Pre-collegiate factors contributing to the choice of a chemistry major: the role of science capital

Abstract

Chemistry is a foundational discipline for many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professions. In the U.S. there are too few undergraduates completing majors in chemistry to meet current and projected labor force needs. Moreover, neither the chemistry workforce nor undergraduate majors are representative of the U.S. population's demographics. There is scant research on the pre-collegiate factors that contribute to choosing a chemistry major. This paper contributes to the research record with a qualitative study that applies a science capital lens to an investigation of the pre-collegiate factors associated with majoring in chemistry. Using a set of in-depth interviews with a self-selected sample of 12 undergraduates slated to earn a BS in chemistry from one of many campuses of the University of North Carolina, this study examined students’ experiences in families, communities, and schools in the years prior to their matriculation to their college campus. Our findings are consistent with the concept of science capital, which we extend by demonstrating that successful chemistry majors have greater stores of a more specific element of the science capital framework, namely knowledge about the transferability of chemistry. The article concludes with a set of recommendations to augment secondary students’ science capital and by doing so, is likely to increase the number of undergraduates majoring in chemistry.

---

Introduction

Chemistry is a foundational discipline for many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professions (Dockter et al., 2017). In the U.S. there are too few undergraduates successful in gateway chemistry courses or completing majors in chemistry to meet current and projected labor force needs, especially for scientific careers. While a great deal of research exists about individual experiences and higher education conditions that foster or impede interest in and persistence to graduation in various STEM disciplines generally, as well as a more focused literature on chemistry education, there are remaining questions regarding some aspects of choice of a chemistry major. Additional research about pre-collegiate experiences in families, communities, and the informal and formal educational institutions associated with graduating with a bachelor's degree in specific STEM disciplines, like chemistry, can further illuminate important issues (Bottia et al., 2015a; Annamma et al., 2019; Morais and Araújo, 2019). Shedding additional light on family, community, and educational factors that undergird success in college chemistry is necessary for developing strategies to improve participation and persistence rates in undergraduate chemistry degree programs.

This paper contributes a qualitative study that applies a science capital lens to investigate the pre-collegiate factors associated with successfully majoring in college chemistry, a topic in the chemistry education literature that is garnering increasing attention from scholars who examine structural and interpersonal factors contributing to choice of and persistence in chemistry and other STEM majors.

To investigate contributions of science capital and other factors to majoring in chemistry, this study relies on in-depth interviews conducted in 2013 with 12 undergraduate seniors on track to receive their chemistry degrees from one of the 16 University of North Carolina campuses. The interviews are a subset of a much larger dataset containing 317 interviews of STEM majors, students who left STEM majors by transferring to another discipline, and undergraduates who avoided STEM majors altogether. The dataset is unique in that it includes interviews with college seniors who chose a chemistry major and persisted to graduation with a degree in chemistry. Therefore, it is distinctive because the participants were successfully completing their degrees, not secondary students discussing their plans. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report the pre-collegiate factors that influenced the choice of a chemistry major cited by college seniors poised to graduate with a chemistry degree.

The Roots of STEM Success Project's research team conducted in-depth interviews that explore how families, communities, secondary educational preparation, characteristics of secondary schools, and the larger culture contribute to decisions to major in chemistry and to persistence until graduation. The manuscript concludes with future research opportunities and policy recommendations for addressing the paucity of chemistry degree recipients based on the study's findings.

Literature review

Factors affecting choice of major

Scholars have identified multiple factors influencing students’ choice to major in STEM fields like chemistry. A comprehensive review of 50 published articles, dissertations, or peer reviewed paper presentations regarding marginalized students found six main categories affecting STEM major selection and persistence, largely in line with general STEM findings. These categories include: (1) formal academic preparation; (2) educational contexts (school organizational features, resources, faculty, peers); (3) psychosocial factors (sense of belonging in STEM, inspiration; stereotypes); (4) curricula and instructional practices; (5) access to social, cultural, and financial capital; and (6) early, consistent experiences with informal STEM learning opportunities (Bottia et al., 2021). Together, these resources and processes interactively generate a youth's STEM educational outcomes over the course of their schooling. Several studies have examined why students choose to major in chemistry or other STEM disciplines (Niu, 2017; Dagogo et al., 2019; Ardura et al., 2021). A study by Archer and colleagues (2023) identified various factors specific to choosing the chemistry major, such as relative interest in chemistry versus competing interests and options; high school chemistry teachers and experiences, feelings of being good at chemistry, and future career prospects. Cultural, social, and family financial factors including college affordability, stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, receiving encouragement or support for choice of major, and prior work experience in the field also influence choice of major.

Other research has examined psychosocial dynamics showing that stereotypes and a sense of belonging impact STEM choice of major and persistence (Chang et al., 2008, 2014; Ong et al., 2011; Sanchez, 2014; Brawner et al., 2015; Shedlosky-Shoemaker and Fautch, 2015; Cohen and Kelly, 2018; Ardura and Galán, 2019; Nguyen and Riegle-Crumb, 2021; Allen et al., 2022). Studies worldwide across a variety of stages along the educational and professional journey for students, teachers, and professionals consistently link chemistry self-efficacy and career motivation to STEM choices (DeBoer, 1987; Salta et al., 2012; Ogunde et al., 2017; Ardura and Pérez-Bitrián, 2018; Mujtaba et al., 2018; Avargil et al., 2020; Schwartz et al., 2021).

Theoretical framework

Science capital. The concept of science capital is a useful framework for understanding participation in STEM fields. Science capital is a form of cultural capital (Archer et al., 2012, 2015; King et al., 2015; DeWitt et al., 2016). Bourdieu argued that people from different societal strata are socialized differently, and their backgrounds provide them with frameworks with which they encounter and navigate the social world (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Bourdieu, 1977, 1986; Lareau, 2013, 2015). One such framework is cultural capital. Youth utilize their cultural capital, the substantive knowledge and skills acquired through socialization, as they move through various institutions. Another framework is their social capital, which is not just the networks of relationships they acquire from their families. It includes social ties with individuals who have access to highly valued resources (see, Granovetter, 1973), such as knowledge of key institutions’ gatekeepers, or how institutions’ rules and regulations actually operate. Whatever variation of socialization youth receive provides them with a sense of what is comfortable (Bourdieu called this habitus), which in turn shapes how they utilize the resources (capital) individuals draw upon when they engage with various institutions in the social world (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Lareau, 2015).

The factors that affect choice of major are extensively reflected in the findings from several studies that show a relationship between STEM learning and possession of science capital (Archer et al., 2012, 2015, 2023; DeWitt et al., 2016; Cooper and Berry, 2020; Moote et al., 2020; Rüschenpöhler and Markic, 2020a, b; Gonsalves et al., 2021; Stearns et al., 2024). Archer and her colleagues (2015) explain that science capital (also referred to as science-related cultural capital here and in the literature) is not a separate ‘type’ of cultural or social capital but rather a conceptual device for collating various types of social and cultural resources that specifically relate to science—notably those which have the potential to generate use or exchange value for individuals or groups that support and enhance their attainment, engagement and/or participation in science. For example, some families use their financial resources to expose children to behaviors and practices that contribute to informal learning through visits to zoos, aquariums, and museums; science toys; and later with summers spent at science camps—experiences that provide students with substantive knowledge that aligns with the formal school curricula in science. Additionally, families can provide their children with science-related cultural capital when they support science learning through conversations (Holmegaard et al., 2014; Rainey et al., 2018) or assistance with science and mathematics homework (Espinosa, 2011). Families’ social capital refers to the networks comprised of extended family members, neighbors, friends, employers, or acquaintances who provide youth with actual or potential resources, experiences, or informal learning opportunities. Individuals in parents’ social networks can serve as mentors for engaging youth with science and mathematics (Puccia et al., 2021; Ardura and Perez-Bitran, 2019).

Cultural capital, as science capital, is not equivalent to financial capital resources or privileged socioeconomic status. Although the financial resources that middle or upper-class families possess enable a sizable segment of them to foster acquisition of science capital among their children, it is not the case that all those who acquire science capital are from privileged families or that all middle class students have science capital as part of their larger cultural capital stock of knowledge.

While our study does not specifically focus on the socioeconomic background (SES) of our students, it is important to note the critical role SES plays in developing science capital, because possessing it is a key factor contributing to choice of chemistry and other STEM majors (Niu, 2017). Children from more privileged families are more likely to be exposed to a constellation of financial, social, and cultural resources as well as key substantive science facts and concepts that align with the official science and math curricula (Archer et al., 2015). Their parents often use their financial resources on tutors or relocation to neighborhoods with reputed great public schools in order to ensure their children receive formal schooling that optimizes academic preparation (Matthews et al., 2014; Perez et al., 2014; Cooper and Berry, 2020).

Families from less privileged communities and non-dominant cultural backgrounds also provide their children with important stocks of knowledge and experiences that prepare them for learning science (Moll, 2019; Yosso, 2020). But their stocks of knowledge may be discounted by schools and teachers because of the relationship of formal science curricula to dominant groups’ cultural backgrounds. For these reasons, youth with accumulations of science-related cultural capital tend to come from families with parents, grandparents, other relatives, or family friends who are scientifically literate, often having trained in a STEM field (DeWitt et al., 2016). In these ways, differences in families’ financial resources, social networks, and science-related cultural capital ultimately shape students’ acquisition of science capital.

Archer and her colleagues identified three major categories within the larger construct of science capital—science-related cultural capital, science-related behaviors and practices, and science-related social capital—and proposed eight domains within the three major categories. Table 1 presents the categories, the domains, and descriptions of science-related cultural and social capital and related pre-college behaviors that foster success among STEM majors. We applied their conceptualization of science capital to our study of the pre-collegiate factors and experiences that contribute to undergraduates choosing to major and persist in chemistry.

Table 1 Categories and domains of science capital and related practices

Sources: Adapted from Archer et al., 2015; King et al., 2015; DeWitt et al., 2016.

(Category A) SCIENCE-RELATED CULTURAL CAPITAL

1. Scientific literacy – knowledge, skill, and understanding of how science works and the ability to apply scientific concepts in daily life

2. Science-related values, attitudes or dispositions – valuing of science in society, it is useful to know about science for daily life

3. Knowledge about the transferability of science – a science qualification can help someone get many different types of jobs

(Category B) SCIENCE-RELATED BEHAVIORS AND PRACTICES

4. Consumption of science-related media – watching science-related TV shows (like Bill Nye or CSI), reading popular science magazines/books, or viewing online science content

5. Participation in out-of-school learning contexts – visiting science museums, zoos/aquaria, participating in science clubs, or doing hands-on things at home

(Category C) SCIENCE-RELATED FORMS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

6. Family science skills, knowledge and qualifications – having a parent or close relative with science training, background, or job that can discuss their science related work

7. Knowing people in science-related roles – having social contacts or networks (like neighbors or family friends) in a position to describe their science related work

8. Talking about science in everyday life – regularly discussing or using science knowledge and curiosity in conversations with friends or family

---

Other science education researchers have translated this conceptualization of general science capital into more discipline-specific capital. For example, Rüschenpöhler and Markic (2020a, b) identified relevant student experiences that can accumulate in a form they referred to as chemistry capital, which develops over the course of a student's educational career and fosters success in outcomes. They report the various links between how a family's home environment shapes chemistry capital (as they narrowly define it) and the amount of an individual student's chemistry capital. In this study, we focus on the broader science capital construct given that it is more established and widely recognized than chemistry capital.

Early exposure to and acquisition of science capital are central to children's inspiration and preparation for college pursuit of STEM majors. Acquiring science capital enables youth to build a greater foundation of science knowledge to learn the formal curricula in subsequent years. Doing so provides them with a cumulative advantage throughout their primary and secondary educational journeys. Conversely, youth who are not regularly exposed to science-related cultural capital cumulate disadvantages with respect to learning the formal science curriculum.

Cumulative (Dis)advantage theory. Bottia and her colleagues (2021) reviewed the literature that identifies experiences predicting STEM outcomes. They reported that the six identified categories of predictive factors interact with a student's intersectional identity, creating cumulative advantages or disadvantages that influence the likelihood of graduating with a STEM degree (DiPrete and Eirich, 2006; Mickelson, 2015; Allison et al., 1982). Cumulative advantage theory suggests that people with resources, including dominant cultural and social capital, gain more resources (or other desirable outcomes) over time than those without these resources. DiPrete and Eirich (2006) explained that an initial favorable position leads to growing advantages over time, increasing initial disparities. In education, early skill acquisition—such as learning numbers, letters, and reading before formal schooling—creates a foundation for later learning. These skills advantage students with early knowledge of numbers, letters, and ability to read, enabling them to progress faster than their peers without the skills, thus potentially widening academic gaps year after year.

Barvian (2023) applied the cumulative advantage/disadvantage framework to undergraduate chemistry students’ performance in a first semester General Chemistry course and found evidence consistent with the processes described in the cumulative advantage theory. She analyzed college test data using the first exam as an indicator for high school preparation. Higher first exam scores indicated cumulative high school advantages. Comparing subsequent exam scores to the first, Barvian (2023) found that initial preparation gaps widened as the semester unfolded, consistent with the cumulative advantage thesis. Although her study does not address choice of chemistry as a major, its focus and theoretical framework are complementary with our identification of the factors consistent with persistence in chemistry that accumulate from early inspiration and preparation for the major.

Research questions

This article presents an investigation of pre-collegiate experiences that contributed to the chemistry outcomes of the 12 successful majors we interviewed. Specifically, we investigated the following central questions:

(1) What are the individual, family, and community pre-collegiate factors and/or experiences that contributed to an interest in chemistry among undergraduate chemistry majors who persist until graduation?

(2) Are any of these experiences consistent with the concept of science capital, and if so, which experiences and with which domains of science capital are they consistent?

(3) Are any of the domains of science capital more prominent among chemistry majors?

Research design and methods

To answer the core questions motivating this research, we conducted a qualitative study of pre-collegiate experiences among chemistry majors nearing graduation at one of the 16 campuses of the University of North Carolina system. This analysis drew on interviews from the Roots of STEM Project, a larger longitudinal and multi-method project investigating how student, family, community, pre-collegiate informal and formal education, and post-secondary institutional and experiential dynamics interactively influence STEM major selection and persistence to graduation, especially among historically underrepresented groups. Here, we focus on the qualitative data from the 12 interviews with students majoring in chemistry.

Interview sample

In spring 2013, online recruitment surveys were sent to UNC students with 90+ credits. From 5400 survey responses, we selected students for interviews. Eligible students had attended a North Carolina public high school, were under the age of 30, and either majored in STEM, left a STEM major, or considered STEM. A total of 317 students were interviewed, with 144 being STEM majors (engineering, physical sciences, earth, atmospheric, or ocean sciences, mathematical and computer sciences, and biological and agricultural sciences, per the National Science Foundation's Advance Program's definition of STEM). As part of the larger project goals, interviewees were oversampled from underrepresented groups. Thus, this purposive interview sample is not representative of all STEM majors by either race or gender.

Interview protocol and structure

The initial draft of the interview protocol was a combination of questions drawn from existing literature and questions novel to the specific research project. The interview protocol was developed and refined through pilot interviews with the target population and cognitive interviews with an interdisciplinary class of graduate students being trained in qualitative methods to ensure that the meaning of the research team's questions were clear. All students were asked questions about their majors (“thinking back over the course of your life, what contributed to your becoming a chemistry major?”); their interest in science and how that interest changed throughout their lifetimes; questions concerning instructional experiences and interactions with teachers (“do you feel your high school math/science classes were taught well? Why or why not?”); science identity and confidence issues (“have your feelings about your ability to do math/science changed over time?”); and perceptions concerning if/how gender and race influence STEM experiences.

The team began to interview students in mid-February 2013 and ended by mid-April that same year, ensuring that students experienced similar historical events. When possible, the race and gender of the interviewer were matched to the race and gender of the interviewee. The interviews were conducted in person, on Skype, or on the telephone. Ranging between thirty and sixty minutes, the interviews were recorded and transcribed by human transcribers, then checked for accuracy. Students who completed interviews were paid $25 and all interview procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the first author's university.

Analytic procedures for qualitative data

Researchers analyzed the 12 interviews using qualitative content analysis to identify themes (Boeije, 2002; Rubin and Rubin, 2012). Following Cho and Lee (2014), the researchers selected the entire interview as the unit of analysis, categorized responses by question, and identified themes both deductively, based on prior literature, and inductively through open coding, allowing new themes to emerge. Some themes were inferred from the overall tone rather than specific questions, revealing concepts aligned with science capital and cumulative advantage theories. For instance, the protocol did not ask specifically about science capital or about cumulative advantages during interviews. Together these deductive and inductive techniques resulted in revising several of the theoretically informed themes and/or identifying new ones related to the science capital framework.

To ensure reliability, at least two researchers coded each interview, discussed discrepancies, and reached a consensus through a negotiated agreement (Garrison et al., 2006). The two coders used the science capital framework to code every transcript to agreement. While this approach does not use all qualitative content analysis techniques recommended for chemical education, the discussion and limitations are consistent with those recommended by Watts and Finkenstaedt-Quinn (2021).

Positionality statement

The work presented here is the result of a multi-grant project that spanned over a decade of research devoted to understanding student experiences and academic trajectories among STEM majors, especially for students from marginalized groups. One goal of the research is to inform practices that will create more equitable outcomes. All of the authors identify as middle-class women with five identifying as White and the sixth as Latina. Their professional experiences are largely centered in academia where they teach and conduct research. Four are university level social scientists with extensive experience in researching STEM, a community college chemistry professor with a background in chemical education research, and a university physics professor with an interest in physics education research. Throughout their respective careers, each researcher has promoted equity and contributed to the body of knowledge on STEM success as it intersects with individual and structural racism and sexism.

All the authors of this article were involved in the study's design, data collection. development of interview protocols and a codebook for the interview data, and analysis of the transcribed interviews. The first two authors wrote initial drafts of this article. All authors participated in revising and editing it. Graduate student researchers in sociology, public policy, and curriculum and instruction also assisted with the interviews. They included one Black woman, one Black man, two White women, and one White man, all of whom moved on to non-academic employment by the time this paper was drafted. Interviewers were matched with interviewees by gender and/or race when possible.

Findings

The 12 students in the self-selected sample of interviewees are chemistry majors at seven different UNC system campuses who were interviewed shortly before they graduated with their BS in chemistry, 8 of whom are women and 4 of whom are men. Of these, 6 are White, 1 is part Native American, 4 are Black, and 1 is Asian. (See Appendix A for a synopsis of their profiles and educational journeys). The thematic findings illustrate the striking commonalities, along with some diversity, in their pathways to a major in chemistry.

Thematic findings

The results of the analysis revealed eight themes among the students’ pre-college experiences that help us understand their choice of the major and persistence until they graduated. Notably, several themes are not unique to chemistry. They are consistent with the corpus of studies reporting factors that predict graduation in other STEM fields (Bottia et al., 2021). The interviewees, however, provided clear indicators of why chemistry was their preferred major.

Theme I – Science-related informal learning experiences as cultural capital. As children, many chemistry majors were exposed to informal STEM learning that ignited their interest in science. Several of our interviewees described how their informal out of school teaching and learning (IOTL) stimulated their interests in science and chemistry, in particular.

…I found myself in different types of chemistry camps and, um, summer programs for, you know, chemistry and biology. Like I’ve always been around chemistry more or less because of the fact that—because of the path that I have chosen.—Jackson

…my favorite show, you know, was “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” so I just loved that show and for one of my Christmas's, I don’t remember how old I was, I’m pretty sure I was in elementary school, like, I asked for a microscope and a telescope for Christmas and that's what I got.—Nyree

 

…my brother and I would play with bugs, and we had a microscope instead of a like a Nintendo or stuff like that because my parents, they wanted us to, I guess, be successful.—Caitlin

Theme II – Teachers as an important source of science-related cultural capital. High-quality secondary school teachers emerged as extremely important actors who sparked our interviewees’ interests in chemistry. Of the 12 interviewees, 8 attributed their interest in chemistry to a high school teacher who ignited their interests in the field, nurtured it, and prepared them for this college major. The following statements are representative of those attributions.

 

…I had a phenomenal [chemistry] teacher and she really just, like, spent time with me if I didn’t understand something before school or after school.—Caitlin

It really doesn’t go to how the curriculum is; it's how the teacher presents the information. All the science and math teachers that I had did really well presenting [the information].—Noah

 

… I’ve realized that my high school teachers have had a large impact on what I found an interest in so I would say that I had a really great experience with all my science teachers in high school ….—Caitlin

Theme III – Teaching style impacts science related cultural capital. Having a knowledgeable and caring science teacher with an active learning instructional style nurtured interest in the pursuit of a chemistry major. Our interviewees explained how these instructional approaches augmented their interest in chemistry while it prepared them for pursuing the field in higher education.

…my high school chemistry [teacher]… kind of like, you know, ran through demonstrations as opposed to, you know, just lecturing…. He got us involved in science and I think the first experiment we did that day was setting a magnesium ribbon on fire with Bunsen burners to get us open to the idea of chemical reactions and that sort of thing.—Lucas

 

[I enjoyed my high school chemistry classes] because they were fun and also we got to do experiments… we had like the labs that we were able to do, and they went along with the material.—Nyree

Theme IV – Families and educational communities provide science-related social capital. Once the interest in chemistry is ignited, many students receive support for their pursuit of the field from their family, teachers, and community. The importance of the psychological, financial, and social support for our interviewees’ decision to major in chemistry cannot be overstated. Previous examples of informal learning opportunities suggest some forms of the support students received from their families. In addition, family members and school personnel conveyed their support for the respondents’ goals in other ways. Lucas reported his “… dad's always encouraged me, and my parents have always … encouraged me to go with my career path that I’ve chosen.” Similarly, Evelyn commented that “they [my parents] were happy that I was doing something I enjoyed.” Their comments were echoed by other chemistry majors’ more elaborate descriptions of the sources of their science-related social capital.

…I think in high school they [the school staff] were really, like, you know, rooting for me. [My school] had this thing that's called Top 10 Seniors and like, I was number 8 and I was the only science [senior] who graduated in the top of my class … and so I think that that alone allowed me to have a lot of support and—and I think that in that they saw that I was really, you know, determined and for that fact they were willing to like, put their selves on the line [for me].—Tatianna

 

… and one of the doctors that she [interviewee's mother] works with, he's very supportive of me, you know, trying to become a doctor. And then just things like my grades, he’ll give me money, you know, for certain grades I make.—Nyree

Theme V – Role models provide science-related social capital. Role models play an important part in our interviewees’ choice of chemistry as a major.

…in high school I had a really awesome advisor [who] majored … in biology and minored in chemistry—and just hearing, like, her talking about her experiences and if she could do it over she would major in chemistry … also … and I think that she had the most impact on me because she was, like, the most prevalent [advisor] in my high school career….—Chantell

 

…my grandmother taught high school science and math for so many years before she finally worked at Duke [University]. And then she also worked at the VA in Durham in the research department as a lab safety coordinator.—Noah

Theme VI – Additional STEM coursework builds science-related cultural capital. Preparation during secondary school for majoring in chemistry during college took various forms. One route that our respondents reported was taking additional science and math courses. Taking math and science beyond the required courses for college had both an instrumental and symbolic effect on the students we interviewed. Many of our interviewees indicated that they took several optional science and math courses, not only because they would help them once in college, but because they enjoyed them.

…I took a chemistry course that was optional. Let's see, this was a while back, but I think I took maybe one or two calculus courses that were optional… [because] I just enjoyed the science….—Lucas

 

… I decided to go as high as I possibly could in …the science courses because I enjoyed the science courses.—Evelyn

Theme VII – Knowledge about the transferability of chemistry into other fields adds to science-related cultural capital. A chemistry major is widely perceived by our interviewees as linked to their anticipated careers outside of chemistry. Students see the value of chemistry as a path towards a healthcare career. Specifically, seven of the interviewees majored in chemistry because they saw it as a gateway major for various medical or health careers and preferred it to other STEM disciplines like biology. In addition, majoring in chemistry is also viewed as a viable backup plan should their original career goals change.

…I had always planned on trying to be a doctor. Like I’ve been—(Laughs) actually like my mom has a journal she kept for me back when I was like 3, 4, and 5 and since then I’ve stated like I’ve always wanted to be a doctor.—Jackson

 

…So since I had to take a lot of chemistry classes anyway in order to fulfill the requirements [for pre-veterinary] I decided that ‘hey’, it would be a good idea to come in as a chemistry major.—Evelyn

 

…being as I’m pre-medicine is also another reason why I decided to go into sciences as well since it's a science-based field.—Nyree

 

…I started doing different, like, internships and shadowing and so by my junior year [of high school] I was set on going to dental school….—Caitlin

 

I guess chemistry will also open up more doors for what I could go into and so med school is still an option but I have been looking at other things.—Julie

Theme VIII – A scientific mindset contributes to science-related cultural capital. A number of interviewees expressed an inherent curiosity in chemistry that arose out of early interests in science. Chemistry itself combined with the students’ natural curiosity produced several of our majors. Although preparation for a career in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, or veterinary medicine motivated most of our interviewees, five of the college seniors simply loved chemistry and planned to pursue further study of it in graduate school. They enjoyed the pure science of the field.

… the way that my mind works… [encourages me to major in chemistry] … so chemistry is kind of up my alley there. That and I guess my natural curiosity are the main things through my life that have influenced me towards chemistry.—Evelyn

 

…I honestly knew [my major] would be a science because I love science. And with chemistry every science comes—no offense, but everything but the soft sciences—the social sciences, all the other major ones they all stem from some point from chemistry. So chemistry is not that bad of a degree to get.—Noah

Findings related to science capital

The interview protocols were not designed to investigate science capital, per se. The questions and probes were open-ended in order to explore salient pre-college factors mentioned by the undergraduates. Nonetheless, coding their responses resulted in themes that were consistent with prior science capital research. Given the thematic findings rooted in interviewees’ family financial, social, and cultural capital, the identification of science capital gives us a framework to understand its role in their selection of chemistry as a major. An analysis of the interviews revealed the following factors within the categories and domains of science capital as displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 Numbers of students mentioning science-related capital by categories, domains, and related behaviors and practices (N = 12)^a

Categories and domains in the science capital framework	Students in sample with evidence of overall category or individual domain (N = 12)
a The totals in each row reflect the number of students who mentioned these specific forms of science-related capital behaviors and practices they experienced during their educational journeys to chemistry. Category totals are inclusive of students mentioning at least one of the relevant domains but are not a sum of the domains.
(Category A) SCIENCE-RELATED CULTURAL CAPITAL	12
1. Scientific literacy	9
2. Scientific mindset (possesses science-related values, attitudes or dispositions)	10
3. Knowledge about the transferability of science	11
(Category B) SCIENCE-RELATED BEHAVIORS AND PRACTICES	8
4. Consumption of science-related media	4
5. Participation in out-of-school (informal) learning contexts	6
(Category C) SCIENCE-RELATED FORMS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL	8
6. Family science skills, knowledge, and qualifications	6
7. Knowing people in science-related roles	4
8. Talking about science in everyday life	1

---

All 12 interviewees mentioned experiences with science-related cultural capital, the first category of the science capital model (Category A). Among the 12, 9 individuals mentioned their scientific literacy (A-1), 10 indicated they possess a scientific mindset (A-2), and 11 mentioned their knowledge of the transferability of science (A-3). Regarding the second major category, 8 students described science-related behaviors or practices during their pre-collegiate years (Category B). Of those 8, 4 consumed science-related media (B-4) and 6 participated in informal science learning (B-5). For the last major category, 8 interviewees mentioned experiences with science-related social capital obtained from their families (Category C). Of those 8, 6 interviewees mentioned family science, skills, knowledge, and qualifications (C-6), 4 knew people in science-related occupations (C-7), and 1 person described talking about science in everyday conversations (C-8).

As the results described in Table 2 suggest, there is a strong presence of science capital among these chemistry majors. More specifically, science-related cultural capital (Category A) was indicated by all 12 students and the first three domains (A1–A3) had higher counts than the other two broader categories of behaviors and practices (Category B) and social capital domains A1 and A2, which encompass science literacy and general disposition towards science are not surprising results based on the literature. However, domain A3, concerning awareness of the transferability of a degree in chemistry to the labor market, was particularly high for this group of students – 11 out of 12 students specifically recognize the utility of chemistry, not just science in general, for future endeavors. In addition, the one student who did not specifically mention a factor from this domain was, in fact, a pre-med student who selected chemistry as the preferred academic pathway to medical school, thus implicitly acknowledging knowledge of the transferability of chemistry to an occupational goal. DeWitt et al. (2016) report that category A elements, especially transferability, are closely related to anticipated science participation. The importance of this awareness of the ‘utility of science’ is also reported by Mujtaba and Reiss (2014). The literature on science capital reports that this domain is one that teachers often feel underqualified to discuss with students (King et al., 2015). Similarly, research by Claussen and Osborne (2013) concluded that science education fails to communicate the value of science in the labor market.

Archer et al., (2023) found that knowledge of transferability is high among chemistry majors, but a lack of this transferability awareness may serve as a push to other majors like biology. The fact that the domain is mentioned so often by members of our interview sample reinforces the prior finding that knowledge about the transferability of chemistry is a very important pre-collegiate factor among undergraduate chemistry majors. The major appealed to Callie because, as she noted, “…chemistry offers so many career opportunities outside of college….” Julie confidently stated that “…chemistry will also open up more doors for what I could go into….” Several other interviewees cited the transferability of the major as a motivation to choose it.

…there's all sorts, that's the thing about it. I mean, I could go from anything after getting a Master's, I could go to law school even. There's just an infinite amount of things. It's a very broad major, I’ve learned, and that's something I didn’t really know going into it. …. there's obviously the pharmaceutical industry, there's any sort of analytical drug testing, product testing, there's just so much. That's part of why I was, after three and a half semesters – or actually three years of college, I knew that I was gonna have to go further.—Blake

 

…half of the pre-recs [prerequisite courses] that are required to get into medical school, half of them are chemistry, like your regular chemistry and your organic chemistry. And so is your biochemistry, so that, like, you need them just to get in, also our entrance exams there have lots of chemistry on them as well.—Nyree

I also figured if I became a chemistry major and I needed to like work while I was in med school, which a lot of people do, I could be a lab tech with my chemistry degree.—Chantel

Discussion

This study's findings contribute to the corpus of chemistry education literature in several unique ways. Our theoretical frameworks of science-related cultural capital and the theory of cumulative advantage together offer insights into why early exposure to chemistry, in conjunction with exposure to role models and mentors, along with consistently good informal and formal educational experiences build the stocks of knowledge and lived experiences that cumulate year after year. In addition, we also refine the categories, domains, and experiences of science-related cultural capital specifically relevant to boosting chemistry participation and success among our college sample. We used a sample of college seniors instead of secondary school youth, thereby confirming prior findings identifying predictors of choosing to major in chemistry. Together these experiences form the pre-collegiate familial, community, and educational parameters that undergird a student's choice of a chemistry major and persistence until graduation. By aligning our thematic findings within the framework of science capital and cumulative advantage theory, we are able to more explicitly demonstrate how teachers, instructional style, and curricula available in the school environments play a powerful role in the accumulation of science capital, at least for chemistry majors who participated in this research. The findings permit us to answer the research questions that motivated this study.

Question one

The study explored which individual, family, and community pre-collegiate factors and/or experiences contributed to an interest in chemistry among undergraduate chemistry majors who persist until graduation. A comprehensive list of reasons why our sample selected chemistry majors (summarized in Appendix A's column called ‘Why Chemistry?’) directly informed our thematic findings consistent with factors found in the literature, but most prominently informal science learning experiences (Theme I), teachers that sparked and nurtured interest in chemistry (Theme II), hands-on educational approaches (Theme III), family and school support (Theme IV), networks of role models through family and school networks, especially teachers (Theme V), and additional science and math coursework (Theme VI). While several themes are not unique to chemistry, they are consistent with the corpus of studies reporting factors that predict graduation in other STEM fields (Bottia et al., 2021). The interviewees, however, provided clear indicators of why chemistry was their preferred major.

A number of pre-collegiate factors appear to enhance youths’ capacity to persist in their chemistry major. We found that chemistry majors who had access to appropriate secondary academic preparation, especially dynamic teachers, and active learning in chemistry during high school reinforced early interests in chemistry and honed their skills. In terms of course preparation, the literature reports that the greater the number of rigorous high school science and math courses students take, the better they will perform in college chemistry (Tai et al., 2005; Woods et al., 2018). Furthermore, the additional optional courses may signal to universities that this individual is a serious student interested in the discipline, especially if the course is at the Advanced Placement level. Our interview sample not only took these additional courses because they thought it would prepare them for college, they also enjoyed them.

Great teachers and active teaching styles were important themes in the findings. Research on science teaching and learning frequently points to active learning in high school courses as a highly successful approach for most students (Freemana et al., 2014; Yestrebsky, 2015; Deslauriers et al., 2019). These findings are consistent with the literature on science and mathematics teaching and learning in higher education (National Research Council, 2012). Our sample not only had great experiences in their high school STEM classes, it was their chemistry teacher who had notable influences.

We also found that family social, cultural, and financial capital provided the material support, cultural resources, and networks that were foundational for the accumulation of advantages many students enjoyed. Prior research on college-level STEM success identifies early informal learning as a core factor that sparks interest in STEM. Such opportunities include toys, science media, organizations like scouting, science museums, zoos, aquaria, and family-oriented activities that involve the natural world. These informal opportunities to learn (IOTL) stimulate students’ interest and capacities for STEM learning. According to the (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, 2018), school-aged children in the United States have the opportunity to learn through informal channels for about 4471 hours, which is 51% of their waking hours each year of their childhood. This illustrates the potential that IOTL has to ignite STEM interest. Our interviewees cite examples of chemistry camps, science gifts, and science media as foundational experiences that, ultimately, led them to chemistry.

In addition to teachers, our sample also mentioned specific role models like advisors and family members. Social scientists have repeatedly found that cultural and social capital that becomes students’ science capital also contributes to persistence in a STEM field. Members of students’ nuclear and extended families, as well as their fictive kin network, can provide the critical science, cultural, and social capital needed (Lareau and Cox, 2011; National Research Council, 2012). Role models in and out of school are also important sources of encouragement (Bottia et al., 2015b; Stearns et al., 2016).

Question two

We investigated if students’ backgrounds included experiences consistent with the concept of science capital both generally and more specifically with the construct's various domains. We found frequent descriptions of science capital by the chemistry majors we interviewed. All of the categories and domains reported in Table 1 were represented in our findings (as tabulated in Table 2). The interviews illustrate how the acquisition, accumulation, and use of science-related cultural capital worked to the advantage of students who pursued a college degree in chemistry and fostered their success. Our interviewees' pre-collegiate experiences appear to have provided them with science-related cultural capital acquired over the course of their educational careers. Moreover, they perceived these experiences as central to their choice of chemistry as a major and in persistence to graduation with their BS degrees.

Question three

The study explored whether any of the domains of science capital were more prominent among chemistry majors’ lived experiences. While all of the science capital domains were represented in our sample's interview responses, 11 of the 12 students cited knowledge of chemistry's transferability during their interviews (Theme VII). This finding is consistent with prior research both in the social sciences and in science education fields that suggests that chemistry is considered preparation for the next phase of their education, typically a profession requiring knowledge of the discipline (Rask, 2010, Sadler et al., 2012; Sax et al., 2018; Bjerre et al., 2025). However, this was not merely about the transferability of skills. The chemistry major itself was considered to be versatile if initial career choices were to change. For example, over half of the students we interviewed identified an occupational goal in medical or healthcare professions early in their educational journeys as a motivation to choose the chemistry major. As we noted earlier, this finding is closely related to the science-related cultural capital domain of the general transferability of chemistry cited in other studies. However, our finding emphasizes that the chemistry major itself, rather than just skills learned in the major, is seen as transferable. This finding extends and clarifies the nature of the major's perceived value to majors and thus represents a unique contribution of this study.

The domain of a scientific mindset (referencing science values, attitudes or dispositions in Theme VIII) was next most prominent, with 10 out of 12 students mentioning characteristics indicative of this domain. Our interview protocols were not specifically designed distinguish the nuances among values, attitudes, or dispositions. In addition it could also be difficult to tease out the differences in interview data. Fortunately, they are all related to a scientific mindset captured in one domain of science capital. These social psychological elements of a scientific mindset were reflected in our sample of chemistry majors.

It is worth noting that the additional domain of scientific literacy had the third most prominent presence among our sample, with 9 of the 12 students citing it. This suggests that the cultural capital listed in the first category of the framework (see Table 1) may have a significant impact on the choice of chemistry as a major. It is the only category that had representation, in at least one of the three domains within the category, among the entire sample. In other words, domains assigned to science-related cultural capital were more prominent than science-related behaviors and practices or science-related forms of social capital among our interviewees.

Families often provide youth with informal science learning and socioemotional experiences from the home and community that build students’ science-related cultural capital when they use their financial, social, and broader cultural capital resources for their children's education. The 12 interviewees described their initial inspiration for chemistry and science, strong academic preparation, and familial support early in their formal education. Many of them also cite informal experiences in the home and community that augmented their formal preparation for the major. Important people in students’ lives—parents, family social networks, high school chemistry teachers—inspired and nurtured their pathway to chemistry. Together these formal and informal experiences provided majors with an accumulation of building blocks of science-related cultural capital underlying their success in undergraduate chemistry.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that are worth mentioning. It relies upon only 12 interviews from a self-selected sample of students from the campuses in the UNC system and none of the interviewees were Latinos/as. Even though the percentages of students by gender and race among our interviewees are similar to the percentages of UNC system chemistry majors overall, our interview data capture only the experiences of the students who were motivated to participate in this study. Therefore, we cannot state with confidence that our findings are representative of the UNC system's undergraduate chemistry majors or the national student population at other public or private institutions. Moreover, we only interviewed students who had earned at least ninety credit hours, so the sample is biased toward students who were performing well in college. The cross-sectional nature of the study presents some limitations in that it asks students to reflect on and recall past experiences. Finally, when the interviews took place over the phone, the experience may have left some respondents uncertain as to whether they were speaking with someone who shared their racial/ethnic and gender identity. This could have shaped their candor and the reliability of their responses. We know that matching the gender and racial/ethnic identity of interviewees and interviewers optimizes the candor and reliability of interview data. Finally, we have no systematic information about those who left the chemistry major. It is possible that their pre-collegiate experiences were similar to those who remained in the major.

Recommendations

The thematic results of this study suggest common exposures and experiences that favor the path to a chemistry major. Therefore, it may be possible for parents, educators, and policy makers to directly shape interest in chemistry. The findings from this study point directly to the central role of science capital accumulation. There are three major areas of influence to consider: (1) increasing the knowledge of the transferability of chemistry skills, (2) providing early access to informal educational experiences that spark interest in chemistry, and (3) building and sustaining chemistry interests in the formal education environment with highly trained teachers that utilize high impact teaching practices and offer advanced science and math courses beyond those required for graduation. Providing greater access to experiences that foster the accumulation of science capital will likely lead to increases in the number of students choosing to major in chemistry. To achieve this goal, we make the following recommendations for policy makers, educators, and family members hoping to increase interest in chemistry as a major:

1. Emphasize the value of the chemistry field as a fundamental science and its transferability to many career paths (Theme VII).

Imparting knowledge of the transferability of a chemistry degree is a direct way to increase what appears to be an important form of science capital leading to participation in chemistry. In addition to the strong evidence presented in this study, previous studies have found predictive models in which student aspirations to study chemistry were strongly associated with extrinsic motivation regarding the degree's perceived utility or associated career paths (Mujtaba and Reiss, 2014; DeWitt et al., 2016; Mujtaba et al., 2018; Archer et al., 2023). We agree with these researchers that the transferability dimension of science related cultural capital offers implications for potential interventions to increase the number of college chemistry majors. For example, for students interested in pre-health fields, targeted cross-training and recruitment programs would allow students to appreciate the value of their chemistry degree beyond its potential to get them into a desired health professional program. Examples of ways to increase knowledge of transferability include the use of guest speakers and field trips spanning early education through the college years. In addition, other research has shown that an explicit course on careers in chemistry is beneficial to increasing awareness of career options (Solano et al. 2011).

2. Invest in increased community programs and access that provide early informal learning opportunities (Themes I, IV, and VIII).

Community programs that offer early exposure to science, nature, and chemistry are an avenue worth pursuing. Our study indicates that while many youth have informal family, community, and K-12 school experiences that spark, nurture, and prepare them for the chemistry major, there may be larger portions of the population that do not have access to these critical opportunities to obtain science capital. To reach a broader audience, it is imperative that these programs are expanded to include direct outreach into neighborhoods, daycares, preschools, and elementary schools. Funding should also cover age appropriate books, toys, and take home items that spark interest in chemistry.

3. Implement practices in the formal education setting that foster interest and self-efficacy in chemistry (Themes II, III, V and VI).

The literature is full of practices that support chemistry interests both directly and indirectly. By implementing these practices, students can accumulate the necessary science capital that leads to interest in the chemistry major.

a. Promote teaching strategies that value, create, and increase science capital.

There is a substantial body of work devoted to teaching strategies, in both theory and practice, that are designed to build science capital (King et al., 2015; Godec et al., 2017; Chowdhuri et al., 2022), especially for younger students. In addition to these educational practices, schools, teachers, and chemistry professionals should consider outreach activities that bring chemistry related professionals in contact with students throughout the K-12 years.

b. Recruit and train high quality secondary school teachers that are invested in using active learning methods, creating a culture of caring, and increasing science capital.

This study's findings reinforce the importance of quality teachers for successful pursuit of a chemistry degree. Mujtaba et al. (2018) found that certain teaching approaches had significant associations with chemistry aspirations. High quality teachers have the potential to serve a critical role spanning nearly all the themes identified in the study. In addition to quality teachers and active learning, those themes also included support/encouragement, role models, and access to additional STEM courses beyond what is required for high school graduation. Teachers impact academic preparation, curricula and instructional practices, educational contexts, and the accumulation of science capital resources. While secondary teachers are not necessarily a direct source of early exposure opportunities, they are able to leverage their own cultural and science capital to promote participation in STEM camps and research experiences, especially during the secondary school years. They can also foster students’ natural curiosities and expose them to a variety of STEM career options for chemistry majors. In addition, teachers can operationalize their understanding of science capital in their teaching (King et al. 2015).

Future research

There are many interesting directions for future research on what influences students to choose chemistry as a major. For example, do the themes and findings from the 12 interviewees in this study hold true for all chemistry majors? An inventory of chemistry capital could be developed to further investigate these specific eight domains of the more general construct of science capital and used to compare the different STEM majors for significant variations across disciplines. Archer and other researchers have spent considerable time laying the foundation and developing frameworks for measuring science capital (Archer et al., 2012, 2015, 2023; DeWitt et al., 2016; Cooper and Berry 2020; Moote et al., 2020; Rüschenpöhler and Markic 2020a, b; Gonsalves et al., 2021). In addition, some work on an early education model has been done through the NextGen Scientist Survey (Jones et al., 2022). An additional inventory for current college students could shed more light on pre-collegiate roots of choosing a chemistry major. Such a tool would also be useful in identifying students with a strong propensity towards a chemistry major who choose a different field.

Future studies could also investigate whether there are experiences that can compensate for lost opportunities to develop science capital for chemistry. We have cited the body of work devoted to teaching practices designed to provide science capital early in the educational trajectory, but what about those students in the later years of secondary education or initial semesters of college? Are there activities or programs that can target deficiencies in the eight domains of science capital that result in successful chemistry matriculation?

We also believe that by replicating this study, any similarities and differences among chemistry and other STEM disciplines will emerge. Is the concept of transferability particularly salient only for chemistry majors? Do different science capital domains appear especially important to students in other disciplines? An investigation of the domains of science capital that attract students in other STEM majors would greatly extend the application of the construct of science capital to the science education literature.

Finally, we consider whether the age of the dataset undermines the utility of the findings, given that it was collected in 2013. We do not believe that is the case. The processes and influences on how students make decisions about college majors tend to be similar across recent decades as demonstrated by landmark studies on why interested students leave STEM majors (Seymour, 1997; Seymour and Hunter, 2019). Researchers found similar factors influence students’ decisions to leave STEM majors even though the students studied were enrolled in college twenty years apart. It stands to reason, that processes and influences on how students select and succeed in a STEM major, like chemistry, would also be similar twenty years apart. Nonetheless, while there is still substantial value in using the Roots Dataset for this study, research in chemistry education would benefit from newer studies with larger samples if only to establish whether prior trends are consistent or if any new ones have appeared.

Conclusions

Our study with a sample of college seniors about to graduate with a BS in chemistry validates findings from prior research conducted with younger secondary student samples. We clarify that what may seem like a direct educational path to a chemistry degree can be more aptly described as the synergistic effect of various forms of science-related cultural and social capital interacting with a student's family background and individual characteristics, a dynamic that is not well-documented in the extant literature. The perceived transferability of chemistry is a consistent motivation (among other factors) among our interviewees. Affirming this reason for choosing the major is another contribution of our research, particularly because the sample of interviewees are about to graduate from college with their chemistry BS. The study also uniquely frames the success of the chemistry majors with the theory of cumulative advantages, which helps account for the success of these undergraduates.

Students’ choice of a chemistry major and their persistence to a college degree in the discipline are synergistic outcomes of various forms of science capital interacting with individual characteristics, family background, and the organizational characteristics and processes of the school systems (K-16) that these chemistry majors attend. Our research employs the concept of science capital to understand why North Carolina undergraduates choose to major in chemistry rather than other disciplines. This manuscript's findings illustrate how the acquisition and use of science capital provided advantages to those in our sample who pursued a college degree in the field. A number of scholars have pointed to early inspiration, motivation, and preparation as essential to gaining cumulative advantages for pursuing chemistry. Consistent with cumulative advantage theory, our interviewees' pre-collegiate experiences appear to have provided them with science-related cultural capital that grew over the course of their educational trajectories. They identify these experiences as central to both their choice of chemistry majors and persistence to graduation.

This manuscript makes several contributions to the chemistry education literature. We validate several earlier studies about experiences that foster choices of chemistry as a major once a student enters college. Our findings are consistent with the concept of science-related cultural capital as described by Archer, DeWitt, and their colleagues (Archer et al., 2015; DeWitt et al., 2016). Unlike most other studies on this topic, our sample is comprised of college seniors looking retrospectively at their educational trajectory, rather than high school students imagining their college careers. Our older sample of students replicates their earlier findings. We employ a theoretical framework to the chemistry education literature to account for why science-related cultural capital is critical to students’ success. Our cumulative advantage framework articulates how structural advantages contribute to inequality in college outcomes (Merton, 1968; DiPrete and Eirich, 2006; Dannefer, 2020; Barvian, 2023), including attaining a chemistry degree. We show that successful chemistry majors accumulated advantages over the course of their pre-collegiate educational journeys. These advantages were consistent with several domains of the science capital framework, reinforcing the salience of this framework to understanding the success of chemistry majors. Third, we show that one domain of that framework is quite specific for most chemistry majors, namely the transferability of the degree. Our findings indicate that chemistry's transferability to medical careers is a powerful motivation for a majority of our respondents.

We began this paper referencing dilemmas posed by the overall dearth of chemistry majors in the U.S. The unmet projected labor force demands for chemistry majors raises potential problems for the nation's current and prospective needs in basic scientific research, health careers, and innovations in the private sector. Importantly, knowledge of chemistry is much more than occupational preparation for individuals. Application of fundamental chemistry principles to innovations in basic science, engineering, and biology requires a critical mass of new talent who can contribute to solving the challenges of feeding the world; fighting climate change and disease; protecting the planet's water, air, and land resources; and building a robust global economy with opportunities for people in all nations. Providing greater opportunities for more students to accumulate science-related cultural capital is critical for increasing sustainable interest in chemistry among secondary students.

Data availability

The interviews are not available as the participants did not consent for their data to be shared publicly, nor did the researchers’ institutional research boards grant permission for the sharing of the interview data publicly.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendix

A. Pseudonyms and Profiles of the Educational Journeys of the 12 Chemistry Majors Interviewed in this Study

	Student pseudonym	Race and gender	Relevant background	Career goals	Summary of answer to ‘why chemistry?’	‘Why not other STEM?’
1	Evelyn	White Female	Supportive parents; attended an early college high school; enjoys science and how it answers the big questions; participated in science fairs; good high school chemistry teacher; participates in research while in college; positive feelings of confidence and belonging.	Chemistry – originally on the pre-veterinary medicine track and double majoring in chemistry and biology; currently planning to attend graduate school in chemistry and maybe go to vet school in the future.	Early college student with lots of credits looking for pre-veterinary medicine program. The college accepted the credits and also listed the chemistry major as one of the first options for pre-vet.	Chemistry is hands-on
2	Lucas	White Male	Supportive parents; enjoyed tinkering as a child, no real exposure to chemistry until computational chemistry work in high school, good high school chemistry teachers, enjoyed demonstrations and applied math concepts in chemistry, positive feelings of belonging and initial mixed feelings of confidence improved with success in lab.	Chemistry – originally wanted to be a doctor until he took high school chemistry; currently planning to attend graduate school in chemistry and focus on computational chemistry.	Was interested in pursuing medical career but switched to chemistry because of high school teachers doing demonstrations and also the math in chemistry.	No physics until college; not majoring in computer science but is majoring in computational chemistry
3	Tatianna	Black Female	Initially planned to study biology and nursing, but chemistry offered lots of research and travel opportunities; she had to transfer to a different state school in order to care for a sick mother; strong research and mentoring connections were lost upon transfer; the student was confident but feelings of belonging decreased after transfer.	Nursing – not really sure, but planning on an accelerated program for BS in Nursing to help with family obligations; initially interested in medical school, but a summer program revealed that it did not fit ideas of career/family balance.	During high school, her mother got sick. She worked in a home health care setting, which led her to nursing and biology. But college pulled her into research projects that involved chemistry and gave her lots of opportunities. She realized that she could still help others through chemistry.	Didn't really explore other majors. The college chemistry department was really small, she didn't like rocks (geology), felt lucky to get a B in physics, but didn't like it.
4	Callie	Asian Female	First generation student; enjoyed experiments in primary school, but was not good in science and math in high school as well as having a bad chemistry teacher; in college she had research opportunities and chemistry offered lots of career options and financial security; chemistry made her feel smart; she was confident and eventually felt like she belonged.	Forensics – interested in crime scene investigation or pharmacy, but felt that chemistry gave lots of options	Did poorly in high school chemistry. Wanted to go into forensics and dad suggested pharmacy. Took college chemistry and found an interest, did well, and that it offered lots of career opportunities.	Chemistry degree was better than the pre-pharmacy track. Thinks physics is hard and is not smart enough for engineering and, didn't like math because not good at it.
5	Nyree	Black Female	Supportive parents; liked science as a child--referred to mixing things, Bill Nye, and microscopes and telescopes; enjoyed math and had a good high school chemistry teacher; summer medical school programs reinforced confidence and pre-med career track.	Medical School	Interested in mixing things from a young age. Was pre-med, liked chemistry, a lot of med school pre-requisites are chemistry. Liked chemistry and it just made sense to major in it for a pre-med major.	Biology is just memorize and just didn't consider anything else.
6	Noah	White/Native American Male	Mother encouraged education; early interest in paleontology; liked CSI and is currently interested in forensics; working on creative writing minor; loved honors chemistry and had a good high school chemistry teacher.	Forensics or Teaching	Very interested in CSI, paleontology, and teaching. But felt not cut out for teaching and didn't want to be outside in the heat. Liked puzzles and chemicals. So it has always been chemistry.	Still working on it; likes biology and geology; has general interest in science overall.
7	Jackson	Black Male	Supportive parents from Ghana; attended pre-medical summer camps that included chemistry; worked on a Ghanaian public health project; had good high school math teachers; a bad AP chemistry teacher, but excellent chemistry professor in college that caused him to switch from a math major to chemistry.	Medical School	Very interested in math from a young age due to dad being a CPA. But then had an awesome chemistry class and liked the math combined with the atoms and structure of chemistry	Physics not as concrete as chemistry; computer science was taught by a coach.
8	Caitlin	White Female	Parents (from Iran) always encouraged science; participated in a summer research program while in high school; didn’t like math, but had a great AP chemistry teacher; positive feelings of confidence and belonging.	Dental School	Immigrant parents studied science because it had opportunities. She played with science toys as a kid. She chose chemistry because it was the first thing that really challenged her and she had a great teacher.	Considered biology but it was more memorization; chemistry had the problem solving application. Was not interested in physics and just saw engineering as a lot of math.
9	Chantell	Black Female	Father is excited about opportunities in science; had options but chose a smaller college, participated in research; good HS chemistry and STEM teachers; positive feelings of confidence and belonging.	Medical School	Sister had cancer at a young age and so she wanted to be a doctor. Attended a health care magnet school. Chose to major in chemistry because it was more hands-on than biology and might offer work opportunities while trying to get into med school	Not interested in physics or programming; interested in biology (minored), but chemistry was more hands-on
10	Julie	White Female	Has always liked science and began college as a biology major; she had a bad experience with chemistry in HS; participation in a STEM scholars program introduced new things and she switched her major to chemistry upon transfer to another state school; positive feelings of confidence and belonging.	Chemistry – research experience caused her to switch from a pre-medicine biology major into chemistry	Started on a pre-med track and had never had enough exposure to consider anything else. Didn't really like the plant and animal aspects of biology. Selected chemistry in order to stay in the sciences undergraduate research played a big role in that decision.	N.A. (This question was not directly asked during the interview)
11	Emily	White Female	Parents did not have science background but supported a degree with job options; involved in research on sustainability; had a good HS chemistry teacher; positive feelings of confidence and belonging.	Medical School	Fell in love with chemistry due to wonderful, passionate teachers, which is rare in HS	Physics out of student's (intellectual) league
12	Blake	White Male	Generally supportive parents; early interests in dinosaurs and space; drawn to the math in chemistry and broad opportunities available; good HS chemistry experience; positive feelings of confidence and belonging.	Chemistry	Had good HS chemistry teachers and was drawn to the math of it. Had been warned about how hard chemistry was, but found he was good at it.	Not really exposed enough to other STEM fields

References

1. Allen D., Dancy M., Stearns E., Mickelson R. and Bottia M. C., (2022). Racism, sexism, and disconnection: contrasting experiences of Black women in STEM before and after transfer from community college, Int. J. STEM Educ., 9(1), 1–21. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/01614681221086105.
2. Allison P. D., Long J. S. and Krauze T. K., (1982), Cumulative advantage and inequality in science, Am. Sociol. Rev., 615–625.
3. Annamma S. A., Anyon Y., Joseph N. M., Farrar J., Greer E., Downing B. and Simmons J., (2019), Black girls and school discipline: the complexities of being overrepresented and understudied, Urban Educ., 54(2), 211–242 DOI:10.1177/0042085916646610.
4. 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 DOI:10.1002/tea.21227.
5. Archer L., DeWitt J., Osborne J., Dillon J., Willis B. and Wong B., (2012), Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children's engagement and identification with science, Am. Educ. Res. J., 49(5), 881–908 DOI:10.3102/0002831211433290.
6. Archer L., Francis B., Moote J., Watson E., Henderson M., Holmegaard H. and MacLeod E., (2023), Reasons for not/choosing chemistry: Why advanced level chemistry students in England do/not pursue chemistry undergraduate degrees, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 60(5), 978–1013 DOI:10.1002/tea.21822.
7. Ardura D. and Galán A., (2019), The interplay of learning approaches and self-efficacy in secondary school students’ academic achievement in science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 41(13), 1723–1743 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2019.1638981.
8. Ardura D. and Pérez-Bitrián A., (2018), The effect of motivation on the choice of chemistry in secondary schools: adaptation and validation of the Science Motivation Questionnaire II to Spanish students, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(3), 905–918 10.1039/C8RP00098K.
9. Ardura D. and Pérez-Bitrián A., (2019), Motivational pathways towards academic achievement in physics & chemistry: a comparison between students who opt out and those who persist, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20(3), 618–632 10.1039/C9RP00073A.
10. Ardura D., Zamora Á. and Pérez-Bitrián A., (2021), The role of motivation on secondary school students’ causal attributions to choose or abandon chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(1), 43–61 10.1039/D0RP00168F.
11. Avargil S., Kohen Z. and Dori Y. J., (2020), Trends and perceptions of choosing chemistry as a major and a career, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(2), 668–684 10.1039/C9RP00158A.
12. Barvian N. C., (2023), Cumulative Advantage and Student Performance in General Chemistry: An Empirical Study at a Midwest Tier 1 University (2016–2019) (Doctoral dissertation, U. of Missouri-Saint Louis), https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/1366.
13. Bjerre M., Stearns E., Mickelson R., Moller S. and Dancy M., (2025), Why Do Some Stay While Others Leave Biological Science? The Role of Abstract and Concrete Career Perceptions and Plans, Manuscript under review.
14. Boeije H., (2002), A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews, Qual. Quant., 36, 391–409 DOI:10.1023/A:1020909529486.
15. Bottia M. C., Mickelson R., Barry L. and Jamil C., (2021), Factors Associated with College STEM Participation of Racially Minoritized Students: A Synthesis of Research, Rev. Educ. Res., 91(4), 614–648. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543211012751.
16. Bottia M. C., Stearns E., Mickelson R., Moller S. and Parker A. D., (2015a), Do Learning Experiences of Inspiration/Reinforcement and Preparation During High School Increase the Likelihood of Declaring a STEM Major? Teach. Coll. Rec., 117(4), 1–46. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17806.
17. Bottia M. C., Stearns E., Mickelson R., Moller S. and Valentino L., (2015b), Growing the Roots of STEM Majors: Female Math and Science High School Faculty and the Participation of Students in STEM, Econ. Educ. Rev., 45, 14–27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775715000035.
18. Bourdieu P., (1977), in Nice R. (ed) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press.
19. Bourdieu P., (1986), The Forms of Capital, in Richardson J. (ed) Handbook Sociol. Educ., Greenwood, pp. 241–258.
20. Bourdieu P. and Passeron J., (1977), Reproduction: In Education, Society and Culture, Sage, vol. 4.
21. Brawner C., Lord S., Layton R., Ohland M. and Long R., (2015), Factors affecting women's persistence in chemical engineering, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 31(6A), 1431–1447.
22. Chang M., Cerna O., Han J. and Saenz V., (2008), The contradictory roles of institutional status in retaining underrepresented minorities in biomedical and behavioral science majors, Rev. Higher Educ., 31(4), 433–464 DOI:10.1353/rhe.0.0011.
23. Chang M., Sharkness J., Hurtado S. and Newman C., (2014), What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups? J. Res. Sci. Teach., 51(5), 555–580 DOI:10.1002/tea.21146.
24. Cho J. and Lee E., (2014), Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences, Qualitative Rep., 19(32), 1–20 DOI:10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1028.
25. Chowdhuri M., King H. and Archer L., (2022), The primary science capital teaching approach: building science engagement for social justice, J. Emergent Sci., (23), 35–38.
26. Claussen S. and Osborne J., (2013), Bourdieu's notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum, Sci. Educ., 97(1), 58–79.
27. Cohen R. and Kelly A., (2018), Community college chemistry course taking and STEM academic persistence, J. Chem. Educ., 96(1), 3–11 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00586.
28. Cooper G. and Berry A., (2020), Demographic predictors of senior secondary participation in biology, physics, chemistry, and earth/space sciences: Students’ access to cultural, social and science capital, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 42(1), 151–166 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2019.1708510.
29. Dagogo I., Davidowitz B. and Taylor D., (2019), Third year university students’ accounts for choosing chemistry, African J. Res. Math., Sci. Tech. Educ., 23(2), 135–144. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-19367daffa.
30. Dannefer D., (2020), Systemic and Reflexive: Foundations of Cumulative Dis/Advantage and Life-Course Processes, J. Gerontology: Social Sciences, 75(6), 1249–1263 DOI:10.1093/geronb/gby118.
31. DeBoer G., (1987), Predicting continued participation in college chemistry for men and women, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 24(6), 527–538.
32. Deslauriers L., McCarty L., Miller K., Callaghan K. and Kestin G., (2019), Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom, Proc. NAS, 116(39), 19251–19257.
33. 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 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2016.1248520.
34. DiPrete T. and Eirich G., (2006), Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: a review of theoretical and empirical developments, Ann. Rev. Sociol., 32, 271–297 DOI:10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127.
35. Dockter D., Uvarov C., Guzman-Alvarez A. and Molinaro M., (2017), Improving preparation and persistence in undergraduate STEM: why an online summer preparatory chemistry course makes sense, ACS, In Online approaches to chemical education pp. 7–33.
36. Espinosa L., (2011), Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence, Harvard Educ. Rev., 81(2), 209–241 DOI:10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u.
37. Freemana S., Eddya S. L., McDonougha M., Smith M. K., Okoroafora N., Jordt H. and Wenderotha M. P., (2014), Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. NAS, 111(23), 8410–8415.
38. Garrison D., Cleveland-Innes M., Koole M. and Kappelman J., (2006), Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability, Int. Higher Educ., 9, 1–8.
39. Godec S., King H. and Archer L., (2017), The science capital teaching approach: Engaging students with science, promoting social justice, London, UK: UCL Institute of Education.
40. Gonsalves A., Cavalcante A., Sprowls E. and Iacono H., (2021), “Anybody can do science if they’re brave enough”: understanding the role of science capital in science majors’ identity trajectories into and through postsecondary science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 58(8), 1117–1151 DOI:10.1002/tea.21695.
41. Granovetter M., (1973), The Strength of Weak Ties, Am. J. Sociol., 78(6), 1360–1380.
42. Holmegaard H., Madsen L. and Ulriksen L., (2014), A journey of negotiation and belonging: Understanding students’ transitions to science and engineering in higher education, Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ., 9, 755–786.
43. Jones M., Chesnutt K., Ennes M., Macher D. and Paechter M., (2022), Measuring science capital, science attitudes, and science experiences in elementary and middle school students, Studies Educ. Eval., 74, 101180 DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101180.
44. King H., Nomikou E., Archer L. and Regan E., (2015), Teachers’ understanding and operationalization of ‘science capital’, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 37(18), 2987–3014 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2015.1119331.
45. Lareau A., (2013), Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life, 2nd end, University of California Press.
46. Lareau A., (2015), Cultural Knowledge and Social Inequality, Am. Sociol. Rev., 80(1) 1–27.
47. Lareau A. and Cox A., (2011), Social class and the transition to adulthood, in Carlson M. and England P. (ed.) Social class and Changing Families in An Unequal America, Stanford University Press, pp. 134–164.
48. Matthews J., Banerjee M. and Lauermann F., (2014), Academic identity formation and motivation among ethnic minority adolescents: the role of the “self” between internal and external perceptions of identity, Child Dev., 85(6), 2355–2373 DOI:10.1111/cdev.12318.
49. Merton R., (1968), The Matthew Effect in Science, Science, (159), 56–63 DOI:10.1126/science159.3810.56.
50. Mickelson R. A., (2015), The Cumulative Disadvantages of First- and Second-Generation Segregation for Middle School Achievement, Amer. Educ. Res. J., 52(4), 657–692.
51. Moll L., (2019), Elaborating Funds of Knowledge: Community Oriented Practice in International Context, Lit. Res.: Theory, Method, Pract., 68 (1), 130–138.
52. Moote J., Archer L., DeWitt J. and MacLeod E., (2020), Science capital or STEM capital? Exploring relationships between science capital and technology, engineering, and math aspirations and attitudes among young people aged 17/18, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 57(8), 1228–1249 DOI:10.1002/tea.21628.
53. Morais C. and Araújo J. L., (2019), Awakening to chemistry through storytelling and practical activities: middle school students interacting with pre-school children, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20(1), 302–315.
54. Mujtaba T. and Reiss M., (2014), A survey of psychological, motivational, family and perceptions of physics education factors that explain 15-year-old students’ aspirations to study physics in post-compulsory English schools, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 12, 371–393.
55. Mujtaba T., Sheldrake R., Reiss M. and Simon S., (2018), Students’ science attitudes, beliefs, and context: associations with science and chemistry aspirations, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 40(6), 644–667 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2018.1433896.
56. National Research Council, (2012), Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering, National Academies Press.
57. Nguyen U. and Riegle-Crumb C., (2021), Who is a scientist? The relationship between counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists and the STEM major intentions of Black and Latinx male and female students, Int. J. STEM Educ., 8(1), 1–18 DOI:10.1186/s40594-021-00288-x.
58. Niu L., (2017), Family socioeconomic status and choice of STEM major in college: An analysis of a national sample, Coll. Stud. J., 51(2), 298–312.
59. Ogunde J., Overton T., Thompson C., Mewis R. and Boniface S., (2017), Beyond graduation: motivations and career aspirations of undergraduate chemistry students, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(3), 457–471.
60. Ong M., Wright C., Espinosa L. and Orfield G., (2011), Inside the double bind: a synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Harvard Educ. Rev., 81(2), 172–209 DOI:10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2.
61. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris DOI:10.1717/eag-2018-en.
62. Perez T., Cromley J. and Kaplan A., (2014), The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention, J. Educ. Psy., 106(1), 315–329 DOI:10.1037/a0034027.
63. Puccia E., Martin J., Smith C., Kersaint G., Campbell-Montalvo R., Wao H., Lee R., Skvoretz J. and MacDonald G., (2021), The influence of expressive and instrumental social capital from parents on women and underrepresented minority students’ declaration and persistence in engineering majors, Int. J. STEM Educ., 8(1), 1–15 DOI:10.1186/s40594-021-00277-0.
64. Rainey R., Dancy M., Mickelson R., Stearns E. and Moller, (2018), Race and Gender Differences in How Sense of Belonging Influences Decisions to Major in STEM, Int. J. STEM Educ., 5(10), 1–15 DOI:10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6.
65. Rask K., (2010), Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences, Econ. Educ. Rev., 29(6), 892–900.
66. Rubin H. and Rubin I., (2012), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
67. Rüschenpöhler L. and Markic S., (2020a), How the home environment shapes students’ perceptions of their abilities: the relation between chemistry capital at home and students’ chemistry self-concept, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 442(12), 2075–2094.
68. Rüschenpöhler L. and Markic S., (2020b), Secondary school students’ acquisition of science capital in the field of chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(1), 220–236.
69. Sadler P., Sonnert G., Hazari Z. and Tai R., (2012), Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: a gender study, Sci. Educ., 96(3), 411–27.
70. Salta K., Gekos M., Petsimeri I. and Koulougliotis D., (2012), Discovering factors that influence the decision to pursue a chemistry-related career: a comparative analysis of the experiences of non-scientist adults and chemistry teachers in Greece, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13(4), 437.
71. Sanchez A., (2014), Persistence and performance for Latino community college students in STEM majors [unpublished]. Doctoral dissertation, California State U. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1654429679/.
72. Sax L., Lim G., Lehman K. and Lonje-Paulson L., (2018), Reversal of the gender gap: The biological sciences as a unique case within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng., 24(4), 2–13.
73. Schwartz G., Shav-Artza O. and Dori Y. J., (2021), Choosing chemistry at different education and career stages: Chemists, chemical engineers, and teachers, J. Sci. Educ. Tech., 30(5), 692–705.
74. Seymour E., (1997), Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview.
75. Seymour E. and Hunter A., (2019), Talking About Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education, Springer.
76. Shedlosky-Shoemaker R. and Fautch J., (2015), Who leaves, who stays? Psychological predictors of undergraduate chemistry students’ persistence, J. Chem. Educ., 92(3), 408–414 DOI:10.1021/ed500571j.
77. Solano D., Wood F. and Kurth M., (2011), Careers in chemistry: a course providing students with real-world foundations, J. Chem. Educ., 88(10), 1376–1379.
78. Stearns E., Bottia M. C., Davalos E., Mickelson R., Moller S. and Valentino L., (2016), “High School Math and Science Teachers and Girls’ Success in STEM, Soc. Prob., (1), 87–110.
79. Stearns E., Mickelson R., Bottia M., Moller, Allen D. and Dancy M., (2024), How Community College Educations Generate Science Capital among Low-Income White Women Majoring in STEM, Commun. College J. Res. Pract, 1–21 DOI:10.1080/10668926.2024.2383204.
80. Tai R., Sadler P. and Loehr J., (2005), Factors influencing success in introductory college chemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(9), 987–1012 DOI:10.1002/tea.20082.
81. Watts F. and Finkenstaedt-Quinn A., (2021), The current state of methods for establishing reliability in qualitative chemistry education research articles, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(3), 565–578 10.1039/D1RP00007A.
82. Woods C., Park T., Hu S. and Betrand Jones T., (2018), How high school coursework predicts introductory college-level course success, Commun. Coll. Rev., 46(2), 176–196 DOI:10.1177/0091552118759419.
83. Yestrebsky C., (2015), Flipping the classroom in a large chemistry class-research university environment, Proc. – Soc. Behav. Sci., 191, 1113–1118.
84. Yosso T., (2020), Critical Race Theory in Education, Routledge.

---