“I’m still here and I want them to know that”: experiences of chemists with concealable identities in undergraduate research

Abstract

Students with concealable identities, those which are not always visually apparent, must navigate the difficult choice of whether to reveal their concealed identities—a choice that has been found to impact an individual's psychological well-being. Research that gives voice to those with concealable identities is highly lacking, and subsequently, work that describes the experiences of undergraduate chemists participating in engaged learning opportunities is even more limited. This study utilizes a phenomenographic approach through the theoretical lens of Undergraduate Research Science Capital (URSC), to analyze the experiences of six students as they navigate undergraduate research experiences and the effect of their visible and concealable identities. Though all six students described similar levels of URSC, their experiences, especially as they relate to their concealable identities, help to construct a multi-faceted perspective of undergraduate chemists who engage in undergraduate research. These results highlight the need for multiple approaches to equity efforts to ensure that high-impact practices such as undergraduate research are accessible to all students.

---

Introduction

Engaged learning experiences such as undergraduate research have been found to have highly beneficial outcomes for undergraduate students (Krim et al., 2019; Sandquist et al., 2019). So much so that international organizations such as the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) called for their inclusion in all undergraduate curricula (American Chemical Society, 2015; Royal Society of Chemistry, 2019). However, few studies explore the pathways that students take to enter undergraduate research experiences (UREs). Barriers that inhibit entry into undergraduate research experiences likely impact some students more frequently or to a greater degree than others, resulting in decreased participation amongst those students and impacting the equity of opportunity for undergraduate research experiences.

Concealable identities are those which are not visually apparent and can include personal characteristics such as sexual orientation or a disability, amongst other identity characteristics (Crocker et al., 1998). Students can be faced with the choice of revealing these pieces of their lives or leaving them concealed to their peers and mentors, an internal deliberation which often causes stress (Cooper et al., 2020b). While acknowledging that there are very few studies on pathways into UREs, there are even fewer studies of undergraduate research pathways that examine the potential impact of concealable identities specifically on student participation (Cooper et al., 2020a; Bingham, 2021; Haeger et al., 2021). Of those studies, none are specifically focused within the field of chemistry.

In a phenomenographic approach that utilizes a new theoretical model Undergraduate Research Science Capital (URSC), this study describes the experiences of six women related to their participation in undergraduate research in a science discipline. These participants all carry at least one marginalized identity, being a woman in science, and this study explores the impact of their marginalized gender identity and any concealable identities they may have reported, on their participation in undergraduate science research. This work represents an understudied perspective on the experiences of women and those with concealable identities and suggests new potential approaches to improvements of equity in UREs.

Literature review

Pathways into UREs. Though the positive outcomes of UREs are well established, particularly for students with identities that are underrepresented in science, few previous studies have examined the pathways by which students enter UREs (Lopatto, 2009; Eagan et al., 2013; Castillo and Estudillo, 2015). Haeger et al. (2021) investigated opportunities and barriers to research participation at a public, primarily undergraduate, Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) in the Western United States. Their study included undergraduate students, faculty members, and academic advisors; many of their identified barriers fall into the categories of institutional barriers (e.g., finding a mentor, fitting it into one's curriculum), other commitments (e.g., having to use that time for an outside job, familial commitments), and affective concerns (e.g., lack of sense of belonging). Bangera and Brownell (2014) also found many of these opportunities and barriers described in the literature, with the addition of issues of student awareness regarding URE opportunities, how to pursue them, and the benefits of UREs. They called for implementation of research experiences into courses (sometimes called course-based research experiences [CUREs]) to improve student accessibility to opportunities. These CUREs have the potential to impact a greater number of students than traditional, apprenticeship-style research experiences (common in science disciplines) because they can be implemented across many lab sections with a higher student-to-instructor ratio (Lopatto, 2009). Though CUREs are one way to improve the accessibility of research for students, they take much more preparation than a traditional course and proper support for instructors working to develop such a course is necessary for sustainable implementation (Lopatto et al., 2014).

One of the most prominent barriers to URE participation is that many students do not know what experiences are available to them or how to access them (Haeger et al., 2018). Cooper et al. (2021) acknowledged this hidden curriculum and identified “rules to research” that students progress through when entering research experiences. They recommended publicizing UREs (rather than relying on word of mouth or direct invitation from the research mentor) to improve the equity of entry into these experiences.

Other studies have analyzed opportunities and barriers to UREs at a programmatic level instead of at the student level. These programmatic characteristics that had either a positive or negative influence on URE participation include institutional financial resources, faculty availability, limited student preparation, faculty support with curriculum development, and department/administrative support of UREs (Lopatto et al., 2014; Frantz et al., 2017; Morales et al., 2017; Hewlett, 2018; Kirkpatrick et al., 2019). In response to recent ACS and RSC suggestions to infuse professional skills and specifically undergraduate research into the curriculum many chemistry departments have implemented requirements for URE participation before graduation with a baccalaureate degree (American Chemical Society, 2015; Royal Society of Chemistry, 2019). At a surface level, these influences primarily impact the institution and its employees rather than the students. However, these factors have an impact on the number of students that can participate in the individual URE as well as the overall quality of the experiences that ultimately have an influence on students’ pathways to URE participation. This study explores both student and programmatic factors that influence participant pathways into UREs to aid in further promotion of opportunities and reduction of barriers, with the ultimate goal of improving the equity of access to UREs for undergraduate science students.

Concealable identities in chemistry. Identity is a complex subject that can be broadly conceptualized as an individual's self-defined characteristics (Gerber and Murphy, 2019). As described by Stets and Burke (2000), both identity theory and social identity theory center identity as the categorization of oneself based on “categories” that exist in society, deemed identification (McCall and Simmons, 1966) or self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987), respectively. While there are many theories of identity, this work focuses on co-cultural identities—identities based on socially constructed categories that teach individuals a way of being and include expectations for social behavior, ways of acting, and norms (Yep, 1998; Gerber and Murphy, 2019). Common examples of co-cultural identities include race, gender, sexuality, and disability status (Gerber and Murphy, 2019).

Individuals may choose to conceal different aspects of their identities for many reasons. Oftentimes this concealment occurs because of an identity that is stigmatized in their community or makes them feel “othered” in uncomfortable ways; previous scholars have referred to these as concealable stigmatized identities (e.g., Crocker et al., 1998). The mental load that students face when considering whether or not to reveal a concealable identity often occurs because concealable identities are distinct from other identities that may not be visible (e.g., a baseball player, a member of the local orchestra) because of their potential to be stigmatized. Link and Phelan (2001) synthesized literature on stigma to define it as “…when elements of labeling, stereotyping, separating, status loss, and discrimination co-occur in a power situation that allows these processes to unfold.” (p. 382). Further, stigmatized identities are deemed concealable when their presence is not immediately detectable. Structural stigma is defined as “societal-level conditions, cultural norms, and institutional policies that constrain the opportunities, resources, and well-being of the stigmatized” (Hatzenbuehler and Link, 2014, p. 2). Acknowledging the existence of structural stigma extends the idea of stigma beyond one that is created by individuals, to one that is embedded in larger structural and systematic interactions (Link and Phelan, 2001; Hatzenbuehler and Link, 2014; Whittle et al., 2017). These larger structural interactions, and the impacts they may have on students, can be further viewed through the lens of critical theories that describe how these systems stigmatize, determine what is valued, and restrict power to traditionally underrepresented groups. A relevant example critical theory, Critical Disability Theory, describes how barriers, both physical and social, are not uncommon for students who report a disability. In fact, it is a central principle of Critical Disability Theory that “the social disadvantage experienced by disabled people is caused by the physical, institutional, and attitudinal (together, the ‘social’) environment which fails to meet the needs of people who do not match the social expectation of ‘normalcy’” (Hosking, 2008, p. 7). Stigmatization as both a structural and individual experience unequivocally influences how individuals access resources and opportunities, therefore investigating the experiences of students with concealable identities has the potential to bring these structural and individual barriers into the light for further examination.

Power differentials that exacerbate stigma are common in higher education. Several identities that could be considered concealable for an individual (though perhaps not for all members that share that identity, e.g., religion, dis/abilities, lower socioeconomic status, being a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic/agender and more [LGBTQIA+] community) have been shown to impact student experiences within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) communities broadly, and chemistry specifically (Cooper et al., 2020b; Scheitle and Dabbs, 2021; Busch, 2022). Previous studies have established a connection between possessing and attempting to conceal these identities and increased psychological distress (Quinn et al., 2014). However, stigma has been described as a social construct (e.g., Quinn and Chaudoir, 2009), and by nature, co-cultural identities are as well. Thus the distress resulting from these concealable identity/ies is complicated and contextual, and not generalizable to an entire stigmatized identity group (e.g., Twenge and Crocker, 2002). Additionally, we acknowledge that not all concealable identities are stigmatized across all communities and contexts and have therefore chosen to use them “concealable identities” rather than “concealable stigmatized identities”.

This work reveals the experiences of individuals with marginalized identities in science research spaces. This context is important because persons with marginalized identities do not always find research spaces to be safe or welcoming (Clancy et al., 2014; da Silva Cardoso et al., 2016; St. John et al., 2016; Kuchynka et al., 2018; Miller and Downey, 2020). Many individuals with marginalized identities find themselves having to routinely outperform their colleagues only to receive lesser recognition (Castro et al., 2024). In chemistry specifically, there are numerous accounts of chemists being met with chilly climates and exiting chemistry, and STEM entirely, at alarming rates (Wang, 2016; Forbes, 2022). This mass exodus only compounds upon documented underrepresentation of individuals with minoritized identities in the chemical sciences (Hickman, 2019; Kroll and Plath, 2022).

Chemists globally have begun to acknowledge these environments and produce large-scale calls to improve them (Egambaram et al., 2022; Fiss et al., 2023). These proposed solutions, though beneficial, are almost always confined to classroom and teaching laboratory environments and rarely address research environments specifically (Boval and Kennedy, 2018; MacDonald et al., 2018; Lillywhite and Wolbring, 2019; Royal Society of Chemistry, no date).

In addition to inclusive teaching environments, representation has been shown to be beneficial for both visible and concealable identities to help improve students’ sense of belonging (Lewis et al., 2016). Many efforts within chemistry have been taken to highlight diverse representation of chemists by both individuals such as the social media phenom André Isaacs (Raman, 2023), and larger-scale approaches such as the 500 Queer Scientists project (500 Queer Scientists, 2024). However, a tension exists when considering representation of concealable identities: psychological distress is possible for both students and faculty when deciding to reveal a concealed identity, yet without this reveal it can be especially difficult for students to find mentors who share their concealable identities, as the mentors themselves must navigate their choice to reveal their identities in their workplace and with their students (Yoder and Mattheis, 2016; Cooper et al., 2019; NASEM, 2019). Additionally, concealable identities are not always clearly defined, leaving individuals uncertain if they are eligible for available support (Santuzzi et al., 2014) and further exacerbating the underrepresentation of these individuals in large-scale demographic datasets (Freeman, 2020; Kroll and Plath, 2022). As Cooper et al. (2020b) proposed, understanding how concealable identities relate to URE participation is an important step toward creating more inclusive research experiences with the potential to improve the retention of underserved undergraduates in both chemistry and STEM.

Theoretical frameworks

Science capital. Sociological capital is the identity and personality aspects that an individual “carries” with them as they go about their lives (further description of sociological capital can be found in Bourdieu (1986)). Traditionally, conceptualizations of sociological capital within disciplines are mainly centred around individual's interactions with the arts and humanities (as described by Archer et al. (2015)). To respond to this, Archer et al. (2015) developed a specific framing of sociological capital pertaining to interactions with science activities, ideas, and concepts, aptly named Science Capital. This type of capital was described by DeWitt et al. (2016) through four constructs that help individuals navigate science fields: how you think, which is broadly defined as how you value and understand science; who you know, described as science-related social capital; what you know, what science you know; and what you do, the ways in which an individual talks about and participates in science-related activities. The studies used to develop Science Capital are focused on K-12 students who are developing their science interests as they consider their college majors (Archer et al., 2015; DeWitt et al., 2016). However, in this study, Science Capital is adapted for the undergraduate science student population and used to understand the science-related sociological capital each participant expresses as they describe their interactions with UREs.

Undergraduate research science capital. This study is a qualitative follow-up to a quantitative study (n = 833) that used factor analysis to resolve the four factors of science capital (DeWitt et al., 2016) as well as an additional fifth construct, What you dream, which describes how UREs are related to students’ future goals (Boyd and Lazar, 2024). By combining these five constructs, researchers were able to explore barriers and opportunities to student entry into undergraduate research experiences in a model referred to as Undergraduate Research Science Capital (URSC; Fig. 1). In doing so, this study deepens the exploration of the five areas of URSC to further explore the effect of concealable identities on students’ participation in UREs.

Fig. 1 Undergraduate research science capital.

Research questions

The research question explored by this study is: how do undergraduate chemists describe their opportunities and barriers related to undergraduate research as framed by Undergraduate Research Science Capital? Following data collection, the opportunity to describe the experiences of students with concealable identities became apparent, leading to a second research question: how do students’ concealable identities influence these descriptions?

Methodology

Author positionality

This study is stemmed from the authors’ previous work on the opportunities and barriers to UREs for science students. One author regularly works with a summer research experience for undergraduates (REU) program involving students from many types of institutions and the other participated in undergraduate research at a primarily undergraduate institution (PUI), leading both authors to consider more critically the pathways for students into undergraduate research. The authors noted the absence of many voices in the undergraduate research literature, particularly from those traditionally underrepresented in science. Participant selection was developed to amplify some of those voices and at the beginning of data analysis, concealable stigmatized identities were revealed as a common theme leading to the focus of this study. While neither author has a concealable stigmatized identity, they both have experience working with undergraduates with concealable stigmatized identities in science research spaces and are driven by the desire to make these spaces accessible to all students.

Study design

This study is a phenomenographical follow-up of a quantitative study (Boyd, 2023). Six interview participants were purposely selected from participants in the quantitative study based on their self-reported identities, major, and research experience/inexperience. The chemical sciences span far beyond those that declare a chemistry major. Out of 240 undergraduate researchers, when asked major and area of research only 32% of chemistry majors researched in chemistry, and only 35% of students who identified as chemistry researchers were also chemistry majors (Boyd, 2023). Additionally, it can vary widely institution to institution if subdisciplines such as biochemistry or geochemistry are included in the chemistry department and/or major. As such, students who majored in chemistry or biochemistry, and/or researched in a chemistry field were included in this qualitative study. Two of the selected students are chemistry majors, three are biochemistry majors, and the remaining student is a geology major who participated in environmental chemistry research. Purposeful selection was performed in a manner which honors the requirement of phenomenography to have a maximum variation sample (Creswell, 2009) and ensure that a diverse set of voices was represented in the study.

All six participants are women, as are approximately 75% of the survey respondents. Identifying as a woman was not part of the interview selection criteria but likely reflects the large proportion of women in the selection pool. It is not the intention of the authors to imply that the voices of women are the only voices present or that men and non-binary students do not also have unique experiences. We also note that the study did not capture whether an individual identified as a cis woman or trans woman, therefore the women in this study may identify as either. During the interview, four of the six participants confirmed that they identify with one or more concealable identity groups. The authors acknowledge the possibility that the remaining two may have chosen not to reveal a concealable identity, however, because they did not reveal these identities, they are not described this way in the analysis. The interview protocol was designed to address the opportunities and barriers individuals faced when considering UREs (Table S1, ESI†). Interviews were semi-structured, and approximately thirty minutes in length. This study provides an often-overlooked perspective of women with concealable identities in chemistry spaces. By interviewing both participants with concealable identities and without, a clearer description of the differences in experience for those with concealable identities is produced.

This study was approved for exempt-level review by Clemson University's Institutional Review Board (IRB 2021-0928). This study took place outside of the context of any course and researchers had no evaluative or supervisory responsibilities of any of the participants. The interviewer obtained written consent via e-mail while scheduling the potential interviews and verbal informed consent before formally beginning the interviews. Participants were given the option to decline participation, stop participation at any point, and/or withdraw responses at any time following the interview. Participant identities are protected by the utilization of participant-selected pseudonyms in this manuscript. Participants earned a $20 incentive card for their participation, awarded after the completion of the interview.

This study utilized a phenomenographic approach to qualitative analysis. In a phenomenography, researchers are seeking to understand the qualitatively different ways in which participants experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand various aspects of phenomena in the world around them (Creswell, 2009). In the case of this study, the phenomenon of interest is participant experiences surrounding UREs.

Three researchers familiar with qualitative research coding participated in the coding and analysis portions of the study to ensure validity. Interviews were transcribed, cleaned, and verified by the first researcher by listening to interview recordings and checking the content of the transcripts. Then, two cycles of coding were performed in accordance with suggestions for phenomenographic coding by Saldaña (2016) and Creswell (2009). The first coding cycle was holistic coding and included six passes to encompass each of the theoretical framework's constructs (Fig. 1). Consensus coding was carried out with a secondary coder until full consensus was achieved; this resulted in twenty-eight codes. Then, themes and subthemes were developed from these codes as a transition between the first and second coding phases. This was performed together by two researchers (the main coder and a second researcher) on a virtual whiteboard. Codes were written on virtual sticky notes and sorted until themes emerged. Next, a second cycle of axial coding then followed to confirm the themes and subthemes (Fig. 2). The second cycle of coding also underwent consensus coding with the secondary coder until full consensus was achieved. After the second round of coding, six themes and twenty-one subthemes remained. Codes, code definitions, and themes were kept in a codebook which is available in Table S2 (ESI†).

Fig. 2 Coding themes and subthemes. Note. Major themes are represented by the six vertical boxes. Subthemes are represented by smaller boxes within each theme. Subthemes removed between the first and second rounds of coding are shaded lightly with dark dotted outline. The subtheme that was moved between themes is shaded in black.

Participant characteristics

All participants identify as women and are science majors at an R1 institution in the Southeastern United States. Participants selected pseudonyms and designed icons for visual representation following protocols described by Boyd et al. (2024). Four participants, Susan, Emily, Camryn, and Cee had previously participated in research and the remaining two had not yet participated. Two participants are Black/African American and four are White. Two participants reported disabilities and three identified as members of the (LGBTQIA+) community. Additionally, one participant was a Pell Grant recipient, an example of another potentially concealable identity (Kallschmidt and Eaton, 2019). However, due to her being the only participant who revealed that it was not considered further in the analysis. Participant demographics are presented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Participant characteristics.

Results

Through conducting these interviews it became clear that there was an opportunity to give voice to the experiences of those with concealable identities. The responses also reveal that though those who possess concealable identities may present similar levels of Science Capital, they do so in differing ways. By identifying the ways in which students with concealable identities express science capital, science departments, and their respective institutions can better promote student participation in UREs. These results demonstrate the ways that these representations differ across all five theoretical framework constructs (Table 1).

Table 1 Student responses across subthemes

	Camryn	Tee	Monday	Emily	Susan	Cee
Disability status	No reported disability	No reported disability	Student with a disability	No reported disability	No reported disability	Student with a disability
LGBTQIA+ status	Not LGBTQIA+ student	Not LGBTQIA+ student	Not LGBTQIA+ student	LGBTQIA+ student	LGBTQIA+ student	LGBTQIA+ student
How you think
General interest in science				X
Disinterest	X	X
Outcome driven interest						X
Feelings surrounding research participation				X		X
Who you know
Non-structural social capital		X			X	X
Structural social capital				X	X	X
What you know
Positive communication about research opportunities	X	X			X
Negative communication about research opportunities	X	X	X		X	X
Curricular and programmatic opportunities		X		X	X
Facing known research barriers		X			X	X
What you do
Individual barriers to doing science	X	X
Structural barriers to doing science		X	X		X	X
Structural supports to doing science				X		X
What you dream
Research has changed how I view my future goals	X			X	X	X
Research is unrelated to career goals			X
Future research-specific aspirations		X		X	X
Research as a steppingstone to the future					X
Stated career goals
Exiting STEM	X
Medical field						X
STEM industry			X		X
STEM research		X		X	X

---

How you think

Capital related to How you think about undergraduate research mainly pertains to students’ expressed dis/interest in undergraduate research and its influence on student participation. The students who did not reveal any potentially concealed identities (i.e., students without concealable identities; white boxes in Table 1) also did not describe interest in research in their interviews (subtheme, “disinterest”). This does not mean that research interest is not present at all but could indicate that interest is less of a driving factor for research participation for these students than their peers who are members of the LGBTQIA+ and/or disabled communities.

Several LGBTQIA+ students and students reporting a disability expressed areas of How you think capital explicitly in their interviews. Emily stated how a general interest in science was a driving factor for her research participation, as exemplified by her quote “I really love science and I always like was interested in research…like in high school, I didn't really exactly know what it meant but there was always something I wanted to try.” (subtheme, “general interest in science”; Table 1). Cee described interest in specific outcomes such as experience and skill gains as part of her reasoning for potential research participation (subtheme, “outcome driven interest”).

Additionally, Emily, and Cee both described feelings that surrounded their research participation. However, feelings were sometimes positive as with Cee's reflection on her own research experience, “But if I knew that it wasn't something that has to be like twenty hours a week of me like doing this busy work, or it could be something that actually is like stress relieving and therapeutic and inspiring to me, I would have joined a lot sooner” (subtheme, “feelings surrounding research participation”). These How you think descriptions provide evidence of the students’ interest levels in UREs and further highlight the impact of opportunities and barriers to their participation.

Who you know

Who you know capital pertains to mentors and other influential people in students’ lives that may have an impact on their undergraduate research participation. These descriptions were sorted into structural social capital, meaning influences coming from individuals who worked for or represented their university, and non-structural social capital, pertaining to individuals who are not directly connected to the university (Fig. 2). The students who are not members of the LGBTQIA+ nor disabled communities mentioned very little Who you know capital in their interviews, with the exception of Tee, “…word of mouth, like them telling me what research they’re doing…not really something I was interested in.” This description demonstrates non-structural social capital however, she did not participate because she did not find an opportunity she was interested in (subtheme, “non-structural social capital”).

All students who reported a concealable identity described some form of Who you know capital except for Monday. Susan and Cee described non-structural social capital as Susan did below when describing how she got involved with her first research experience.

“I had just come as a freshman. It was not even my first month here, and a girl that worked not with my PhD candidate, but with one in the same lab, was like, ‘Oh, I know this guy who's looking for a student to help him do work, and that does like environmental chemistry sort of stuff. So, if you’re interested here's his contact info’, and that's how I kind of got my foot in the door.” – Susan (subtheme, “non-structural social capital”)

Emily, Susan, and Cee described instances of structural social capital. Cee in particular explained how her research mentor was openly gay and knowing that before she even joined the research group was a large driver in her desire to participate so that she could make connections with a mentor with a shared identity.

“…And so, it was like cool to know that there was like a gay professor on campus like obviously, there is…but someone who's like very much out about it, someone that like created a space for people to talk about these things that I haven’t ever really been able to talk about. Yeah. So that was like immediately, like, I really want to be a part of this. So, I’m very thankful that he responded to me, and I’m glad I emailed in a coherent way.” – Cee (subtheme, “structural social capital”)

Through these Who you know descriptions, students highlight the impact individuals can have on another's entry into UREs. Students may not always know what experiences are available to them if those they interact with do not share the opportunities with them.

What you know

Subthemes within What you know include positive and negative forms of research-related communication, curricular and programmatic opportunities, and facing known barriers to research. This theme appears to have a larger impact on the students who did not report a concealable identity as all three reported both positive and negative instances of communication. Tee, for example, had descriptions that met all four subthemes. Positive communication about research opportunities included instances in which participants described communication that led to opportunities for research (subtheme, “positive communication about research opportunities”). None of the students with a disability, and only one LGBTQIA+ student (Susan), described instances where communication of research activities was positive. Far more frequent were instances in which participants described communication struggles or lack of communication which led to a barrier to research. Often participants described both, as was the case with Tee who had not participated in research yet but was graduating soon and it is a requirement for her graduation.

“Usually, the department chair would send emails out about research opportunities, so they are out there…{The} concept of undergrad research is a great one. It's just that I feel like it should just be more easily accessible to students to get into research. I feel like I could send an email, but sometimes these professors are not seeing the email. So now I have to figure out a time to actually go to their office and set up an appointment and talk to them, like, ‘Hey, look, I got to graduate. Can we make something happen?’ I just feel like it should be a little easier to communicate with [the] professor or the TA that you're interested in their research that they're doing.” – Tee (subtheme, “negative communication about research opportunities”)

Additional subthemes of What you know capital include curricular and programmatic opportunities and navigation of known research barriers. Tee, Emily, and Susan all described curricular and programmatic impacts on their ability to participate in research. Susan, Monday, and Tee are in programs that require research participation for graduation, and they described that as leading to opportunities for them to participate (see Tee's quote above).

Tee, Susan, and Cee described facing known research barriers, a subtheme that encompasses descriptions of students navigating research barriers that they knew would be present before they began searching for research opportunities. This was the case here for Cee, who describes how multiple research barriers led her to pursue a non-lab-based science research experience which she enjoyed more than she expected.

“I didn't have this opportunity because of COVID, and because I didn't have these people guiding me through this, I didn't have parents who knew what the hell undergrad was about. It is supposed to look like COVID happened, I have ADHD which makes me forget things exist frequently, I have chronic illnesses which keep me in bed, and it's like none of those are compatible with what people think is ‘real research’. So no, I feel like I don't have any experience in that, and I don't. But I still have all of these great experiences… And yeah, they can think they're all superior, but I'm still here and I want them to know that.” – Cee (subtheme, “facing known research barriers”)

Participant descriptions of What you know capital reveal many of the ways that students find research experiences. Word of mouth can have a powerful impact, both positive and negative. Additionally, all students have curricular pathways, and depending on the programmatic set-up this can serve as an opportunity or barrier to URE participation. Particularly for students with concealable identities, barriers to participation are already known to the students, however with the right support students can still have positive interactions with research.

What you do

Excerpts that fall into What you do themes can be categorized as individual (e.g., they are not required for students’ degrees) or structural (e.g., they contribute to the curriculum and are directly connected to university or departmental involvement). Individual barriers were mentioned by Camryn and Tee and most often have to do with non-research-related jobs or extracurricular activities, as described here by Camryn when she explained why she chose not to continue to participate in undergraduate research. “So mainly I was involved in a lot of extracurricular activities so like organizations, and I was on boards. So, having to balance that with classes, and the research project was not beneficial for me” (subtheme, “individual barriers to doing science”).

Structural impacts were sometimes opportunities, as described by Emily, and Cee. For example, Emily described how she was questioning her sexuality when she entered her research experience, but her supportive lab group helped her personally, which was an unexpected outcome for her as she only expected professional outcomes of URE participation.

“I still don't really know [about her sexuality]. Yet a lot of people in my lab actually are part of the LGBTQ+ community, and that has been helpful in figuring stuff out…. It definitely hasn't dissuaded me from my participation in research, because the majority of people actually surprisingly in my lab, are part of the [LGBTQ+] community, which I think is funny. But they're all really nice, and they're really supportive, and they like, talk openly about it. And everyone is just really nice. So that has been helpful.” – Emily (subtheme, “structural supports to doing science”)

More frequently, structural impacts are barriers, as described by Monday, Susan, Cee, and Jay. All students with a disability described potential accessibility concerns such as Cee whose research advisor offers accommodations to ensure that students are able to participate fully.

“I have like a few chronic illnesses. And so that definitely influenced my research experience…that first semester that I was in that group, I was sick the entire semester, like I had pneumonia three times. I could barely get out of bed some…most days actually and I was like…it was a lot…what was really special with that like [professor] was so like lenient with me, he was so like forgiving and kind, and like was okay…if I didn't have my work done at certain times, because he knew, and that was kind of something that drove where I went because I knew what I had going on in my life. I knew that I had these issues, and I was like ‘I can't join a research lab that requires my in-person attendance like a couple of times a week, because I can't even leave my home a few times a week’.” – Cee (Subtheme, “structural barriers to doing science”)

Other common structural barriers included courses not allowing room in a student's schedule for research. Monday stated that this was a contributor to her not yet participating in research. “I'm at about twenty credit hours every semester. with what free time I do have. I want to be doing something that I find useful and enjoyable, and I don't think [research…that doesn't match that criteria].” This is a common sentiment, particularly for transfer students or those who came from schools that did not offer many advanced placement (AP) or dual enrollment opportunities. Monday continued to describe why her course load was often so high.

“I came from a school where they didn’t offer any AP classes or dual enrollment that kind of thing which one would think that just puts you ahead for college, it shouldn’t put you behind…And so, even though I was doing everything…what I would consider to be normal. It kind of set me behind compared to my peers. So that's been part of why I have more credit hours than some people and don’t have time for research.” – Monday (subtheme, “structural barriers to doing science”)

Additionally, Cee described not being sure if her disabilities “counted”.

“It's weird because I don't know like I kind of exist on like the boundary of disability. I know ADHD is a disability, but I still feel fake, saying that even though it is very debilitating sometimes. And then I have, like a few chronic illnesses, and so that definitely influenced my like research experience prior to this, because that first semester that I was in that group, I was sick the entire semester, like I had pneumonia 3 times. I could barely get out of bed some…most days actually and I was like…it was a lot.” – Cee (subtheme, “structural barriers to doing science”)

Because concealable identities, such as having a disability, are not always clearly defined, students may not be certain if they are eligible to access the resources that are available at their institutions. Individual research mentors, science departments, and supporting institutions must make a conscious effort to ensure the accessibility of these resources for science students.

Finally, effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were a commonly described structural barrier. As Susan recounts here, “I think COVID is probably the biggest one because as a STEM student, it's really hard to do research fully online, especially in such a hands-on physical field because you can’t just pick up rocks through a computer like that's just not an option.” Susan had participated in two research experiences; however, one was cut short unexpectedly due to COVID and she stated that she would have participated in more research experiences if COVID had not been her largest research barrier. Through their individual and structural opportunities and barriers to science, participants reveal some of the many effects What you do has on URE participation in conjunction with the other forms of URSC.

What you dream

What you dream capital generally refers to students’ future goals. When asked about their future career goals only Camryn plans on exiting STEM completely (Table 1). Camryn participated in a research experience and described how, though not a negative experience, it showed her she did not want to continue research in the future (subtheme, “research has changed how I view my future goals”). “I kind of saw that I didn't really enjoy the research process. I didn't mind it. It just wasn't for me. So, I kind of was like, maybe I do not want to be a direct scientist, maybe have something indirectly to do with science. But I realized that that's okay, too. I realized that I don't think I want to do research.” All students who participated in research described incidences in which the research experience changed their future goals. In addition to Camryn, Emily describes here “I came in as a health science major and I switch[ed] to biochemistry. And I switch[ed] to I wanna go to grad school instead of going to med school because I loved doing research a lot more than I liked the idea of med school.” Camryn and Emily's excerpts reveal the potential of UREs to help students find their future paths, even (or perhaps especially) when that path is different from what they expected when they began researching.

Despite pursuing a career in a STEM field, one student, Monday, described how she did not feel that research fit into her future goals. “I wouldn't participate [in research]. I think it doesn't really align with what I want to do in the future.” Monday went on to describe how she would prefer a more applied experience, such as an internship, that directly connects to her specific career aspirations (subtheme, “research is unrelated to career goals”). Consistent with their career goals, Tee, Emily, and Susan, expressed a desire to research in the future, either before their undergraduate graduation, as they pursue their careers, or both (subtheme, “future research specific aspirations”). Finally, one student, Susan, described how their research was a resume boost for them. “I've been able to put that like on my LinkedIn on job resumes, and it shows that I have a bit more of…of like an ability outside of just my degree because it wasn't in my degree field.” (subtheme, “research as a steppingstone to the future”). Excerpts in What you dream provide examples of the ways in which students’ future goals influence URE participation. They also reveal the ways in which research participation can likewise have an impact on student dreams, often unexpectedly.

Discussion

This study is rooted in Undergraduate Research Science Capital (Fig. 1). The utilization of this model captures many of the influences involved in student entry into UREs and allows researchers to explore the experiences of women with concealable identities surrounding URE participation. When interviewed, it becomes apparent that these students are presenting their Undergraduate Research Science Capital in differing ways as demonstrated by Table 1. Further understanding of the pathways students with concealable identities take when entering undergraduate research spaces will help institutions improve the equity of their UREs.

Navigating research participation with concealable identities

Students with concealable identities expressed each form of Undergraduate Research Science Capital differently from their peers (Table 1). Members of the LGBTQIA+ community and students with disabilities more frequently described instances of using structural social capital as opposed to non-structural. This is consistent with the findings of Whitehead (2019) who interviewed Black LGBTQIA+ students about the forms of capital they access when navigating their community college experiences. They found that students often accessed campus resources/clubs and developed social capital in places that they are confident they can feel safe in. For the six students in this study, the university structure appears to be an overall safe place, however, studies reveal this is not always the case for LGBTQIA+ students in the chemical sciences (Wang, 2016).

Cee specifically mentioned how her disabilities and her status as a first-generation college student prevented her from participating in many research experiences; nevertheless, she found an alternative option. Additionally, it is likely some of the structural social capital was built by the students navigating their concealable identities. If they had reached out for support from their institution previously and were successful in finding it, they may be more inclined to continue to trust and reach out to other faculty or support structures—examples of other forms of structural social capital. The formation and development of this structural social capital may also work to inoculate students from the institutional barriers to research described by Haeger et al. (2021).

Despite more frequently reporting structural social capital, more LGBTQIA+, and students with disabilities described structural barriers to research than their peers. This included all students with disabilities describing incidences of structural barriers. Chemistry in general has called attention for the need to improve accessibility, and research experiences are not exempt (Fiss et al., 2023). In this study, Cee mentioned how she chose to participate in STEM education research experience as opposed to a more traditional bench chemistry experience because of her accessibility needs. Though students in this study only described COVID-19 as a barrier to research, there are accessibility lessons that can be learned from the pandemic that may make UREs more accessible for students (Erickson et al., 2022).

Communication of opportunities has been found to be an important influence on URE participation for science students (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Cooper et al., 2021). Students do not always have equal exposure to available opportunities and may need to be directed to research opportunities that are available to them. Consistent with the structural barrier findings, students with concealable identities reported positive communication about research opportunities less often than their peers. Additionally, there were many reports of negative communication throughout the study in all groups of students (LGBTQIA+, students with disabilities, peers, etc.). Encouraging faculty and research mentors to advertise available research positions and state desired qualifications for research opportunities would be highly beneficial in promoting the equity of availability of UREs.

Representation in chemistry research

Students who are members of the LGBTQIA+ community included descriptions of participating in UREs as a means of finding a mentor and increasing sense of belonging. For students with concealable identities, finding a mentor who either shares their concealable identities or is attentive to their needs may be especially difficult. Effective mentorship includes providing students with psychosocial support, an observation that both Cee and Susan described. This support has been shown to increase STEM recruitment and retention rates as students are more likely to feel a sense of belonging in these environments (NASEM, 2019). Additionally, studies have suggested that students with stigmatized race and/or gender identities may benefit from mentors who share those identities (NASEM, 2019). However, when identities are concealed it can be difficult to locate a mentor with that shared identity (as Cee expressed), especially since both students and mentors have been found to be less likely to reveal their concealed identities in professional settings (Yoder and Mattheis, 2016; Cooper et al., 2019; NASEM, 2019). Representation matters for all minoritized identities, visible or concealable. Students seeing and interacting with mentors who share identities with them can help them see themselves as the successful chemists they can become.

Implications for research and practice

Though this study analyzes the concealable identities of being a member of the LGBTQIA+ and/or disability community specifically, concealability generally is an understudied area of identity in chemistry education literature. As with any qualitative study, these results are not largely generalizable, however, they do serve as an example of the potential impact of concealable identities on chemistry student pathways into an engaged learning experience. These stories and experiences shared with the research team by individuals with concealable identities highlight the necessity of equity improvements to undergraduate research in the sciences, as a one-size-fits-all approach will not be beneficial for all students. Additionally, this study highlights the importance of continued research to improve the equity of entry into UREs for all students, particularly those with concealable identities.

Many of these findings can be directly applied by chemistry departments to improve access to their UREs. One may assume that curricular research requirements alone are enough to make research experiences available to students. However, neither of the two chemistry majors in this study (Monday and Tee) who had curricular research requirements had participated in research. Additionally, Tee expressed how though she had tried to enter research opportunities, she had not yet been able to and she was concerned about her graduation because of this (see Tee's quote in What you know). The authors make several recommendations to departments who are interested in better supporting their students with concealable identities and improving the equity of entry into research experiences more broadly: (1) lower barriers to entry into UREs so that students can decide what opportunities they intend to pursue; (2) promote clear communication between instructors and students about what UREs are available; and (3) highlight the positive potential outcomes for students who engage in UREs. While these recommendations have the potential to benefit all students, we especially highlight that students with concealable identities may see a greater increase in participation rates. These students reported few instances of positive communication about research opportunities, as compared to their peers with non-concealable identities who all indicated they had received this messaging (Table 1). Just as our participants shared their stories from across subdisciplines of chemistry, we hope that these recommendations can be used to improve the quality of and access to research experiences across chemical education.

The authors acknowledge that the theory and methodology utilized in this study likely does not fully capture structural oppression, as that was not the goal of the study. It is also likely that we have not fully captured the experiences of students with concealable identities, and further work is needed to give a voice to those students and their experiences. Science Capital and phenomenography both lie within the post-positivist paradigm, leading results and implications to focus more on how an individual can fit into a system rather than how the system should be changed to meet the needs of the students (Lareau, 2001; Hatch, 2023). Critical theories would suggest that different levels of science capital are influenced by intersecting systems of oppression in participants’ lived experiences. Future work utilizing critical theories is suggested in conjunction with this work to promote structural changes within higher education to better support student entry into UREs.

Conclusion

When compared to their peers, students with concealable identities reported similar levels of each area of Science Capital. However, the ways in which this capital was expressed differed from their peers without concealable identities (Table 1). These differing types of capital remained consistent across identity groups, rather than research participation or number of opportunities presented. This highlights the need for multiple approaches to recruitment efforts into UREs. The outcomes of this study have led to recommendations that can be implemented by faculty, departments, and institutions to better support students with concealable identities to start exploring UREs and provide a gateway to the numerous positive outcomes these high-impact practices can provide.

Author contributions

The authors contributed to the following roles during manuscript preparation. Conceptualization: EAB; data curation: EAB, KBL; formal analysis: EAB, KBL; funding acquisition: EAB; investigation: EAB; methodology: EAB, KBL; project administration: KBL; resources: KBL; supervision: KBL; validation: KBL; visualization: EAB, KBL; writing – original draft: EAB; writing – review & editing: EAB, KBL.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

This study was approved exempt from review by the supporting Institutions IRB. Support provided by the Geological Society of America. The authors would like to thank the participants of this study and Shannon Conner.

References

1. 500 Queer Scientists, (2024), 500 Queer Scientists, 500 Queer Scientists. Available at: https://500queerscientists.com/search/(Accessed 5 March 2024).
2. American Chemical Society, (2015), Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor's Degree Programs, American Chemical Society.
3. Archer L., Dawson E., DeWitt J., Seakins A. and Wong B., (2015), “Science capital”: a conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 52(7), 922–948.
4. Bangera G. and Brownell S. E., (2014), Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Can Make Scientific Research More Inclusive, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 13(4), 602–606.
5. Bingham B. E., (2021), Exploring the Impact and Accessibility of Undergraduate Research Experiences in the Natural Sciences, Master of Science. University of Guelph.
6. Bourdieu P., (1986), The Forms of Capital, in J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
7. Boval J. and Kennedy S., (2018), Laboratory Safety for All: Accommodating Students with Disabilities in Chemistry Teaching Laboratories, Accessibility in the Laboratory. American Chemical Society, pp. 99–115.
8. Boyd E., (2023), A Mixed Methods Analysis of Influences Surrounding Undergraduate Science Recruitment: Identifying Challenges and Opportunities, PhD Clemson University.
9. Boyd E. A. and Lazar K. B., (2024), Development of the Undergraduate Research Science Capital Scale, Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research.
10. Boyd E. A., Lazar K. B. and Voigt M., (2024), Humanizing geoscience education research through participant-driven visual representation, J. Geosci. Educ., 72(1), 15–23.
11. Busch C., (2022), ‘Disclosure Decisions: Science and Engineering Instructors as Role Models with Concealable Stigmatized Identities’, ESERA Summer School 2022 eBook of Synopses. European Science Education Research Association, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
12. Castillo Y. and Estudillo A., (2015), Undergraduate Research: An Essential Piece for Underrepresented Students’ College Success, Faculty Publ., 4.
13. Castro F., Stuart E., Deal J., Varadaraj V. and Swenor B. K., (2024), STEM doctorate recipients with disabilities experienced early in life earn lower salaries and are underrepresented among higher academic positions, Nat. Human Behaviour, 8(1), 72–81.
14. Clancy K. B. H., Nelson R. G., Rutherford J. N. and Hinde K., (2014), Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault, PLoS One, 9(7), e102172.
15. Cooper K., Brownell S. and Gormally C., (2019), Coming Out to the Class: Identifying Factors that Influence College Biology Instructor Decisions About Revealing Their LGBQ Identities in Class, J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng., 25(3) DOI:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2019026085.
16. Cooper K., Cala J. M. and Brownell S. E., (2021), Cultural capital in undergraduate research: an exploration of how biology students operationalize knowledge to access research experiences at a large, public research-intensive institution, Int. J. STEM Educ., 8(1), 6.
17. Cooper K., Gin L. E., Barnes M. E. and Brownell S. E., (2020a), An Exploratory Study of Students with Depression in Undergraduate Research Experiences, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 19(2), ar19.
18. Cooper K., Gin L. E. and Brownell S. E., (2020b), Depression as a concealable stigmatized identity: what influences whether students conceal or reveal their depression in undergraduate research experiences? Int. J. STEM Educ., 7(1), 27.
19. Creswell J. W., (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn, SAGE.
20. Crocker J., Major B. and Steele C., (1998), ‘Social Stigma’, in D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (ed.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill, pp. 504–553.
21. da Silva Cardoso E., Phillips B. N., Thompson K., Ruiz D., Tansey T. N. and Chan F., (2016), Experiences of Minority College Students with Disabilities in STEM, J. Postsecondary Educ. Disability, 29(4), 375–388.
22. DeWitt J., Archer L. and Mau A., (2016), Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 38(16), 2431–2449.
23. Eagan M. K., Hurtado S., Chang M. J., Garcia G. A., Herrera F. A. and Garibay J. C., (2013), Making a Difference in Science Education: The Impact of Undergraduate Research Programs, Am. Educ. Res. J., 50(4), 683–713.
24. Egambaram O., Hilton K., Leigh J., Richardson R., Sarju J., Slater A. and Turner B., (2022), The Future of Laboratory Chemistry Learning and Teaching Must be Accessible, J. Chem. Educ., 99(12), 3814–3821.
25. Erickson O. A., Cole R. B., Isaacs J. M., Alvarez-Clare S., Arnold J., Augustus-Wallace A., Ayoob J. C., Berkowitz A., Branchaw J., Burgio K. R., Cannon C. H., Ceballos R. M., Cohen C. S., Coller H., Disney J., Doze V. A., Eggers M. J., Farina S., Ferguson E. L., Gray J. J., Greenberg J. T., Hoffmann A., Jensen-Ryan D., Kao R. M., Keene A. C., Kowalko J. E., Lopez S. A., Mathis C., Minkara M., Murren C. J., Ondrechen M. J., Ordoñez P., Osano A., Padilla-Crespo E., Palchoudhury S., Qin H., Ramírez-Lugo J., Reithel J., Shaw C. A., Smith A., Smith R., Summers A. P., Tsien F. and Dolan E. L., (2022), “How Do We Do This at a Distance?!” A Descriptive Study of Remote Undergraduate Research Programs during COVID-19, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 21(1), ar1.
26. Fiss B. G., D’Alton L. and Noah N. M., (2023), Chemistry is inaccessible: how to reduce barriers for disabled scientists, Nature, 623(7989), 913–915.
27. Forbes T. D., (2022), Queer-free majors? LGBTQ+ college students’ accounts of chilly and warm academic disciplines, J. LGBT Youth, 19(3), 330–349.
28. Frantz K. J., Demetrikopoulos M. K., Britner S. L., Carruth L. L., Williams B. A., Pecore J. L., DeHaan R. L. and Goode C. T., (2017), A Comparison of Internal Dispositions and Career Trajectories after Collaborative versus Apprenticed Research Experiences for Undergraduates, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 16(1), ar1.
29. Freeman J. B. (2020) Measuring and Resolving LGBTQ Disparities in STEM, Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci., 7(2), 141–148.
30. Gerber P. J. and Murphy H., (2019), Interpersonal Communication Abridged Textbook, Central New Mexico Community College.
31. Haeger H., Fresquez C., Banks J. E. and Smith C., (2018), Navigating the Academic Landscape: How Mentored Research Experiences Can Shed Light on the Hidden Curriculum, Scholarship Practice Undergraduate Res., 2(1), 4–14.
32. Haeger H., White C., Martinez S. and Velasquez S., (2021), Creating More Inclusive Research Environments for Undergraduates, J. Scholarship Teach. Learn., 21(1), 320–362.
33. Hatch J. A., (2023), Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, 2nd edn, Albany: State University of New York Press.
34. Hatzenbuehler M. L. and Link B. G., (2014), Introduction to the special issue on structural stigma and health, Soc. Sci. Med., 103, 1–6.
35. Hewlett J. A., (2018), Broadening Participation in Undergraduate Research Experiences (UREs): The Expanding Role of the Community College, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 17(3), es9.
36. Hickman D., (2019), Equilibrating Equality – The Current Situation of LGBTQ Scientists, ChemistryViews, 5 November. Available at: https://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/11186931/Equilibrating_Equality__The_Current_Situation_of_LGBTQ_Scientists/(Accessed 5 March 2024).
37. Hosking D. L., (2008), ‘Critical Disability Theory’, 4th Biennial Disability Studies Conference, UK: Lancaster University, Available at: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/disabilityconference_archive/2008/papers/hosking2008.pdf.
38. Kallschmidt A. M. and Eaton A. A., (2019), Are lower social class origins stigmatized at work? A qualitative study of social class concealment and disclosure among White men employees who experienced upward mobility, J. Vocat. Behav., 113, 115–128.
39. Kirkpatrick C., Schuchardt A., Baltz D. and Cotner S., (2019), Computer-Based and Bench-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Produce Similar Attitudinal Outcomes, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 18(1), ar10.
40. Krim J. S., Coté L. E., Schwartz R. S., Stone E. M., Cleeves J. J., Barry K. J., Burgess W., Buxner S. R., Gerton J. M., Horvath L., Keller J. M., Lee S. C., Locke S. M. and Rebar B. M., (2019), Models and Impacts of Science Research Experiences: A Review of the Literature of CUREs, UREs, and TREs, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 18(4), ar65.
41. Kroll J. A. and Plath K. L., (2022), Seen and Unseen Identities: Investigation of Gender and Sexual Orientation Identities in the General Chemistry Classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 195–201.
42. Kuchynka S. L., Salomon K., Bosson J. K., El-Hout M., Kiebel E., Cooperman C. and Toomey R., (2018), Hostile and Benevolent Sexism and College Women's STEM Outcomes, Psychology Women Quarterly, 42(1), 72–87.
43. Lareau A., (2001), Linking Bourdieu's Concept of Capital to the Broader Field: The Case of Family-School Relationships, Social Class, Poverty and Education, Routledge.
44. Lewis K. L., Stout J. G., Pollock S. J., Finkelstein N. D. and Ito T. A., (2016), Fitting in or opting out: a review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 12(2), 020110.
45. Lillywhite A. and Wolbring G., (2019), Undergraduate Disabled Students as Knowledge Producers including Researchers: A Missed Topic in Academic Literature, Educ. Sci., 9(4), 259.
46. Link B. and Phelan J. C., (2001), Conceptualizing stigma, Ann. Rev. Soc., 27(1), 363–385.
47. Lopatto D., (2009), Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergraduate Research on Student Learning, Research Corporation for Science Advancement.
48. Lopatto D., Hauser C., Jones C. J., Paetkau D., Chandrasekaran V., Dunbar D., MacKinnon C., Stamm J., Alvarez C., Barnard D., Bedard J. E. J., Bednarski A. E., Bhalla S., Braverman J. M., Burg M., Chung H.-M., DeJong R. J., DiAngelo J. R., Du C., Eckdahl T. T., Emerson J., Frary A., Frohlich D., Goodman A. L., Gosser Y., Govind S., Haberman A., Hark A. T., Hoogewerf A., Johnson D., Kadlec L., Kaehler M., Key S. C. S., Kokan N. P., Kopp O. R., Kuleck G. A., Lopilato J., Martinez-Cruzado J. C., McNeil G., Mel S., Nagengast A., Overvoorde P. J., Parrish S., Preuss M. L., Reed L. D., Regisford E. G., Revie D., Robic S., Roecklien-Canfield J. A., Rosenwald A. G., Rubin M. R., Saville K., Schroeder S., Sharif K. A., Shaw M., Skuse G., Smith C. D., Smith M., Smith S. T., Spana E. P., Spratt M., Sreenivasan A., Thompson J. S., Wawersik M., Wolyniak M. J., Youngblom J., Zhou L., Buhler J., Mardis E., Leung W., Shaffer C. D., Threlfall J. and Elgin S. C. R., (2014), A Central Support System Can Facilitate Implementation and Sustainability of a Classroom-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) in Genomics, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 13(4), 711–723.
49. MacDonald G., Caran K. L., Hughey C. A. and Bradley J. J., (2018), Summer REU Program Integrating Deaf and Hearing Participants in Chemistry Research, Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs, American Chemical Society, pp. 45–57.
50. McCall G. J. and Simmons J. L., (1966), Identities and Interactions, Free Press.
51. Miller R. A. and Downey M., (2020), Examining the STEM Climate for Queer Students with Disabilities, J. Postsecondary Educ. Disability, 33(2), 169–181.
52. Morales D. X., Grineski S. E. and Collins T. W., (2017), Faculty Motivation to Mentor Students Through Undergraduate Research Programs: A Study of Enabling and Constraining Factors, Res. Higher Educ., 58(5), 520–544.
53. Quinn D. M. and Chaudoir S. R., (2009), Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: the impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health, J. Personality Soc. Psychol., 97(4), 634–651.
54. Quinn D. M., Williams M. K., Quintana F., Gaskins J. L., Overstreet N. M., Pishori A., Earnshaw V. A., Perez G. and Chaudoir S. R., (2014), Examining Effects of Anticipated Stigma, Centrality, Salience, Internalization, and Outness on Psychological Distress for People with Concealable Stigmatized Identities, PLoS One, 9(5), e96977.
55. Raman S., (2023), TikTok's dancing chemist catalyses joy in students, Nature DOI:10.1038/d41586-023-00739-1.
56. Royal Society of Chemistry, (2019), Accreditation of degree programmes. Available at: https://www.rsc.org/images/Accreditation%20of%20Degree%20Booklet_tcm18-151306.pdf (Accessed 5 March 2024).
57. Royal Society of Chemistry, (no date), Disability in the chemical sciences, Royal Society of Chemistry. Available at: https://www.rsc.org/policy-evidence-campaigns/inclusion-diversity/surveys-reports-campaigns/disability-in-the-chemical-sciences/(Accessed 5 March 2024).
58. Saldaña J., (2016), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd edn, SAGE.
59. Sandquist E., Cervato C. and Ogilvie C., (2019), Positive Affective and Behavioral Gains of First-Year Students in Course-Based Research across Disciplines, Scholarship Practice Undergraduate Res., 2(4), 45–57.
60. Santuzzi A. M., Waltz P. R., Finkelstein L. M. and Rupp D. E., (2014), Invisible Disabilities: Unique Challenges for Employees and Organizations, Ind. Org. Psychol., 7(2), 204–219.
61. Scheitle C. P. and Dabbs E., (2021), Religiosity and identity interference among graduate students in the sciences, Soc. Sci. Res., 93, 102503.
62. Stets J. E. and Burke P. J., (2000), Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory, Soc. Psychol. Quart., 63(3), 224–237.
63. St. John K., Riggs E. and Mogk D., (2016), Sexual Harassment in the Sciences: A Call to Geoscience Faculty and Researchers to Respond, J. Geosci. Educ., 64(4), 255–257.
64. The National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), (2019), The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM, The National Academies Press.
65. Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D. and Wetherell M. S., (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, New York: Basil Blackwell.
66. Twenge J. M. and Crocker J., (2002), Race and self-esteem: meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians and comment on Gray-Little and Hafdahl (2000), Psychol. Bull., 128(3), 371–408.
67. Wang L., (2016), LGBT chemists seek a place at the bench, Chem. Eng. News. Available at: https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i41/place-bench.html (Accessed 5 March 2024).
68. Whitehead M. A., (2019), “Where are My People At?”: A Community Cultural Wealth Analysis of How Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community College Students of Color Access Community and Support, Commun. College J. Res. Practice, 43(10–11), 730–742.
69. Whittle H. J., Palar K., Ranadive N. A., Turan J. M., Kushel M. and Weiser S. D., (2017), “The land of the sick and the land of the healthy”: disability, bureaucracy, and stigma among people living with poverty and chronic illness in the United States, Soc. Sci. Med., 190, 181–189.
70. Yep G. A., (1998), My three cultures: navigating the multicultural identity landscape, Read. Cultural Contexts, 79–85.
71. Yoder J. B. and Mattheis A., (2016), Queer in STEM: Workplace Experiences Reported in a National Survey of LGBTQA Individuals in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers, J. Homosexuality, 63(1), 1–27.

---

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4rp00094c

---