2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This full empirical research paper explores the evolution of engineering and research-science identities, and well-being of biomedical engineering doctoral students (EDS) in the buildup to their qualifying exam (QE). Professional identity formation is a crucial link between higher education and employment [1], and engineering graduate students develop engineering and research science identities [2][3] often characterized through students’ reported perceptions of recognition by others, performance/competence, and interpersonal skills [4]. These identities remain malleable as students integrate feedback and negotiate personal and social definitions of engineering [5]. The QE is a crucial milestone and entry point to candidacy and research independence [6], [7]. The gatekeeping nature of QEs [8], [9] carries implications for EDS' trajectory [10], poses significant threats to well-being [7], [11], [12], and may contribute to attrition [13], [14]. Despite their importance, QEs are understudied, especially for underrepresented populations [15].

In concurrent work by the authors, the PERMA-V framework for assessing well-being [16] was modified to distinguish between emotionally neutral and negative aspects of well-being [17]. Patterns linking well-being and identity that emerged during that analysis prompted the collective case study of this paper [18] , which examines how intersectional identities, academic backgrounds, and cultural capital interact during QE preparation to shape biomedical EDS' engineering and research science identities and well-being.

Nine biomedical EDS participated in multiple semi-structured interviews around their QEs; topics included recent activities, well-being, and identities. Coding used the PERMA-V(N) framework with constant comparative analysis. Analysis identified three cases where students with similar intersectional identities, academic backgrounds, and cultural capital access reported negative effects on well-being and research science identity (RSI); three contrasting cases showed no such negative effects.

This paper will present detailed accounts of these six cases to illustrate how outcomes emerge from complex interactions among intersectional identities, academic backgrounds, lab environments, and cultural capital. The three cases experiencing negative outcomes showed diminishing RSI and deteriorating well-being during QE preparation, with students reporting feelings consistent with imposter syndrome and beliefs about QEs as exclusionary gatekeeping mechanisms. Engineering identity (EI) appeared less vulnerable to QE-related stress than RSI. The three contrasting cases maintained robust RSI throughout the QE preparation period despite varying intersectional identities and backgrounds.

A key finding mediating these divergent outcomes is the alignment across self- and situational-perceptions—the compatibility across how EDS perceive: their own identities (EI and RSI), the nature of their doctoral work (engineering versus research science), their lab environment (PI background, nature of labmates’ work), and the nature and expectations of the QE. Students experiencing misalignment across these perceptions showed greater vulnerability to RSI erosion and well-being deterioration. These outcomes could not be predicted by any single factor—not intersectional identities, academic backgrounds, or cultural capital access alone. This complexity highlights the need for individualized support approaches and programmatic attention to student-environment fit rather than generalized interventions.