A qualitative investigation of the influences of gender among low-socioeconomic status students’ motivations to study biology

Abstract

Background

Students from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds (LSES) are underrepresented in STEM education, including in the biological sciences. As one of the foundational STEM disciplines, biology represents an interesting case study in that women earn the most undergraduate degrees, a trend that holds across racial/ethnic groups. However, there is a limited understanding about the backgrounds, personality characteristics, and preferences of undergraduates who choose to pursue a biology major, especially those from LSES backgrounds and whether there are gender differences among those students.

Results

Using interview data from LSES students who were participants in an externally funded scholarship program, we found that personal interests, positive learning experiences, and particularly medical career opportunities were highly influential for shaping major-related choices for LSES students, comparable to the motivations seen among biology students from all demographic groups. Yet the ways LSES men and women translated their preferences and motivations into biology majors were divergent, which highlights the unique perspectives and challenges of LSES students along their motivational trajectories. For instance, positive interactions with teachers played a significant role in supporting scientific interests of LSES students of both genders. For LSES men, these experiences were mostly related to engaging academic content, while explicit encouragement and support from teachers was particularly impactful for LSES women. Additionally, LSES students frequently chose biology majors because of the perceived preparation for a certain career, either in medical or non-medical fields. We observed that these motivational factors were more salient for LSES men than for women. In contrast, LSES women often found both medical and non-medical careers appealing due to their interest in doing scientific research.

Conclusions

Our analysis of LSES students’ motivational pathways to biology majors revealed that while intrinsic motivations are crucial for the development of their scientific and career interests, engagement with, and belonging to the field, extrinsic motivations—driven by personal, cultural, and economic factors—cannot be overlooked. Understanding this gendered dynamic and interplay between these motivational types is essential for designing programs and policies that aim to increase the representation of LSES students in biology, a field critical to environmental conservation and societal welfare.

Introduction

In the evolving landscape of science education and changing demographics in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, the intersection of student motivation and demographic factors such as gender and socioeconomic status (SES) is emerging as an important area of investigation. Despite substantial efforts to maintain pathways to STEM education open to all demographic groups, students from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds (LSES) remain underrepresented in STEM education and, consequently, in the STEM workforce (Bottia et al., 2022; Education Advisory Board, 2021; National Science Board, 2022). Their underrepresentation perpetuates socioeconomic inequalities and is detrimental for national innovation potential and economic growth (Bottia et al., 2022; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022; Stearns et al., 2024).

Potential progress toward equity in STEM fields is restricted by the lack of knowledge on how motivational pathways towards STEM fields differ by gender and SES. Existing studies point out that socioeconomic status, commonly defined by student’s access to family resources (e.g., cultural, social, and financial capital) and the social standing of their family (American Psychological Association [APA], 2021), has profound effects on students’ educational decisions, such as choice of major, and their persistence on chosen paths (Bottia et al., 2022; Park et al., 2023; Wang & Degol, 2013; Xie & Shauman, 2004; Yerdelen et al., 2016).

For many LSES men and women, community colleges are a vital entry point into STEM fields (American Association of Community Colleges, 2023; Bottia et al., 2020; NCES, 2022), serving as an engine for social mobility (Baker & Levin, 2019; Chetty et al., 2020; Community College Research Center [CCRC], 2022). Yet LSES students’ specific pathways towards biology majors through these institutions is a topic largely absent from the academic literature. Well-documented inequities in community college STEM education pose substantial obstacles for LSES youth that may make it challenging to persist in STEM pathways and advance toward higher levels of STEM education (Bahr et al., 2017; Bottia et al., 2022; CCRC, 2022). Moreover, there is a limited understanding about the backgrounds, personality characteristics, and preferences of undergraduates who choose to pursue a biology major (Sax et al., 2018).

At the intersection of experiences as LSES students and in community colleges, LSES community college students may have unique influences on major choices, shaped by a complex interplay of social, cultural, political, and economic factors (Bottia et al., 2022; Eagan et al., 2013, 2017; Mullen, 2013; Villarejo et al., 2008). Learning from the diversity of their accumulated experiences and perspectives about the next steps of their academic journeys can contribute to the conversation about equity and access to broaden STEM participation (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2023). This approach shifts the focus from the deficit-based frameworks that positions historically excluded students as needing to be “fixed” (Gazley et al., 2014, p. 1021) toward perspectives that acknowledge and value their unique contribution as integral to advancing the scientific community.

In this qualitative study, we aim to fill these gaps in knowledge by addressing two central research questions: (1) what motivates LSES students to major in biology, and (2) how do these life-long motivational trajectories vary by gender? To respond to these questions, we investigate how individual and environmental factors interact to influence LSES community college students' decisions to major in biology. Because the motivational factors related to the choice of major are especially relevant in light of gender, we also examined how these motivational paths are similar and divergent for LSES men and women. To answer the research questions, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with LSES men (n = 13) and women (n = 39) interested in or actively pursuing a major in biological sciences at a large public university and nearby community colleges in the American Southeast during 2018–2022. We frame our investigation with elements of expectancy-value theory (EVT) (Eccles, 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and social determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2020). Both theories were extensively used as theoretical lenses through which to examine the complex interplay between gender and motivations towards STEM academic pursuits among student populations underrepresented in STEM.

As one of the core STEM disciplines, biology presents a unique case study, offering a rich opportunity for investigation of gender-specific motivational pathways in science. Unlike most other STEM fields, in biology the gender gap is reversed, such that women earn a majority of undergraduate degrees, a trend that holds across racial/ethnic groups (NSF, 2023). However, it is not yet clear whether this relatively welcoming environment extends to LSES students, particularly LSES women. Therefore, insights about what pulls students with intersecting identities, such as LSES men and women, to the field are vital for broader understanding of motivational influences among students pursuing biology (Hsu & Dudley, 2022). The recent COVID-19 pandemic and the on-going climate crisis have demonstrated the growing importance of biology research in addressing larger societal issues, such as public health emergencies, food security, and environmental sustainability. Given the field’s profound and far-reaching implications for societal well-being, understanding the factors that motivate LSES men and women to pursue biology majors is crucial for their recruitment and for designing policies that support their inclusion and representation in science fields.

This study also contributes to a growing theoretical debate on the importance of accounting for intersecting social identities in STEM motivational studies. As offered by Avraamidou (2019), traditional motivational research often overlooks the nuanced ways in which “interlocking influence of systems of privilege and oppression in science” (p. 323) affect students' motivation and engagement with different STEM fields. While the effects of gender and race on STEM academic pathways are well-investigated (see, for example, Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Eccles, 2009; Hazari et al., 2017; Ong et al., 2011; Riegle-Crumb & King, 2010; Tilbrook & Shifrer, 2021), there exists a relative paucity of studies that consider the confluence of gender dynamics and socioeconomic factors in shaping motivations towards specific STEM majors (see, for example, Buday et al., 2011; Eccles, 2011; Stearns et al., 2024; Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė et al., 2015 for exceptions). This scarcity warrants addressing, since gender and socioeconomic background shape students’ STEM identities from the most foundational years. Therefore, in our investigation of motivational pathways of LSES men and women to biology majors, we consider this perspective.

Literature review

Influence of SES on choice of STEM majors

The choice of academic major is arguably one of the most impactful life-long decisions in that it has direct implications for career opportunities and social stratification (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Porter & Umbach, 2006). While socioeconomic status does not directly determine students’ choice of major, it influences a wide range of intermediary outcomes, from academic performance to confidence and sense of belonging, that have profound implications for students’ motivation and educational decisions (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; APA, 2017; Bottia et al., 2022; Park et al., 2023; Stearns et al., 2019; Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė et al., 2015; Wang & Degol, 2013; Xie & Shauman, 2004; Yerdelen et al., 2016).

Socioeconomic disparities in science skills and achievements emerge in early school years and are difficult to reverse when students reach high school (Betancur et al., 2018; Duncan et al., 2010; Morgan et al., 2013; Riegle-Crumb & King, 2010). Prior to beginning college, LSES students may demonstrate more initial interest in some STEM fields than their higher-SES counterparts (George-Jackson & Lichtenberger, 2012; Lichtenberger & George-Jackson, 2012; Tilbrook & Shifrer, 2021). In fact, this interest in STEM shows capacity to surmount many of the material, cultural, and psychological challenges associated with their SES background that may otherwise have diminished their motivation to pursue STEM in higher education (Bottia et al., 2022; Teshera-Levye et al., 2023). The cumulative nature of these structural challenges can be detrimental for the formation of academic curiosity, growth mindset beliefs, and critical thinking abilities that are crucial for success in science fields (Ashford-Hanserd, 2020; Borg Preca et al., 2023; Milner-Bolotin & Marotto, 2018; Uludüz & Çalik, 2022).

For LSES students, growing up in less advantaged neighborhoods with often under-resourced schools contributes to disparities in academic achievement and learning opportunities (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; APA, 2017). In addition to school quality, these students may face hurdles with regard to social capital (access to social networks and connections, mentors and role models) and cultural capital (values, norms, attitudes, quality and amount of information about careers and higher educational pathways) that are shaped and reproduced within family structures and institutional educational environments, including underfunded community colleges (Baker & Levin, 2019; Bottia et al., 2022; Park et al., 2023). Although children from low and high socioeconomic quintiles are likely to be born with similar innate capacity to achieve, higher-SES parents consistently invest more time and financial resources in the development of their children’s socioemotional skills, interests, and academic achievement from a young age (Lareau, 2001, 2003; Park et al., 2023). This proactive parental approach provides extensive opportunities for academic socialization and skill development (Lareau, 2003; Ovink & Veazey, 2011), building cultural capital and self-confidence required to make well-informed academic choices (Bottia et al., 2022; Eccles, 2009; Kaleva et al., 2019; Morgan et al., 2013; Park et al., 2023).

In contrast, working-class parents’ approach to child rearing, constrained by limited resources, relies on a more spontaneous orientation to their children’s engagement with education (Lareau, 2003). Consequently, low-SES students have fewer opportunities to participate in STEM extracurricular activities, essential for early STEM exposure, socialization, and the development of scientific interest, self-efficacy, and science identity (Eccles, 1994; Wang & Degol, 2013)—factors influential for academic major choices. Notably, a strong science identity, or the way students determine themselves and are recognized by others as “science people” (Carlone & Johnson, 2007), is strongly linked to the likelihood of selecting science programs in college and entering science occupations (Chen et al., 2020; Stets et al., 2016).

Previous work found that LSES students express greater emotional distress and heightened anxiety from social comparison to higher-SES counterparts and the stigma associated with social class (Jury et al., 2017). These challenges compounded with cultural norms and institutional selectivity practices that often prioritize higher achievers from more affluent backgrounds (Jury et al., 2017; Mickelson & Everett, 2008; Mickelson et al., 2008, 2013; World Bank, 2018) may limit the perceived agency of LSES students, and thus, their ability to make their own choices, such as choice of major (Gallo et al., 2005; Kraus et al., 2012; Westlake et al., 2019).

Overall, coming from low-SES backgrounds influences choice of STEM major through a complex interplay of different structural factors. However, the specific implications of these factors on LSES students’ motivations towards the biology major requires further investigation.

Influence of SES and gender on motivation to study biology

Potential progress toward equity in STEM fields is substantially restricted by the lack of knowledge on how motivational pathways towards STEM fields including biology differ by gender and SES. Research on various aspects of educational experiences suggest that understanding of “appropriate” behavior for men and women varies substantially by social class, such that gender gaps in behavior may be smaller among LSES students compared to higher-SES students (Dumais, 2002; Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė et al., 2015). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the influences on motivation to study biology among LSES students may differ by gender and diverge from previously discovered patterns.

Existing literature attributes gender differences in pursuit of biology major to a variety of factors such as individual interests, occupational aspirations, ability beliefs, and work–family balance expectations (Almasri et al., 2021; Gibbens, 2018; Hsu & Dudley, 2022; Linsenmeier & Saterbak, 2020; Sax et al., 2018; Wang & Degol, 2017). However, these influences do not operate in isolation; rather they interact with each other, with the cultural capital available to STEM students, and with broader societal narrative surrounding STEM careers.

As students progress through their studies, they frequently enroll in majors that align closely with their interests and long-term career aspirations (Beggs et al., 2008). As a broad and interdisciplinary field of study, biology offers access to a variety of medical and non-medical occupations (NCES, 2020). Students drawn to biology programs are initially open-minded about their choice of major and demonstrate interest in various career paths (Sax et al., 2018). While a medical degree remains a common goal for students of both genders majoring in biology, non-medical aspirations are becoming increasingly diverse (Sax et al., 2018). Several studies (Diekman & Steinberg, 2013; Pacifici & Thomson, 2011; Sax et al., 2018; Wang, 2013) found that the field better aligns with communal career objectives focused on helping others that may appeal more to women versus men. However, it is not yet clear if this gendered approach to altruistic goals applies to LSES students as well. Contextual influences associated with coming from low-SES families (Gallo et al., 2005; Kraus et al., 2012) may have an impact on the development of their altruistic identities, potentially leading to distinct patterns of engagement with biology compared to men and women from higher-SES backgrounds.

In sum, motivational pathways to scientific careers, such as biology, are shaped by a complex interplay of earlier experiences, societal forces, and gendered norms and stereotypes (Garriott et al., 2016; Henttonen & Korpiaho, 2004; Hsu & Dudley, 2022; Xie & Shauman, 2004). However, the hierarchy of motivational factors to engage in and remain in biology for LSES men and women is still unclear. Thus, we aimed to capture the complex dynamics of gendered and classed motivational pathways by exploring a range of factors that lead to biology degree choice decisions.

Theoretical background

“In the real world, motivation is highly valued because of its consequences: motivation produces” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 69).

Theories related to motivation and interest in a particular field of study interchangeably use recurrent themes of expectations, values, attributions, and interactions between individuals and the learning context (Cook & Artino, 2016; Lent et al., 1994, 2018). Expectancy-value theory (EVT) (Eccles, 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2020) have guided much of the recent work on cognitive motivation in STEM education and offered multiple insights into how gender may influence students' academic and career choices. We frame our investigation with elements of both theories to uncover motivations and experiences that lead LSES students to biology majors, while focusing on the gendered nuances that distinguish their respective paths.

Expectancy-value theory

Expectancy-value theory has been extensively used to explain gender differences in STEM major selection, linking them to variations in self-efficacy, interests, and perceived task values (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). From the EVT standpoint, expectations for success (how confident we feel about succeeding in certain tasks) and subjective task values (how much we value the available options) are instrumental in explaining achievement-related choices, such as choice of major. These constructs significantly vary by gender and across STEM field (Eccles, 2009; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), and are closely tied to individual motivational beliefs, such as interest, abilities, self-efficacy, and science identity (Bottia et al., 2020; Eccles, 1994; Eccles et al., 1999; Rainey et al., 2018; Wang & Degol, 2013; Wille et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021).

As a key element of EVT, subjective task value is composed of four distinct concepts: attainment value explains the subjective importance of doing well on a chosen task because it is consistent with one’s self-image and identity; intrinsic value—interest and enjoyment one gains from doing the task; utility value—how useful a task is for an individual’s future goal (for example, choosing to study biology to become a doctor); and costs—the perceived drawbacks of engaging in a task or a forgone opportunity to engage in other tasks (i.e., opportunity cost) (Sáinz et al., 2018; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The first three constructs (attainment, intrinsic, and utility value) positively affect the subjective task value, while the cost component has the opposite effect. Task values play a crucial role in investigating motivational factors that explain gender disparities in STEM fields (Wang, 2013). Tests of expectancy-value theory have pointed out that individuals assess subjective task values comparatively, setting up a hierarchy of choices based on their individual evaluations (Stearns et al., 2019). The likelihood of a student choosing a certain STEM major should be higher if they have higher expectations and values in this STEM domain than in other fields (Gaspard et al., 2019).

Self-determination theory

Because the choice of major is shaped not only by rational evaluation of potential outcomes, but also driven by the innate psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Mitchall & Jaeger, 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2020), we employed social determination theory to explore the diverse dimensions of LSES students’ motivations. Competence refers to the need for the right level of challenge and control of the learning environment, while autonomy is the need for choice and the ability to make that choice an integral part of one’s identity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When students feel empowered to make their own decisions, they are more likely to be engaged in the learning process and motivated to master new skills. Relatedness, which encompasses the need for positive connection with others and a need for belonging (e.g., sense of having a place among peers), has been identified as a key factor influencing students’ self-determination, science interest, and persistence on STEM academic trajectories (Hoffman et al., 2021; Rainey et al., 2018). This is particularly relevant for LSES students who may have a deeper psychological need for relatedness (for example, sense of belonging to learning environment) and often struggle with navigating their academic choices (Bottia et al., 2020; Brandisauskiene et al., 2023; Minnaert et al., 2011; Mitchall & Jaeger, 2018).

While both EVT and SDT use different constructs and frameworks for understanding motivations, they share several fundamental assumptions about the importance of self-perceptions, the developmental nature of motivation, and the influence of contextual factors. These assumptions may be instrumental in understanding the complex motivational pathways towards academic major choices among students with intersecting identities. To examine the conceptual leverage our analysis might gain from combining elements applying of EVT and SDT, we have developed a cross-walk table (Table 1) that displays the key characteristics and assumptions of both theories as well as their key points of alignment and diversion.

Table 1 Comparative analysis of expectancy-value theory and social determination theory perspectives

Data and methods

Research design

To answer our research questions regarding sources of motivation to study biology and potential gender differences therein, this study deploys a qualitative descriptive design. Frequently informed by a pragmatic approach to explore real-world phenomena, a qualitative descriptive design effectively captures the diversity of participants’ experiences while recognizing the subjective nature of the issue (Bradshaw et al., 2017; Doyle et al., 2019; Giorgi, 1992). Prioritizing descriptive validity through detailed and contextually rich accounts was essential for this study because it provided a solid foundation for subsequent analyses (Sandelowski, 2000) and enhanced the transparency and replicability of the research process. We addressed it through a rigorous process of thematic coding and meticulous documentation of interview data through verbatim transcriptions. This approach offered an accurate and factual portrayal of participants’ experiences and perspectives that can be readily verified against the raw data (Maxwell, 1992; Sandelowski, 2000). Furthermore, we aligned our analysis with established theoretical constructs of EVT and SDT, to achieve interpretive validity in understanding participants’ perspectives and the meanings they attributed to their experiences.

Data

Our data come from 52 in-depth semi-structured interviews with high-achieving men (n = 13) and women (n = 39) from LSES families participating in an NSF-funded S-STEM program.¹ All participants were enrolled as students, either at a large university located in the American Southeast (Southeastern University) or at one of two community colleges (CC1 and CC2) that were part of the S-STEM consortium located in the same state; all students were either intending to major in biology (while enrolled at community college) or were majoring in biology at Southeastern U. To qualify for the program, students were required to show that they had unmet financial need through the FAFSA and to have a GPA of at least 2.75 at the university or 3.0 at the community colleges. Students participating in the scholarship program were interviewed yearly to broaden information beyond that available in administrative records; we only used data from the initial interviews of each student. While tracking the evolution of motivation is outside the scope of this study, it can represent a fruitful avenue for further research.

All interviews were conducted by phone or Zoom and ranged from 20 to 60 min. Prior to interviews, students provided informed consent to participate and authorization to record the interview per the terms of the IRB protocol of Southeastern University: participation was voluntary and confidential, but the research team was able to interview more than 90% of students enrolled in the program. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, either by Zoom’s built-in AI transcription tool or by human transcribers. Members of the research team checked the accuracy of and edited those transcribed using AI.

Separate interview protocols corresponded to the level of institutions in which students were enrolled (community college vs. university), as well as how much time they had spent in the S-STEM program (1st year vs. 2+ year). We developed the interview protocols based on the research question and key themes identified in the literature review. An example of the 1st year community college interview protocol is displayed in Appendix A, along with a brief discussion of the differences between the protocols. Each protocol consisted of several sets of questions, addressing interviewees’ interest and pathways to the biology major, development of their interest in STEM, pedagogical experiences and interactions with teachers and peers in high school and in current institutional settings, science identity, and confidence issues. When necessary, follow-up prompts were used to encourage respondents to elaborate thoughts on the question in discussion.

Table 2 shows basic demographic information about the students interviewed. With respect to gender representation, 75% identified themselves as (cisgender) women and 25% identified themselves as (cisgender) men; there were no non-binary participants. Although the percentage of women in our sample is a bit higher than the percentage in the overall biology major, the sample reflects the S-STEM program’s restriction that scholarship funds be allocated only to students with high GPAs and the fact that students need to apply for the scholarship, a task that requires forward planning. Women college students have higher GPAs than men (Sonnert & Fox, 2012) and are typically more conscientious about planning, a prerequisite for obtaining a place in this scholarship program (Verbree et al., 2022): thus, they are overrepresented among this group of high achievers.

Table 2 Descriptive information about interview sample: S-STEM program participants by gender, 2018–2022

Students majoring in biology represent a more diverse demographic pool compared to other STEM majors along gender, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic lines. Because LSES frequently overlaps with race/ethnicity (APA, 2021), it is important to consider other identity markers (beyond SES and gender) that might influence students’ motivations. Therefore, to recognize the relevance of this factor, we included the descriptive information on race/ethnicity of our respondents. However, the direct influence of race/ethnicity on LSES students’ motivations remains beyond the scope of our analysis. Table 3 displays the racial distribution of our sample.

Table 3 Descriptive information about interview sample: S-STEM program participants by race/ethnicity, 2018–2022

Coding

To maintain alignment with our research questions, we employed both deductive and inductive strategies to organize, code, analyze, and interpret our data, using the qualitative data analysis software, NVivo. Our deductive codes were guided by the theoretical constructs described in EVT and SDT, as well as existing literature. For example, reading through the text, we identified the segments of the interviews that resonated with intrinsic motivation (e.g., “Intrinsic interest for science/nature/animals”) and subjective task values (e.g., “Medical career aspirations and linkage to careers”, “Altruism/ambition to make a difference”). At the same time, we also allowed for unanticipated themes, like “Personal (medical) history” or “Biology is a broad and general field of study”, to emerge from the data in a more inductive approach. To ensure that the interviews were coded accurately, we first developed an initial version of the coding scheme based on the review of the existing literature. Second, the coding scheme was tested by two researchers independently using a subset (20%) of the interviews from the dataset. In this process, we eliminated irrelevant codes and merged similar codes. Two researchers coded to agreement on both the interpretation of the codes and the segmentation of the data in the codes. When any discrepancies in coding occurred, the coders discussed and reached consensus on the application of the codes, then retroactively applied to previously coded interviews. The consensus-based approach with regular accuracy checks between the two researchers ensured reliability and accuracy of our coding approach. Once finalized, we applied the coding frame to all interviews. Appendix B details the codes’ operationalization and indicates whether each code was developed through an inductive or deductive approach.²

Analysis

To answer our research questions, we first examined the most recurring themes and factors in the participants’ narratives for initiating and maintaining LSES students’ motivation to major in biology. We explored variations and differences in how these factors were cited separately by women and men. We strengthened our analysis by examining co-occurrence of codes related to the most cited motivational factors. This step was instrumental for a more nuanced understanding of interplay between different motivational factors. Lastly, we analyzed the main points of divergence in reported motivations by comparing and contrasting these differences between LSES women and men. This comparison helped deepen our understanding of motivational trajectories towards biology majors from the perspectives of both genders. Because our analysis was guided by EVT and SDT frameworks, we interpreted the identified themes and motivational factors through the lens of these theories’ constructs.

Findings

Intrinsic interest or curiosity for science and biology, including interest about the human body, plants and animals (71%), previous positive academic experience (87%), and medical career aspirations (60%) were the most influential factors that guided LSES students’ decisions about their major. These findings reflect the high importance of intrinsic, attainment, and utility value of majoring in biology for LSES men and women. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are interwoven throughout each of these areas of motivation, in some areas more so than in others. The most commonly discussed themes are noted in Table 4. The percentages in this table refer to the percent of individuals in the relevant category who were coded to have discussed the theme in their interview.

Table 4 Frequency and gender gaps in self-reported motivations to major in biology among S-STEM program participants, 2018–2022

Intrinsic interest in science/nature/animals

Both women (77%) and men (54%) ranked scientific interest high on importance for their decision to major in biology, although women mentioned it more frequently than men. Students of both genders who reported this factor often linked it with deeper desire for scientific knowledge and early exposure to science, nature, and animals. For example, for one Latino student, “being around animals at a friend's farm in high school” was a defining experience that pushed him to majoring in animal biosciences. As one White woman at Southeastern University summed it up, “learning more and more information about things made me realize that I had a real hunger to learn even more and just get as much information as I can about some of these topics.” For some students, something simple like getting a scientific book in childhood could spark initial interest. For instance, one White woman at Southeastern University talked about how a book, given to her by a family member, had sparked an interest in science that continued into her university career:

It’s going to sound really cliché, but I was given a science book when I was six years old, And there was a section dedicated to genetics and displaying how DNA worked and how genetics gets passed along, in a very rudimentary way. But I was absolutely fascinated with it. And then I’ve never really strayed too far from doing genetics as what I want to major in (White woman at Southeastern University).

Another student, a White woman at Southeastern University, discussing how her long-standing interest in science translated into a choice to major in biology, said that her interest started when she got her first science book at a yard sale: “I was little, five or six years old and I begged for this science textbook, I still have it too”, she said. Later in life, this initial curiosity evolved into a strong interest in science, deeply connected with her self-concept and identity.

I’ve always kind of been a science nerd and I don’t mind calling myself a science nerd. I love that about myself. For me, biology is the most interesting. I love figuring out how things work as well as the human body or even plant body or animal body. I love how everything works together (White woman at Southeastern University).

Students’ responses were well aligned with previous research grounded in interest development theory (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger, 2000; Renninger & Hidi, 2015). For example, studies (Uitto et al., 2006; Wegner & Schmiedebach, 2020) found that out-of-school nature experiences, such as caring for farm animals or using science kits as well as biology-related hobbies, films, and books were the most important factors correlated with interest in biology in schoolchildren. However, LSES may have detrimental effects on the development of initial interest. For instance, one White woman at Southeastern University, “extremely curious about sciences and math” in elementary school, reported that working almost full time through high school led “that interest to fade and …the curiosity side to swindle [sic] off”, and she was more interested in “getting things done” rather than indulging her earlier enthusiasm for science and math. These experiences led her to consider majoring in non-STEM fields when she entered college.

Overall, for men in our sample, intrinsic interest for science was more often influenced by positive academic experiences (n = 5), such as engaging math and science classes, teachers’ enthusiasm, or through participation in STEM extracurricular and school activities (e.g., STEAM after school clubs and summer programs). Women’s interest was most frequently linked to desire of biological and scientific knowledge (n = 14) and perceived easiness of biology compared to other STEM majors (n = 13). For example, the perceived difficulty of the “chemistry workload” pushed one White woman at Southeastern University towards a biology major where she felt she could be more competent academically while pursuing her career interests.

I decided to stick with biology. I know it sounds counterintuitive given that I want to be a pharmacist, but chemistry isn’t my strong suit. I do enjoy chemistry, but it is more difficult for me than biology…getting a biology degree would put my foot in the door for other career paths (White woman at Southeastern University).

Reflecting on her challenges of choosing a major, she also highlighted several factors that influenced her decision, such as a fear of “competition” in med school she didn’t want to “put [herself] through” and a “very stressful” environment she couldn’t relate to: “it just sounds very stressful; it doesn’t sound like an enjoyable environment for me.”

Our findings suggest that for LSES students, particularly LSES women, motivation to pursue biological knowledge may be driven by their higher expectancy of achieving success in this domain, where they felt confident and which they found inherently interesting and valuable. For instance, one Black woman at Southeastern University, an African immigrant, reported that understanding biology concepts was the reason why she was “always interested in [biology] specifically.” Subsequently, doing well in biology class, made her feel more competent and autonomous, defining her volitional choice of major.

There were, however, marked gender differences in how students discussed the interest value of studying biology. For example, in female students (n = 15), we observed a distinct link between intrinsic interest in one or more areas of biology (e.g., ecology, forensic biology, biochemistry) and a choice of career allowing them to pursue these interests. We did not observe such a pattern among male students. Even female students who reported medical career aspirations among their motivation factors cited clinical research (as opposed to being a practitioner) and genuine interest in biology more often than male students did.

Positive academic experiences

For both women (92%) and men (69%), positive academic experiences were pivotal in motivating their decision to major in biology, with these experiences playing a larger role for women (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.056). Middle and high school experience with math and science classes, teachers’ enthusiasm, and extracurricular and after-class activities reinforced their intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and scientific interest. Many students reported that “working in the lab”, “doing the research” or “working in the field and in the classes” was highly “enjoyable”, making science and biology “really interesting to learn”. For example, talking about experiments in high school zoology class, one White woman at Southeastern University noted their transformative effect on her interest in animal sciences:

I loved those courses, I got an opportunity in my senior year of high school to take a zoology class, and that was a huge turning point for me. We dissected exotic things like squid and sharks, and I learned so much, and it really sparked my zoology interest in animal sciences (White woman at Southeastern University).

Overall, positive academic experiences contributed to students’ internal motivation to study biology because they felt efficient, autonomous, and related to the subject, which corroborates predictions of self-determination theory.

Teachers’ influence

Middle and high school teachers played a big part in supporting LSES students’ long-standing interest in science that kept them engaged with biology studies later. Students described teachers as “inspiring”, “really interactive”, and “putting a lot of energy into teaching”. Particularly for women (n = 11), teachers’ encouragement was highly influential on how they value biology and how accepted and autonomous they feel in their learning environment. For example, for one Black woman at Southeastern University, developing close bonds with her science teacher not only helped to overcome her anxiety, but also had a significant impact on her understanding and interest in biology that defined her future path to biology major.

I definitely struggled a lot socially in high school. I had a lot of close relationships with my teachers and my science teacher, the one that taught my pre biomedical sciences class. She was very supportive and very understanding of all my accommodations. And she made sure I really understood science. She was very passionate about science (Black woman at Southeastern University).

This was a particularly notable finding in the light of science identity research (Aschbacher et al., 2009; Avraamidou, 2019; Carlone, 2004; Chaney et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Hazari et al., 2013) which consistently emphasizes salience of recognition from “significant others” (Carlone & Johnson, 2007), such as family, peers and educators, for the production of a strong science identity in marginalized students. While we did not find any important influence of family and peers on students’ motivation to pursue biology, for LSES girls, teachers’ support was often a decisive factor. This support helped them to feel welcomed and “fit” into science classrooms, driving their achievements and, consequently, making biology more relevant for achieving their academic aspirations.

Career aspirations and altruism

Students’ responses aligned with past research demonstrating the large influence of future careers on students’ choice of majors (Hsu & Dudley, 2022; Sax et al., 2018; Stearns et al., 2019). Medical career aspirations and linkage to medical careers was among the top three motivation factors to pursue biology major for LSES men (62%) and LSES women (59%). Moreover, majoring in biology was equally important for women (31%) and men (31%) who perceived it as an ever-expanding field “with endless possibilities” that can offer a variety of career-related opportunities (particularly, in healthcare) and “broaden understanding of different sciences”.

Medical career aspirations

While both LSES men and LSES women saw biology as being instrumental to pursuing a medical career, we observed notable gender differences in the underlying motives attached to these career aspirations. First, we observed that men (n = 8) whose end-goal was becoming a medical practitioner, saw majoring in biology as “a means to an end” to make their “path easier” towards medical school, without having “a passion” for biology as a field of study. One Latino student at Southeastern University summed up this utilitarian perspective succinctly:

I suppose I don’t have a particular passion for biology. To be honest, biology is simply a means to an end. When it comes to humanitarian efforts, I just want to be a doctor. If people ran on physics, then I would be studying physics in order to fix them up (Latino at Southeastern University).

Second, as opposed to previous research (Hsu & Dudley, 2022; Miller et al., 2000), we found that men (54%) more often than women (23%) (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.079) alluded to social activism, desire to make a positive difference in the world, and “altruistic ambition” (Carlone & Johnson, 2007), the desire to help others, when opting for careers in the medical field through biology majors. For example, one Asian American man at Southeastern University aspired to become an oncologist after watching his friend treat cancer patients in the hospital:

Working with real people face to face, helping them when they're probably at the lowest point in their lives was extremely appealing, because at that time they start losing faith in their life and everything else and you able to give them hope, you work your hardest to make their lives a little bit better, last little bit longer…Whenever chemotherapy was successful, the satisfaction and joy that I saw on their face, their families faces,—I loved it and that's why I want to do it in the future (Asian American man at Southeastern University).

This experience was transformative and, to follow his life-long dream, this student chose biology because “a degree in biology aligned with [his] goals and simplified [his] pathway drastically.”

Moreover, these altruistic goals emerged in the narratives of several men and women from backgrounds marked by marginalization due to their socioeconomic status and immigration histories. Serving their communities through working in the healthcare field was the most common theme in the participants’ responses. For example, one Latino student at Southeastern University wanted to make “the most utilitarian positive impact” of his life by eliminating preventable diseases in poor countries. In another example, a White man at Southeastern University, who relied on “Medicaid all his life”, prioritized societal benefit over personal wealth by wanting to build “free clinics in lower income areas where people can get affordable health care.” He said,

I want to use what I learned to give back to people who are in such a situation. As long as I can survive and make a living wage, I don’t care if I live in a big house or drive a fancy car. If I'm spending 90% of my time doing something that I'm passionate about—that’s what I’ve dreamed of (White man at Southeastern University).

For LSES women (n = 8), medical career aspirations were frequently linked to intrinsic interest in science and desire for scientific knowledge (e.g., biology, math, chemistry). These women pursued their majors because biology studies offered them further research and academic career opportunities (e.g., PhD in virology, genetics and jobs in medical research institutions). At the same time, some women (n = 7) saw biology studies as a better fit for developing their multiple scientific interests or a more secure path to achieve career goals than through other majors.

We also found that women more often than men reported that majoring in biology would lead them to medical occupations that will allow them to interact with people, whether as a physician, nurse, or the more specific goal of neonatologist. This finding is consistent with studies informed by role congruity theory (Diekman & Steinberg, 2013; Graziano et al., 2012; Yang & Barth, 2015) that women may choose a major which leads them to “people jobs” allowing them to interact with people.

In addition, 18% of female and 23% of male respondents were inspired to pursue biology in response to their own medical condition (e.g., diabetes, genetic diseases), or the medical condition of their parents, siblings, or relatives. These conditions had led them to have a great deal of contact with various aspects of the medical establishment throughout their childhoods, inspiring a desire to go into medicine. For example, one Latino at Southeastern University shared:

My sister had cancer when she was 20. And I would spend a lot of time in the hospital with her for a period of two years. I feel just seeing all the providers and everything that was happening around really motivated me into looking further into that [medical] career (Latino at Southeastern University).

These students noted how they enjoyed learning, as their personal experiences heightened their levels of interest in the coursework that, in turn, reinforced the intrinsic desire to excel academically. Therefore, in line with our theoretical assumptions, completing a biology major could have high utility value and higher expectations for success for those students because they accurately perceived that doing well in biology courses is instrumental to getting into medical school.

Another notable finding was a relative lack of importance that students put on choosing a biology major as a means to achieve financial stability or because they were motivated to receive scholarship money. Only three women and one man explicitly mentioned that their medical career aspirations were driven by prestige and higher salaries in medical occupations. This non-finding is especially important given the fact that all of the students interviewed were classified as having unmet financial need in attending public institutions in a state with a relatively low overall cost of attendance, especially for in-state students.

Non-medical career aspirations

We identified noteworthy gender differences in relation to non-medical career aspirations. Studying biology to pursue a non-medical career, such as research in ecology, genetic engineering or biochemistry was among the top five motivations for women (41%) as opposed to men (15%). For LSES women, the choice of major was often driven by the desire to acquire more scientific knowledge (e.g., in chemistry, math) to pursue their specific career interests, and biology was “the best path that will get [them] to what [they] want to do.”

For example, one Black woman at Southeastern University was enthusiastic about the possibility of combining her interests in chemistry and biology to “to formulate [her] own skincare line” as a cosmetic chemist. Working earlier as an esthetician, she “realized this really wasn’t what [she] wanted to do for the rest of [her] life.” Explaining her choice of biochemistry major, she shared: “I’ve always liked science. I belong in a laboratory, that's where I’m supposed to be. I love beauty and I love science… I feel like cosmetic chemistry is definitely a mix of both.”

Additionally, women who mentioned non-medical career aspirations as a driving factor towards the biology major only rarely mentioned contributing to the solution of social problems or anything that could be construed as altruism in their discussions of why they were studying biology. This was the case across both genders, as only a few male and female participants mentioned the potential applicability of their work to specific societal issues, such as “maintaining biodiversity” in poor countries or addressing food scarcity via developing genetically modified products. While our overall findings suggest that intrinsic motives were influential for most students on their choice of major, financial constraints inherent to LSES and external pressures may force some students to make non-volitional choices. For example, one Black woman gave up on her “dream” to pursue her passion for becoming a researcher in biology and decided to enroll in nursing school instead, because her sisters and friends insisted she would make more money that way.

Discussion

While our study is descriptive and focuses on a specific cohort of students participating in an S-STEM program in one Southeastern consortium, our research is the first to document the motivational pathways toward biology majors among community college LSES students. Our findings corroborate and extend the previous research that examined motivational pathways to biology majors across diverse student populations (Almasri et al., 2021; Gibbens, 2018; Hsu & Dudley, 2022; Sax et al., 2018). Indeed, we found that personal interests, positive learning experiences, and particularly medical career opportunities were highly influential for shaping major-related choices for LSES students, comparable to the motivations seen among biology students from all demographic groups. Yet, the ways LSES men and women translated their preferences and motivations into biology majors were divergent, which highlights the unique perspectives and challenges of LSES community college students along their motivational trajectories. These findings will be useful for educational administrators and policymakers who want to support access to educational resources and foster the recruitment and inclusion of LSES students into biology and STEM education more broadly. Because motivational pathways to biology majors significantly vary by gender, the supportive programs and interventions will be more effective if they are tailored to meet the unique needs of LSES men and women.

To answer our research questions, we discuss the most influential factors and experiences that shaped life-long motivational pathways of LSES students to biology majors, and how these pathways vary in the light of gender.

What motivates LSES students to major in biology?

Intrinsic interest or curiosity for science and biology, including interest about the human body, plants and animals (71%), previous positive academic experience (87%), including during high school and earlier, and linkage to medical careers (60%) emerged as the most salient factors for initiating and sustaining LSES students’ motivation to major in biology.

Intrinsic interest

For many LSES students, a genuine interest in biology emerged through early exposure to science and participation in out-of-classroom experiences that sparked their scientific curiosity and desire for further scientific knowledge in middle and high school. This evidence highly resonates with theoretical assumptions based on the experiences of all people that people are intrinsically motivated to do things that are “extending one's capacities to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70).

However, Carlone and Johnson (2007) argue that developing immediate interest and short-term knowledge is insufficient for the cultivation of long-lasting interest in science, necessary for informed academic choices. To be sustained, the initial interest must stimulate desire for new knowledge, new questions, leading to the continuous development of student learning and values (Hidi & Renninger, 2020) and be aligned with students' aptitudes. We observed that, for many LSES students, initial intrinsic interest evolved into a “hunger” for deeper pursuit of biological knowledge, leading to a higher engagement with coursework, higher academic achievements, and positive attitudes towards biology studies. Moreover, these students’ desire to become an expert in biology reflected their internalized values and was instrumental in the development of their scientific self-concepts, suggesting that their choice of biology major was guided by a higher intrinsic motivation internalized over time and manifested in higher attainment value.

There is robust evidence of the positive association between higher interest in science and greater science knowledge (Knekta et al., 2020; Tucker‐Drob & Briley, 2012; Zheng et al., 2019). However, for students from LSES backgrounds, this association may be weaker due to a multitude of material and psychological barriers associated with low SES that may hinder learning and development of their informed interest in science (Zheng et al., 2019). Therefore, it is of critical importance to provide LSES students with on-going opportunities, such as hands-on research projects, pairing with scientists and advanced peers, and internships, that support their scientific inquisitiveness and help to discover the relevance of their scientific interests for their science identities from an early age. For students underrepresented in STEM, such as LSES students, fostering a strong science identity is particularly beneficial because identity work facilitates readiness “beyond [academic] preparation” (Gazley et al., 2014, p. 1021). Previous work (for example, Aschbacher et al., 2009; Avraamidou, 2019; Carlone, 2004; Chen et al., 2020; Hazari et al., 2013; Le et al., 2019; Puente et al., 2021; Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018) consistently demonstrated that a robust science identity is essential for social and academic integration within scientific communities, helping marginalized student to build resilience against negative stereotypes and bias within STEM environments.

Positive academic experiences

Importantly, we found that positive academic experiences were crucial for LSES students’ decision to major in biology. Middle and high school experiences with math and science classes, teachers’ enthusiasm, and extracurricular and after-class activities often resonated with students’ scientific self-concepts, which reinforced and nurtured intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and scientific interest. As conceived by EVT scholars, previous academic experiences are likely to have a direct influence on expectations for success and the development of higher confidence in one’s ability to do well in a related course. Thus, such course-related experiences should reduce the perceived potential cost of taking a specific course or working toward a specific major. In line with these assumptions, we found that LSES students of both genders conveyed higher perceptions about their scientific competences as an outcome of studying in a welcoming and engaging academic environment.

Moreover, teachers’ influences emerged as crucial in this dynamic. We observed that positive interactions with teachers played a vital role in supporting scientific interests of LSES students of both genders. The ways in which teacher encouragement mattered for students diverged by gender, with specific patterns that we discuss below.

Career aspirations and altruistic values

Lastly, our findings underscore an enduring connection between personal experiences, academic interests, and professional aspirations of LSES students, reinforcing the utility value of a biology major as instrumental in achieving their career goals. Similar to biology students across all demographic groups, LSES students frequently chose biology majors because it would prepare them for a certain career either in medical or non-medical fields. However, there were distinct gender differences in motivations and values attached to LSES students’ career aspirations, discussed more fully in the next section.

Importantly, focus on serving marginalized communities through working in the healthcare field because of “coming from marginalized backgrounds” themselves was a recurring theme in LSES students’ responses. There is empirical evidence that individuals with low SES often emphasize helping others and adhering to community traditions over pursuing personal achievements and goals (Sheehy-Skeffington & Rea, 2017). Moreover, studies found that altruistic values, such as prioritizing community impact over high salary and prestige, can significantly influence certain science career choices (for example, in engineering and biomedicine) for groups historically underrepresented in STEM (Lakin et al., 2021; Villarejo et al., 2008).

Therefore, emphasizing the societal contribution of biology careers and their applicability for addressing community issues, such as environmental conservation, public health, and welfare can resonate with altruistic values of LSES students and make biology majors more relevant and appealing for them. This can be done, for example, through incorporating community-based research and hands-on projects early in K-12 biology education and by communicating diverse ways biology careers can address real-world challenges (Diekman et al., 2010; Fisher & Margolis, 2002; Sax et al., 2018) in career counseling and advising at K-12 schools and community colleges. While addressing specific barriers LSES students face in science education is essential, the integration of altruistic cultural values (Pulcu et al., 2014) into educational contexts can create a more relatable and inclusive environment that reflects the cultural backgrounds and personal values of these students, which, in turn, stimulates their interest in biology.

Despite the clear motivational drivers related to career aspirations and altruism, it is important to note that economic considerations, while less frequently mentioned, still play a reasonable role in the decision-making process for LSES men and women. Therefore, we may suggest that LSES students might, to an extent, prioritize financial security and other practical outcomes of their major-related choices. Yet, this pragmatic approach does not preclude a genuine interest in biology or science as one of the key motivations for choosing a biology major more broadly. This finding appeared to diverge from the reviewed literature. While this discrepancy warrants further investigation, particularly in different institutional contexts, it may also reflect methodological considerations that we discuss in the limitations section.

How do motivational pathways vary by gender?

Both men and women reported the importance of positive academic experiences in biology or in science for choosing and persisting in a biology major. For LSES men, these experiences were primarily centered around stimulating and engaging academic content. However, for LSES women, encouragement and support from teachers that “got invested in [their] future and in helping [them] grow” was particularly influential. Our findings suggest that these positive interactions helped to build LSES women’s confidence in pursuing biology majors and were instrumental in making them feel accepted and valued in their academic environments.

How students are seen and recognized as “science people” by peers, teachers, and society more broadly significantly affects their participation or non-participation in science (Avraamidou, 2019; Le et al., 2019). LSES women's positive perceptions of science classroom experiences primarily linked to recognition from middle and high school teachers indicate that such explicit support may have long-lasting implications for sustaining LSES women’s motivation to major in biology and for their science identity formation. The fulfillment of the need for relatedness is essential for intrinsic motivation and psychological well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Our findings validate this theoretical premise and demonstrate that a higher sense of relatedness derived from the strong bonds with engaging educators likely enhances LSES women’s intrinsic motivation to engage with biology and major in the field.

Moreover, for LSES students, particularly LSES women, gender identity and other identities may be strongly connected to the attainment value students associate with a biology major, in contrast to a “typical” biology/STEM student. This connection is because attainment value, as offered by Eccles (2009), reflects “the value an activity has because engaging in it is consistent with one’s self-image and personal and collective/social identities” (Eccles, 2009, p. 79). In traditional male-dominated STEM environments, the increased awareness of gender stereotypes may lower attainment value for girls, leading to a decreased interest in STEM subjects and activities. For example, girls may struggle to see themselves fitting into the stereotypical “nerd” or “geek” culture associated with “a high-tech, androcentric environment” (Vasileiou & Haskell-Dowland, 2019, p. 1). The misalignment between their self-concepts and stereotypical STEM identities may diminish the perceived value and relevance that girls assign to STEM activities. Moreover, the influence of low SES can pose additional layers of bias on the formation of their STEM identities. In contrast, in a less masculine biology context, gender stereotypes might be less pronounced; thus, women may perceive that their academic self-concepts and intersecting SES and gender identities are more compatible with biology major environments. While this perceived compatibility may enhance women’s attainment value for biology, the mediating role of low SES in this relationship is not fully understood. We suggest this can be an avenue for future research.

Although many studies suggest that altruistic motivations and social activism play a prominent role in attracting particularly women to biology majors (Diekman et al., 2010; Hsu & Dudley, 2022; Miller et al., 2000), our findings challenge these premises. We observed that these motivational factors were more salient for LSES men than for LSES women. LSES men’s motivations to pursue medical careers were deeply intrinsically driven by altruistic values and goals. Therefore, their choice of biology as a direct path to medical school likely suggests a high utility value of biology. It also appeared that LSES men feel more competent in this major and have higher expectations to succeed in achieving their altruistic goals.

In contrast, LSES women’s perspective on the biology major differed from the utilitarian approach observed among men. LSES women often found both medical and non-medical careers appealing because of their intrinsic academic attraction to scientific research. Although some LSES women opted for “people-oriented” careers, their motivation stemmed from desire to further pursue scientific research rather than from “altruistic ambition” (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). This suggests that the emphasis on the “people” dimension (Diekman & Steinberg, 2013; Diekman et al., 2010) alone may be insufficient to encourage LSES women to pursue studies and careers in biology. In sum, for LSES women, the choice of a biology major resonated with their core identities and aligned with their personal interests in exploring specific biological domains, reflecting the importance of utility and interest value in shaping their motivation.

Limitations

The findings of this study should be seen in light of some limitations inherent to qualitative research. First, interviewer bias represents a common methodological challenge of interview-based descriptive design that may inadvertently influence the participant’s responses, thereby compromising response validity. Second, this study could not accurately quantify the frequency of motivating factors because the motivations to major in biology were self-reported rather than derived from a predefined list of responses. Consequently, certain motivations that did not naturally emerge in the participants' responses may still have influenced participant’s decision-making but were not salient for them at the time of the interview. Therefore, future investigations of gendered reasons for pursuing a biology major may benefit from using alternative methodological instruments, such as surveys (Sáinz et al., 2018). Additionally, while we used Fisher's exact test to identify possible patterns in gendered motivations, these results were primarily exploratory, and, thus, should be interpreted cautiously. Only a few findings (e.g., “Altruism/ambition to make a difference”, “Positive academic experience”) approached marginal significance. Given the limited sample size and a qualitative nature of the study’s data, these findings should be viewed as preliminary insights that highlight the complex and context-dependent nature of motivation.

A further limitation is a binary conceptualization of gender in our study, focused on motivational pathways of explicitly cisgender men and women. We should note that a cisgender identity was not an inclusion criterion for the study, rather that none of our respondents identified as anything other than cisgender at the time they were interviewed. However, with the expanded range of students’ gender identities in the U.S. higher education that challenges the traditional cultural norms about gender (Ford et al., 2020), it is imperative that future motivational studies include the perspectives of students across the full spectrum of genders. Gender-minoritized students from LSES backgrounds may face unique and compounded challenges on their pathways to STEM majors and careers, including biology, due to a growing emphasis on hetero- and cis-normativity (Forbes, 2022; Ford et al., 2020; Friedensen et al., 2021) that requires further examination.

Conclusion

Altogether, our analysis of LSES students’ motivational pathways to biology majors revealed that while intrinsic motivations are crucial for the development of their scientific and career interests, engagement with, and belonging to the field, extrinsic motivations—driven by personal, cultural, and economic factors—cannot be overlooked. Although LSES men and women share similar primary motivations for studying biology, there are distinct differences in how they prioritize certain motivating factors, particularly in the importance they place on positive academic experiences and their long-term career aspirations. Understanding these gendered dynamics and interplay between these motivational factors is essential for designing programs and policies that aim to increase the representation of LSES students in biology, a field critical to environmental conservation and societal welfare. Moreover, LSES students' participation in STEM education and, subsequently, the STEM workforce is crucial for their upward mobility and for the nation’s innovation potential.

These findings point the way toward several practical applications for those working with LSES students to increase their participation in STEM majors across the educational trajectory. Educational programs within schools and the broader community that help students to see the long-term relevance of scientific interests help to support LSES students’ participation in STEM. Within schools, highly competent science teachers teaching engaging lessons help to encourage LSES students toward majoring in biology and are especially important for LSES women. Moreover, emphasizing the manifold ways that science can be used to help solve broader social issues and aid particular local communities may be especially helpful in inspiring and supporting LSES to major in STEM fields. Given current challenges facing global societies, there is no shortage of challenges to address with science.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A

The Appendix contains an example of the 1st year community college interview protocol, along with a brief discussion of the differences between the protocols.

Community college interview protocol—structure and sample questions

General questions about major

• 1. What do you think was the most influential factor in your decision to pursue a biology major?

• 2. Over the course of your life, what experiences stand out as encouraging you toward majoring in biology?

• 3. How does your family feel about your decision to major in biology?

Interest in science

• 1. How interested were you in science/math when you were very young? If not mentioned:

  • How did your family influence your interest?

  • How did your experiences at school influence your interest?

  • Did you have any experiences outside of school or the home that influenced your interest, such as camps or summer programs related to science?

• 2. How did your interest level in science change as you went through middle and high school?

Academic experiences and interactions with teachers

• 1. Did you enjoy your science classes in high school (HS)? Why or why not?

• 2. Did you take more math and/or science classes in HS than what was required for graduation? Why or why not? (i.e., personal interest, external expectations from family, society, college admissions, etc.)

• 3. Do you feel your college math/science classes were taught well? Why or why not?

• 4. Do you think your high school (HS) math and science teachers cared about you and your learning? Explain.

Identity and confidence issues

• 1. Do you feel you have the ability to succeed in math and science as well as other people do? Have your feelings about your ability to do STEM changed over time?

• 2. How have your teachers viewed your abilities to do biology?

• 3. How have your peers/fellow students viewed your abilities to do biology?

Differences across protocols

• 1. The protocol for 4-year university students included retrospective questions about their community college experiences, as well as questions about how students experienced the transfer process and comparative questions regarding the experiences of being a student at the community college vs. the 4-year institution.

• 2. Questions regarding why students choose particular institutions, how their early interest in biology developed, and what experiences they had in high school were not repeated the 2nd time students were interviewed.

• 3. Any questions that were phrased as “over the course of your life” in the baseline interview were revised in follow-up interview protocols to read “over the last year”.

Appendix B

Operationalizations of codes

The Appendix details the codes’ operationalization and indicates whether each code was developed through an inductive or deductive approach.

Code	Description
Intrinsic interest for science/nature/animals (deductive)	Students choose biology because of a genuine interest, love, and curiosity for science, nature, or animals
Desire for biological and scientific knowledge (deductive)	Students seeking answers to their own science-related questions or wanting to learn their field of interest proactively and firsthand
Early exposure to science/nature/animals (deductive)	Students who were exposed to science (nature/animals) early in their childhood by parents or schools and developed interest through that
Positive academic experience (deductive)	Students cite positive experiences with science teachers, interesting classes, and self-confidence related to competence in science
Teacher/mentor influence (HS and middle school) (deductive)	Students are inspired to pursue biology by a teacher or mentor (e.g., camp counselor, internship supervisor) who set an example and sparked their interest in the field
Biology is a general and expanding field (inductive)	Students choose biology because it offers a wide variety of careers and sub-fields, with numerous research and study options available after majoring in biology
Medical career aspirations (deductive)	Students see a biology major as a tool to pursue a medical career or further medical education. Biology is often a requirement or prerequisite for their chosen career path
Altruism/ambition to make a difference (deductive)	Students pursue biology because they want to make a difference in the world and help or save people
Personal (medical) history (inductive)	Students are inspired to pursue biology in response to their own medical condition or the medical condition of their close ones
Financial motivation (high-paying jobs or scholarships) (deductive)	Students choose biology because it is a field with high-paying job prospects and scholarship opportunities (including specific scholarships available for biology majors)
Non-medical career aspirations (inductive)	Students view a biology major as a means to pursue a non-medical career of their choice (e.g., research, ecology, forensic biology)

Appendix C

Co-occurrence of codes matrices, S-STEM program, 2018–2022

See Tables 5, 6, 7.

Table 5 Co-occurrence of codes matrix, all participants

Table 6 Co-occurrence of codes matrix, women

Table 7 Co-occurrence of codes matrix, men