• Le, P. T., Doughty, L., Thompson, A. N., & Hartley, L. M. (2019). Investigating undergraduate biology students’ science identity production. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar50. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-10-0204 Link, Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 Google Scholar
• Marshall, J. S., Gardner, T. W., Protti, M., & Nourse, J. A. (2009). International geosciences field research with undergraduate students: Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tectonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches, 461, 77. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1130/2009.2461(08) Google Scholar
• Mason, N. A., Brunner, R. M., Ballen, C. J., & Lovette, I. J. (2018). Cognitive and social benefits among underrepresented first-year biology students in a field course: A case study of experiential learning in the Galápagos. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v30i3.422 Google Scholar
• Matsuda, S. B. (2023). Centering transgender and gender non-conforming experience, access, & safety in ecological fieldwork. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 63(1), 86–97. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icad017 Medline, Google Scholar
• McGee, E. O. (2020). Interrogating structural racism in STEM higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(9), 633–644. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20972718 Google Scholar
• McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 Medline, Google Scholar
• Mead, L. S., Clarke, J. B., Forcino, F., & Graves, J. L. (2015). Factors influencing minority student decisions to consider a career in evolutionary biology. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8(1), 6. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-015-0034-7 Google Scholar
• Menchaca, M. (1997). Early racist discourses: The roots of deficit thinking. In: R. R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice, (pp. 13–40). London, UK: Falmer Press. Google Scholar
• Milner, IV, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712442539 Google Scholar
• Mogk, D. W., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Learning in the field: Synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 486, 131–163. https://doi.org/10.1130/2012.2486(24) Google Scholar
• Morales, N., Bisbee O'Connell, K., McNulty, S., Berkowitz, A., Bowser, G., Giamellaro, M., & Miriti, M. N. (2020). Promoting inclusion in ecological field experiences: Examining and overcoming barriers to a professional rite of passage. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 101(4), e01742. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1742 Google Scholar
• Morales, N., & Reano, D. (2023). Critically assessing undergraduate field experiences: Understanding conceptualizations and opportunities for building inclusive programs. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 63(1), 66–78. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icad008 Google Scholar
• Nairn, K. (1999). Embodied fieldwork. Journal of Geography, 98(6), 272–282. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/00221349908978941 Google Scholar
• Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303 Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. G., Rutherford, J. N., Hinde, K., & Clancy, K. B. (2017). Signaling safety: Characterizing fieldwork experiences and their implications for career trajectories. American Anthropologist, 119(4), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12929 Google Scholar
• Nicotra, A. B., Geange, S. R., Bahar, N. H., Carle, H., Catling, A., Garcia, A., ... & Beckman, E. A. (2022). An innovative approach to using an intensive field course to build scientific and professional skills. Ecology and Evolution, 12(10), e9446. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9446 Medline, Google Scholar
• Nuñez, A. M., & Posselt, J. R. (2022). Learning in the wild: Fieldwork, gender, and the social construction of disciplinary culture. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(2), 163–194. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1971505 Google Scholar
• O'Brien, L. T., Bart, H. L., & Garcia, D. M. (2020). Why are there so few ethnic minorities in ecology and evolutionary biology? Challenges to inclusion and the role of sense of belonging. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 449–477. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09538-x Google Scholar
• O'Connell, K., Hoke , K., & Nilson , R. (2018). Report from the field on the design, outcomes, and assessment of undergraduate field experiences. Technical Report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Google Scholar
• O'Connell, K., Hoke, K. L., Giamellaro, M., Berkowitz, A. R., & Branchaw, J. (2022). A tool for designing and studying student-centered undergraduate field experiences: The UFERN model. BioScience, 72(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab112 Google Scholar
• O'Connell, S., & Holmes, M. A. (2011). Obstacles to the recruitment of minorities into the geosciences: A call to action. GSA Today, 21(6), 52–54. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1130/G105GW.1 Google Scholar
• Olcott, A. N., & Downen, M. R. (2020). The challenges of fieldwork for LGBTQ+ geoscientists, Eos, 101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EO148200 Google Scholar
• Peacock, J., Mewis, R., & Rooney, D. (2018). The use of campus based field teaching to provide an authentic experience to all students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 42(4), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2018.1460805 Google Scholar
• Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 315. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034027 Google Scholar
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). How to appraise the studies: An introduction to assessing study quality. In: M. PetticrewH. Roberts (Eds.), Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide, (pp. 125–163). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887.ch5 Google Scholar
• Posselt, J. R. (2020). Eroded boundaries and everyday interactions in geoscience fieldwork. In: Equity in science: Representation, culture, and the dynamics of change in graduate education (pp. 41–64). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
• Reinholz, D. L., & Ridgway, S. W. (2021). Access needs: Centering students and disrupting ableist norms in STEM. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), es8. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-01-0017 Link, Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, S., Cunningham, K., & Jordan, A. (2019). STEM identity development for Latinas: The role of self-and outside recognition. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(3), 254–272. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717739958 Google Scholar
• Rose, G. (1993). Feminism & geography: The limits of geographical knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar
• Rose, J., & Paisley, K. (2012). White privilege in experiential education: A critical reflection. Leisure Sciences, 34(2), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2012.652505 Google Scholar
• Rowe, W. E. (2014). Positionality. In: D. CoghlanM. Brydon‐Miller (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of action research (pp. 583–663). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
• Salkind, N. J. (2010). Cohen's kappa. In: N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design, (pp. 188–189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n60 Google Scholar
• Schinske, J. N., Perkins, H., Snyder, A., & Wyer, M. (2016). Scientist spotlight homework assignments shift students’ stereotypes of scientists and enhance science identity in a diverse introductory science class. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar47. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0002 Link, Google Scholar
• Scott, G. W., Goulder, R., Wheeler, P., Scott, L. J., Tobin, M. L., & Marsham, S. (2012). The value of fieldwork in life and environmental sciences in the context of higher education: A case study in learning about biodiversity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(297), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9276-x. Google Scholar
• Scott, G. W., Humphries, S., & Henri, D. C. (2019). Expectation, motivation, engagement and ownership: Using student reflections in the conative and affective domains to enhance residential field courses. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1608516 Google Scholar
• Secules, S., McCall, C., Mejia, J. A., Beebe, C., Masters, A. S., Sánchez-Peña, M., & Svyantek, M. (2021). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 19–43. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20377 Google Scholar
• Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493–534. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131 Google Scholar
• Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? In: S. N.BarnarttB. M. Altman (Eds.), Exploring theories and expanding methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go (Research in Social Science and Disability, Vol. 2), (pp. 9–28). Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3547(01)80018-X Google Scholar
• Shinbrot, X. A., Treibergs, K., Hernández, L. M. A., Esparza, D., Ghezzi-Kopel, K., Goebel, M., ... & Smith, M. K. (2022). The impact of field courses on undergraduate knowledge, affect, behavior, and skills: A scoping review. BioScience, 72(10), 1007–1017. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac070 Medline, Google Scholar
• Shukla, S. Y., Theobald, E. J., Abraham, J. K., & Price, R. M. (2022). Reframing educational outcomes: Moving beyond achievement gaps. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(2), es2. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0130 Medline, Google Scholar
• Snieder, R., & Spiers, C. (2002). Marketing earth science education. EOS, 83(12), 131–133. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1029/2002EO000082 Google Scholar
• Stets, J. E., Brenner, P. S., Burke, P. J., & Serpe, R. T. (2017). The science identity and entering a science occupation. Social Science Research, 64, 1–14. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.016 Medline, Google Scholar
• Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/2695870 Google Scholar
• Stokes, A., Feig, A. D., Atchison, C. L., & Gilley, B. (2019). Making geoscience fieldwork inclusive and accessible for students with disabilities. Geosphere, 15(6), 1809–1825. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1130/GES02006.1 Google Scholar
• Streule, M. J., & Craig, L. E. (2016). Social learning theories—An important design consideration for geoscience fieldwork. Journal of Geoscience Education, 64(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.5408/15-119.1 Google Scholar
• Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage & Family, 30(4), 558–564. https://doi.org/10.2307/349494 Google Scholar
• Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695840 Google Scholar
• Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633–642. Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: W. G. AustinS. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199269464.003.0005 Google Scholar
• Teranishi, R. T.Nguyen, B. M. D.Alcantar, C. M.Curammeng, E. R. (eds.). (2020). Measuring race: Why disaggregating data matters for addressing educational inequality. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
• Treibergs, K. A., Esparza, D., Yamazaki, J. A., Goebel, M., & Smith, M. K. (2022). How do introductory field biology students feel? Journal reflections provide insight into student affect. Ecology and Evolution, 12(11), e9454. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9454 Medline, Google Scholar
• Treibergs, K. A., Esparza, D., Yamazaki, J. A., & Smith, M. K. (2023). Journal reflections shed light on challenges students face in an introductory field biology course. Ecosphere, 14(4), e4509. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4509 Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (2019). IPEDS completion survey from Department of Education. Retrieved 2022, Nov 28 from https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/builder/ipeds_c Google Scholar
• VERBI Software. (2022). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from Retrieved from www.maxqda.com Google Scholar
• Vincent-Ruz, P., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–12. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5 Medline, Google Scholar
• West, B. T., & Blom, A. G. (2017). Explaining interviewer effects: A research synthesis. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 5(2), 175–211. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smw024 Google Scholar
• Whitney, D. J., Behl, R. J., Ambos, E. L., Francis, R. D., Holk, G., Larson, D. O., ... & Wechsler, S. P. (2005). Ethnic differences in geoscience attitudes of college students. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 86(30), 277–279. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO300002 Google Scholar
• Winter, P. L., Crano, W. D., Basáñez, T., & Lamb, C. S. (2019). Equity in access to outdoor recreation—Informing a sustainable future. Sustainability, 12(1), 124. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3390/su12010124 Google Scholar
• Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203624821 Google Scholar
• Zavaleta, E. S., Beltran, R. S., & Borker, A. L. (2020). How field courses propel inclusion and collective excellence. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35(11), 953–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.005 Medline, Google Scholar