Across the sciences, researchers are asking why so many scientists leave their fields?
A new study from Virginia Tech suggests at least part of the answer may be surprisingly simple. Scientists who feel a stronger sense of belonging in their discipline are more likely to intend to stay. Those who feel they do not belong are more likely to consider leaving.
Published recently in Biological Conservation, the study examined ornithologists, people who study birds, and found a clear link between belonging and intentions.
“We found that the lower someone’s sense of belonging in the discipline, the more likely they were to say they were considering leaving within the next five years,” said Nathan Thayer, a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, lead author of the study, and member of the Dayer Lab.
The research draws on survey data from members of three major ornithological societies: the Wilson Ornithological Society, the American Field Ornithologists, and the American Ornithological Society. Professional societies operate independently of universities and employers, serving as hubs for networking, conferences, and collaboration.
Most research on retaining scientists focuses on workplace climate or university environments. This study instead looked at belonging at the disciplinary level, asking whether people feel connected to their broader scientific community.
“Where you work matters,” Thayer said. “But your discipline also matters. Many scientists build their strongest networks through professional societies. If they don’t feel like they belong in the field at large, that can influence whether they see a future there.”
Researchers measured participants’ sense of belonging, perceived support, resilience within science, and their intentions to leave the field within five years. Because long-term tracking was not possible, the team used intentions to leave the field as an indicator of persistence.
The findings were consistent. A stronger sense of belonging predicted stronger intentions to remain in ornithology.
The study also found disparities across demographic groups. Participants from historically marginalized or underrepresented communities reported lower senses of belonging and higher intentions to leave.
Ashley Dayer, professor in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, co-author on the study, and Global Change Center affiliate, said professional societies are uniquely positioned to respond.
“These societies exist to bring people together around a shared scientific passion,” Dayer said. “If we want to retain talented scientists, we need to be intentional about building community in ways that help everyone feel welcome and supported.”
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the collaborating ornithological societies, and individual donors and is part of a broader collaboration aimed at strengthening community within ornithology. That effort has already led to the creation of peer-networking groups, known as “Flocks,” designed to foster connection across career stages and backgrounds.
For Thayer and Dayer, the takeaway is clear: Community-building is not secondary to science. It is imperative to sustaining it.
“If we care about the future of science, we have to care about whether people feel like they belong,” Thayer said.
Original study: DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111767
