Nrproffesional in Minoritymaj Groups

A Conpavalive Slud oJ NaluvaI Besouvce FvoJessionaIs in Minovil and Majovil Ovoups in
lIe SoulIeaslevn Uniled Slales

AulIov|s) CIavI E. Adans and MaviseIa Moveno
Souvce WiIdIiJe Sociel BuIIelin, VoI. 26, No. 4, Connenovalive Issue CeIeIvaling lIe 50lI
Annivevsav oJ A Sand Counl AInanac'' and lIe Legac oJ AIdo LeopoId |Winlev, 1998), pp.
971-981
FuIIisIed I WiIe on IeIaIJ oJ lIe WiIdIiJe Sociel
SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783578 .
Accessed 01/03/2014 2322
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife
Society Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.101.79.200 on Sat, 1 Mar 2014 23:22:31 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMPARATIVE STUDY 971
A
comparative study
of natural resource
professionals
in
minority
and
majority
groups
in the southeastern United States
Clark E. Adams and Marisela Moreno
Abstract We
compared representation,
career
backgrounds,
recruitment,
job
skill
requirements, job
advocacy,
and
opinions
on natural resource careers and
strategies
of
majority-
and minor-
ity-group
natural resource
professionals
to
improve minority representation
in the
profes-
sion. We sent a mark-sense
questionnaire
to 938
majority-group
and 955
minority-group
natural resource
professionals employed by
the member state and federal
agencies
in the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Response
rate for the
minority
group
was
52%,
compared
to 71% for the
majority group. Sampling
error was
+
4% at the
0.95 confidence level for both
groups.
Differences
(P
<
0.05)
existed between
groups
in
all of the
categories
of
comparison.
We
provide
several
strategies
for
expanding
cultural
and ethnic
diversity
in the natural resources workforce.
Key
words
majority, minority,
natural resource
professionals,
southeast
Underrepresentation
of
minority groups
in natural
resource
professions
is well documented
(Hodgdon
1980, 1982, 1990; Haney
and Field
1991;
Claussen
and Fabbrizzio
1992;
White
1992; Jones 1993;
Ponds
1993).
With educational and
employment opportu-
nities at an
optimum
for all
people
in the natural re-
source sciences
(Coulter
et al.
1990, Haney
and Field
1991),
the
underrepresentation
of
minority popula-
tions has
generated
national concern
among
state
and federal
agencies
and within the academic com-
munity (Hodgdon 1980, 1982, 1990;
Kneeland
1982;
Moffitt
1983;
Williamson
1984; Washington
and Rod-
ney 1986; Lagenheim 1988;
Field
1989;
White
1992).
Demographic
trends
project
increases in future labor-
force demands in all science and
technological pro-
fessions
(Johnston
and Packer
1987). Further,
em-
ployment opportunities
in natural resource disci-
plines
are
expected
to increase because of
technological
advances and
coinciding
critical short-
ages
of natural resource
professionals (Thomas
and
Schifflett
1988,
Coulter et al.
1990,
Lane
1990,
Haney
and Field
1991,
White
1992).
At the same
time,
de-
mographic
trends
predict
an
increasing minority pop-
ulation in the United States
by
the
year
2010
(John-
ston and Packer
1987).
The Southeast and East Coast
regions
will be most
strongly
affected
by
this trend
(Murdock
et al.
1996).
If the
projected
demands for
professionals
in the natural resource sciences are to
be
met,
increased recruitment of
minority popula-
tions
may
be
required.
Recruitment and retention should be considered as
factors
affecting minority-group representation
in nat-
ural resource careers. Recruitment is described as stim-
ulating
interest which
may
lead to
participation
in or se-
lection of a
particular
event or
activity (Oakes 1990).
Factors which
may
affect recruitment
(interest)
and re-
tention
(satisfaction) vary
with different
populations.
However,
few studies have
investigated
interest and
satisfaction factors
influencing minority
recruitment
and retention in the field of natural resources.
We
designed
this
study
to determine how to create a
more
culturally
diverse workforce in natural resource
professions.
Our
objectives
were to
compare majority-
and
minority-group
natural resource
professionals'
re-
Address for Clark E. Adams:
Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences,
Texas A and M
University, College Station,
TX
77843-2258,
USA. Address for Marisela Moreno:
Southgate Middleschool,
4100 Firestone Blvd.,
Southgate,
CA 90280, USA.
Wildlife
Society Bulletin 1998,
26(4):971-981 Peer refereed
972 Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
1998,
26(4):971-982
sponses
on:
(1) representation
in the natural resource
professional workforce, (2)
career
backgrounds, (3)
mechanisms of
job
recruitment and factors contribut-
ing
to
job acceptance, (4) job
skill
requirements, (5)
perceptions
of natural resource
careers,
and
(6)
strate-
gies
to
improve minority
recruitment in the
profession.
Our results
may provide employers
of natural resource
professionals
with a better
understanding
of cultural di-
versity
issues in the workforce.
Methods
Name
requests
A letter was sent to all
personnel
directors of de-
partments
of natural resources of the Southeastern As-
sociation of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (SEAFWA),
the
Tennessee
Valley Authority,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service,
and the U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA)
Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health In-
spection
Service
(APHIS).
The letter
requested
the
names of all full-time
minority (racial
or
ethnic)
em-
ployees, excluding
those in service maintenance or
clerical
positions,
and an
equal
but random
sample
of
full-time
majority employees excluding
those in ser-
vice maintenance or clerical
positions.
The first re-
quest
for names was made in
September
1993 with a
follow-up (letter
and
telephone call)
in October 1993.
We
explained
in our letters and
telephone
calls the
meaning
of a random but
equal sample
and how it
should be taken.
Majority
and
minority (racial
or eth-
nic)
status of members of the
sample
was based on
self-identification from
questionnaire responses only.
Ethnic
self-identification
Self-identification was critical in
categorizing
re-
spondents
into various racial or ethnic
groups.
No
person
was included in >1 racial or ethnic
category.
The racial and ethnic
categories
used in this
study
were
white, black,
Asian or Pacific
Islander,
Native
Alaskan,
American
Indian,
and
Hispanic (Murdock
and Ellis
1991).
The
Hispanic group
was
subcatego-
rized
by
ethnic
differences,
which included
Mexican,
Mexican-American, Chicano,
Puerto
Rican, Cuban,
and Other
Spanish
or
Hispanic.
All white
respondents
were
placed
in the
majority group,
and all other racial
and ethnic
respondents
were
placed
in the
minority
group.
Ethnic and racial differences were not consid-
ered for cultural
variability,
but rather for
grouping
and
comparisons
to the
majority group.
Definition of professional
An
important
consideration in
selecting
the
survey
population
was the identification of a
professional
employee.
Natural resource
professionals
were de-
fined as those
employed
at a natural resource
agency
with
training
to follow a line of work
specific
to that
field for financial return.
Selection of
professional
individuals included
those who had
completed
a
college degree
or had
equivalent
status or
ranking
from
previous experi-
ence, certification,
or
licensing.
We used this ex-
tended definition to include a
representative popula-
tion of
employees
without
degrees
who were de-
fined as
professionals
within the
agency.
Study region
All state
departments
of natural resources in the
SEAFWA, except
for Puerto
Rico, provided
names of
minority-
and
majority-group employees
(n
=
1,669).
Three federal
agencies (e.g.,
U.S. Fish and Wild.
Serv.,
Tenn.
Valley Authority,
and
USDA/APHIS) provided
an additional list of 112 names each of
minority-
and
majority-group employees (n
=
224).
Puerto Rico
was
represented
at the federal level. The
study
sam-
ple
contained
1,893 names, approximately
half
(n
=
938)
of which
represented
all
minority-group
em-
ployees
with
professional
status
employed by
the
state and federal
agencies
that
provided
names.
Questionnaire design
Some
past
studies were used to establish external re-
liability
on
questionnaire
items that addressed the
ques-
tion of
why
individuals select a natural resource career
(Thomas and Schifflett
1988,
Oakes
1990, Jones 1993).
This literature identified factors most
likely
to influence
career selection in the sciences
including: (1)
role
models, (2)
outdoor events and
experiences, (3)
fi-
nances-compensation, (4)
academic
background,
and
(5)
relevance and
perception
of the career. We devel-
oped
a draft
questionnaire
that included these cate-
gories
for
comparisons
between
majority-
and
minority-
group respondents.
The
questionnaire
was then
pretested using
members of the SEAFWA Minorities in
Natural Resources
subcommittee, personnel
in the Hu-
man Dimensions of Wildlife
Management
research unit
at Texas A and M
University,
and selected state
agency
employees,
who were not included in this
study.
Based
on the results of this
pretest,
we
developed
a
6-page,
30-item,
mark-sense
questionnaire,
which included
questions
about the
respondents'
career
backgrounds,
job advocacy, required job skills, perceptions
of natural
resource
careers,
how selected individuals and outdoor
experiences
influenced interest in the
profession,
and
educational and
personal
attributes.
Questionnaire
administration
We conducted the
study
from
January
to March
1994
using
a modified version of the Dillman
Comparative study
* Adams and Moreno 973
(1978)
Total
Design
Method. We sent a
mark-sense,
self-administered
questionnaire
with
accompany-
ing
cover letter and a
postage-paid business-reply
envelope
to
minority-group
(n
=
938)
and
majority-
group
(n
=
955)
full-time natural resource
profes-
sionals
employed by
the
participating
state and fed-
eral
agencies.
Two weeks later we mailed a
post-
card reminder to
nonrespondents.
Four weeks
after the initial
survey
was
delivered,
we mailed a
second
questionnaire
to
remaining nonrespon-
dents.
Sample
representation
Respondent
characteristics in
survey
research
should
approximate corresponding
characteristics of
the
population
studied. The
study
results can then
be
generalized
to the
population
with some
degree
of
confidence. We examined 2
populations;
the
major-
ity group
was a random
sample
of the total
popula-
tion,
whereas the
minority group represented
all
members of the defined
population.
The raw
response
rate for both
minority-
and ma-
jority-group
SEAFWA
employees surveyed
was
63%
(n
=
1,200).
The number of nondeliverable
question-
naires did not affect the overall
response
rate.
Signif-
icant
(P
<
0.05)
differences did not exist in
response
rates between state
(62%)
and federal
(58%) agency
employees.
The
response
rate for the
minority group
(52%)
was smaller
(X2
=
21.64,
1
df,
P <
0.001)
than
the
majority group (71%).
Individuals who did not
identify
their race or
ethnicity (n
=
15)
were ex-
cluded in the final
analysis. Minority-group respon-
dents included 48%
(n
=
241)
African
Americans,
40%
(n
=
202)
Hispanics,
and 12%
(n
=
64)
other racial
and ethnic
origins. Sampling
error was ? 4% for the
minority population representing
the state and fed-
eral
agencies surveyed
and for the
majority group
representing
the state
departments
of natural re-
sources
surveyed (Table 1). Study
results are
gener-
alizable to the above
survey populations
at the 0.95
level of confidence.
Survey
nonresponse
We conducted a
telephone follow-up using
minor-
ity-group nonrespondents (because
of this
group's
low
response rate, 52%). Thirty
were contacted and
interviewed in
June 1994. The
follow-up
interview
determined whether
nonrespondents
differed from
respondents
in
personal characteristics,
natural re-
source career
perceptions,
and the individuals and
events that influenced
nonrespondents'
interest in a
natural resource
profession. Nonrespondents
also
were asked about their
personal
levels of
job
satisfac-
tion,
career
backgrounds,
and the mechanisms used
to obtain their
jobs.
Answers of
nonrespondents
and
respondents
to these
questions
were
compared.
We
also solicited reasons for
nonresponse
to the
survey.
Data
analysis
Data
analysis
consisted of
descriptive
statistics.
Chi-square,
Duncan
Multiple Range Tests, Spearman
Rank
Correlations,
and GLM tests were used to test
for
significant (P
<
0.05)
differences between
groups
on selected
questionnaire
items
(SAS Inst.,
Inc.
1985).
The results were
reported by frequency
of re-
sponse
and means differences.
Results and discussion
Nonresponse
follow-up
Eight nonrespondents
did not
reply;
because of
their
job titles, job descriptions, departments
of em-
ployment,
and educational
backgrounds they
did not
think of themselves as natural resource
professionals.
Twenty-five nonrespondents
made remarks charac-
terizing
the natural resource
professional
as a field
technician or someone who has a direct interaction
with the outdoors as
part
of their
job responsibility.
Seventeen said
they
had returned the
survey
and
were concerned that it did not arrive.
Nonrespondents
differed from
respondents
in:
(1)
how
they
obtained their first
job
with an
agency
(e.g., public employment
service and contacts with
the
agency
from
previous
work
experience), (2)
the
low level of influence that selected events or out-
door-related activities had on
accepting
their
present
position, (3)
a low level of academic
training
in a nat-
ural resource
discipline,
and
(4)
the
large
number of
females.
There were no differences between
groups
in:
(1)
the individuals that influenced their interest in em-
ployment
with a natural resource
agency, (2) age, (3)
present salary, (4) job
satisfaction
rating, (5) highest
level of education
achieved,
and
(6) years
of
agency
experience.
Career
backgrounds
of respondents
Experience.
The calculation of natural resource-
related
job experience
included both
present
and
prior (state
or federal
agency)
involvement
by
re-
spondents. Majority-group
(n =
664) respondents
had more
(P
=
0.0001) years
(x =
11.52,
SD =
8.94,
range
=
1-38
yr)
of
experience
than
minority-group
respondents
(n
=
486,
x =
9.17,
SD =
6.98, range
=
1-34
yr). Furthermore,
more
(X2
=
4.14,
1
df,
P =
0.04)
minority-group (60%,
n =
504)
than
majority-
group (54%,
n =
672) respondents reported
that their
current
job
was their first full-time
job
with a state or
974 Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
1998, 26(4):971-982
Table 1. Number of
employees
of different racial and ethnic
origins employed by
state
departments
of natural resources in the southeastern United States based on a 1993
survey.a'b'c
No. of
employees
American
State Totals White Black
Hispanic
Asian Indian
Ark. 423 402 17 0 2 2
Ala.d 851 781 70
Fla. 780 728 22 13 9 8
Ga. 944 922 22 0 0 0
Ky.
341 339 2 0 0 0
La. 675 653 16 5 1 0
Md.
1,517 1,332
161 6 17 1
Miss. 679 592 84 3 0 0
Mo.
1,796 1,764
25 2 3 2
N.C. 472 445 20 2 1 4
Okla. 255 227 14 7 4 3
S.C. 545 485 59 0 0 1
Tenn. 526 517 8 0 1 0
Tex.
1,723 1,321
111 267 6 18
U.S.
Virgin
Islands 17 12 4 1 0 0
Va. 322 319 0 3 0 0
W.Va. 379 373 4 1 0 1
Totals:
12,245 11,212
639 310 44 40
a
Totals do not include clerical and service maintenance
employees.
'
The
personnel
data
reported represented agency profiles
from
May
1993 to
May
1994.
c
Data were
reported by
state
personnel
offices and EEOC state
employee reports.
d
Alabama
only
lists
personnel
as white or black.
federal
agency.
There were no
significant
differences
between
groups
in
respect
to whether their current
job
was their first full-time
job
of
any
kind.
Type of
work.
Respondents reported
a
variety
of
job types
that involved >50% of their work
day.
More
than 50% of the
majority-group respondents
(n
=
658)
were involved in administration or natural re-
source
management compared
to 39% of the minor-
ity-group
(n
=
451) respondents.
More
(X2
=
44.30,
11
df,
P <
0.0001) minority-group respondents (14%)
identified their
primary
work as that of technicians
compared
to the
majority-group respondents (7%).
Employment path.
Most
(86%) respondents
in
both
groups
had
prior employment
and >75% of both
groups
came to the
jobs they currently
hold from
other state or federal
agencies
or
private industry.
However,
more (X2=
35.74,
1
df,
P <
0.0001)
minor-
ity-group (73%,
n
=
441)
than
majority-group (55%,
n
=
592) respondents reported
that their
prior jobs
were not
directly
related to natural resources. This
finding
was consistent with their
reported prior job
experiences.
For
example, nearly
twice as
many
of
the
majority-group (16%) compared
to
minority-group
(9%) respondents reported
that their
prior job
in-
volved natural resource
management. Furthermore,
there were differences (X2
=
36.52, 15
df,
P
<
0.0001)
in the
frequency
distribution of
majority
and
minority
groups by prior job type.
There
were no
significant
differences
between
majority
and
minority
groups
in the
average
number of
years (5.5
and
5.0, respectively)
employed
in
prior jobs, prior
employment
incomes
(e.g.,
80%
at
<$29,999),
and
salary changes
(e.g.,
>50% increase from their
previous job).
Current
employment
Entry-level
incomes. Most
of the
majority-group (63%)
and
minority-group (72%)
re-
spondents reported entry-level
incomes between
$10,000
and
$29,999.
More
(X2
=
21.72, 9
df,
P <
0.01) minority-group
than
majority-group respon-
dents were in the income cate-
gory
of
$10,000-$19,999 (45%
and
36%,
respectively)
and
fewer
reported entry-level
in-
comes
>$30,000 (41%
and
49%, respectively).
For both
majority
and
minority groups,
correlations were low (P =
0.0001,
R2 =
0.32 and
0.40, respectively)
between
entry-level
incomes
and education.
Present incomes. Most of the
majority-group
(73%)
and
minority-group (84%) respondents
re-
ported
income levels between
$10,000
and
$39,999.
This
represented
a
$10,000
annual
salary
increase above their
reported entry-level
incomes.
More
(X2
=
42.82,
9
df,
P
<
0.0001) minority-group
than
were in the in-
come
category
of
$20,000-$29,999 (39% and
34%,
respectively)
and fewer
minority-group respondents
reported
income
categories >$40,000 (16%
and
26%, respectively).
For both
majority
and
minority
groups,
correlations were low
(P
<
0.05)
between
current income levels and
experience (R2
=
0.25
and
0.24, respectively)
and education
(R2
= 0.41 and
0.45,
respectively).
Recruitment.
Frequency
differences were low
(X2
=
46.01, 13 df,
P
<
0.0001)
between
majority-
group
and
in the
types
of recruitment mechanisms that resulted in their first
job
with a state or federal
agency (Table 2).
The
most
frequently reported
methods
by
both
groups
were direct
application
to the
agency (28-34%)
or
contacts with a relative or friend
(21- 23%).
Less
than 5% of both
groups
identified
agency
recruitment
Comparative study
or
programs providing preser-
vice
exposure (e.g.,
volunteer
work and intern
experience)
to
natural resource
professions.
Factors
contributing
to
job
acceptance.
Small differences
(P
<
0.05)
existed in score distri-
butions between
majority-group
and
on 8 of the 18 factors that con-
tributed to their
acceptance
of a
job
with a state or federal
agency.
For
example,
when
compared
to
majority-group
re-
spondents, minority-group
re-
spondents gave slightly higher
importance
scores to
salary,
fringe benefits, job security,
chances for
advancement, op-
portunity
to use their
education,
public respect, opportunity
to
develop
new skills and for
travel,
and
supportive
adminis-
tration.
Majority respondents
gave higher
scores to "chance to
Table 2. Recruitment methods that contributed to the
job placement
of
respondents
in a
1993
survey
of
majority-
and
minority-group
natural resource
professionals
in the southeastern
United States.
Group frequencies
(%)"
Both
Majority Minority
Method (n =
1,153) (n =
659) (n =
494)
Direct
application
to
agency
31.50 34.29 27.72
Contacts with a relative or friend 21.86 20.94 23.08
Contacts with
agency
from
previous
10.32 11.99 8.10
work
experience
Employment
ad
(newspaper)
8.67 6.37 11.74
Other method 4.51 3.95 5.26
Civil service
application
4.25 5.61 2.43
Public
employment
service 3.38 2.28 4.86
Dean's
office,
department
head, or 3.30 4.10 2.23
faculty
member
Placement office of
college
or
university
3.12 2.43 4.05
Agency
recruitment
program
2.86 1.82 4.25
Intern/coop program
with
agency
2.34 2.43 2.23
Contacts at
professional meetings
1.99 1.82 2.23
Volunteer work with
agency
1.73 1.97 1.42
Private
employment
service 0.17 0.00 0.40
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
a
Chi-square
test
significant
at P< 0.05.
be
my
own boss" and
"job compatibility
with
prior
training"
than did
minority-group respondents.
Job
skills. Small differences
(P
<
0.05)
existed
in score distributions between
majority-group
and
on 8 of the 19
job-re-
lated skills
they
felt were needed in their current
jobs.
For
example,
when
compared
to
minority-
group respondents, majority-group respondents
gave higher
scores to written
communication,
bud-
get
and
personal
time
management, public speak-
ing,
and natural resource
management knowledge.
By comparison, minority-group respondents gave
higher
scores to effective
group leadership,
men-
toring,
and
employee recruiting
than did
majority-
group respondents.
Natural resource careers
Events that
influenced
interest in a natural
resource career. When
compared
to
majority-
group respondents, minority-group respondents
were more
(P
<
0.05) likely
to have become inter-
ested in a natural resource career at a later
stage
in
their academic life.
Furthermore,
differences existed
between
groups
in the life events that influenced
their interest in a natural resource career. When
compared
to
minority-group respondents, majority-
group respondents gave higher (P
<
0.05) scores to
family travel,
rural
family life, camping, hunting,
hik-
ing
or
backpacking, canoeing
or
boating,
and
reading
nature stories.
Minority-group respondents gave
higher
scores than
to or-
ganized
school
trips, volunteering
in environmental
programs, watching
TV
programs
about
nature,
youth participation
in natural resource
programs,
and
job availability
in a natural resource
agency.
Individuals that
influenced
interest in a nat-
ural resource career. Score differences between
groups
were small
(P
<
0.05)
in
regard
to the few in-
dividuals influential in
causing respondents
to con-
sider a career in natural resources. Most
(>80%)
ma-
jority-group
and
minority-group respondents gave
themselves the
highest scores,
and >70%
gave
the
lowest scores to
counselors,
academic
advisors,
and
figureheads.
Perceptions of
natural resource careers.
Overall, majority-group
and
minority-group respon-
dents had different
(P
<
0.05) perceptions
about ca-
reers in natural resources
(Table 3). Minority-group
respondents agreed
more
strongly
than
majority-
group respondents
that "minorities lacked informa-
tion about and were
underrepresented
in natural re-
source
careers,"
" there are
many
career
opportuni-
ties in natural resources but not
necessarily
for
minorities,"
"career advancement is based
solely
on
job performance,"
"natural resource
professionals
are
not
ethnically representative
of the U.S.
population,"
and
"public prestige
is associated with natural re-
source careers."
Comparatively, majority-group
re-
976 Wildlife Society
Bulletin
1998, 26(4):971-982
Table 3.
Ratings
of statements about careers in the natural resources
by respondents
in a 1993
survey
of
majority-
and
minority-group
natural resource
professionals
in the southeastern United States.
Ratingsa
Statements n 1 2 3 4 5
Most career
opportunities
focus on
people
rather than
natural resource
management
Majority
Minority
Minorities lack information about natural resource
careersb
Majority
Minority
Minority groups
are
underpresented
in natural resource
careersb
Majority
Minority
There are
many
career
opportunities
in natural resourcesb
Majority
Minority
Professional
degrees
in natural resources are
required
for career advancementb
Majority
Minority
A natural resource academic
background
is not
required
for all careers in natural resources
Majority
Minority
Career advancement is based
solely
on
job performanceb
Majority
Minority
Natural resource
professionals
are
ethnically
representative
of the U.S.
populationb
Majority
Minority
Hiring practices
are
equitable
and fair in natural
resource careersb
Majority
Minority
There are
many
career
opportunities
for minorities in
natural resourcesb
Majority
Minority
Natural resource careers command a
high public prestige
imageh
Majority
Minority
665 1.95 19.40 23.16 45.11 10.38
496 3.02 17.34 21.17 44.76 13.71
669 12.26 27.50
498 3.21 12.65
669 10.16
500 2.60
20.78
7.60
669 7.17 28.85
498 6.02 17.67
668
499
4.64 16.77
4.41 19.04
665 4.66 14.74
494 4.25 15.38
665 23.91 49.47
496 19.96 43.35
24.96 26.61 8.67
8.03 29.32 46.79
21.67 31.84 15.55
7.40 26.00 56.40
8.22 43.05 12.71
13.45 39.16 23.69
7.04 43.11 28.44
12.83 38.28 25.45
5.56 62.11 12.93
9.11 56.28 14.98
7.37 16.54
9.88 18.95
665 14.59 37.29 33.38 12.48
498 29.32 34.54 22.49 10.64
665 13.53 23.31 20.75 34.14
495 27.07 31.72 26.46 12.53
662
492
2.87
14.43
9.21 16.62 53.78
25.20 16.46 34.35
2.71
7.86
2.26
3.01
8.27
2.22
17.52
9.55
663 2.41 21.12 23.68 42.53 10.26
493 4.26 15.42 26.57 37.93 15.82
a
Ratings
were 1 =
strongly disagree,
2 =
disagree,
3 = no
opinion,
L
b Chi-square
test
significant
at P< 0.05.
spondents agreed
more
strongly
than
minority-
group respondents
that
"professional degrees
are
required
for career
advancement," "hiring prac-
tices are
equitable
and
fair,"
and "there are
many
career
opportunities
for minorities in natural re-
sources."
Job satisfaction.
The
average job-satisfaction
score
(1.42)
of
minority-group respondents (n
=
483)
was lower
(P
=
0.01)
than the
\ =
agree,
5 =
strongly agree.
dents
(n
=
661) average (1.65) given
a scale
range
of
-3 to
+3. More (P
<
0.0001) minority-group (48%,
n
=
497)
than
n =
668) respon-
dents
agreed
to have their names
placed
in a direc-
tory
of
job-seeking,
natural resource
professionals.
A
similar
significant
difference existed between minor-
ity-group (53%,
n =
499)
and
n
=
667) respondents
who desired to have their name
placed
in a
directory
of natural resource
professionals
Comparative study
interested in
visiting
instructor
programs
at
minority
colleges
or universities.
Job advocacy
Participation
in outdoor activities. With the
exceptions
of
photographing
wildlife and
fishing,
participation
levels of
in
boating
or
canoeing, hunting, birdwatching,
and
camping
or
backpacking
were
higher (P
<
0.05)
than
those of
Both
groups
indicated that
fishing
was their favorite outdoor ac-
tivity.
Membership
in
professional organizations.
Both
groups reported
similar
average
numbers of
memberships
in
international, national, regional,
state,
and local
professional organizations. However,
the
range
of
reported
numbers of
memberships
in
professional organizations
was wider for
minority
groups
than
majority groups.
Recommendations to
promote
ethnic
diversity
in the natural resources
workforce
Majority-
and
did not
agree
on
any
of the 12 recommendations to
promote
ethnic
diversity
in the natural resources workforce
(Table 4).
When
compared
to
dents, minority-group respondents
had
higher (P
<
0.05)
levels of
agreement
to each recommendation.
Over 80% of the
minority-group respondents agreed
or
strongly agreed
to
every
recommendation
except
forming minority support groups
and
establishing
mi-
nority mentorship programs
in the
workplace (60%).
Educational
background
and
personal
characteristics
Differences
(P
<
0.05)
existed in the
reported high-
est education levels of
majority-group
and
minority-
group respondents.
Over 70% of the
majority-group
respondents
had
B.S., M.S.,
or Ph.D.
degrees
com-
pared
to 56% of the
More
(P
<
0.0001)
of the
n
=
528) compared
to
minority-group (42%,
n
=
343)
re-
spondents reported
that a
major part
of their
past
aca-
demic
training (college
or
graduate)
was in a disci-
pline
related to natural resources.
Values
of
past
academic
training
Differences
(P
<
0.05)
existed in how
respondents
characterized their
past
academic
training.
For ex-
ample,
more
than
minority-
group (22%) respondents
said that their
past
acade-
mic
training provided
them with the education
needed to enter
jobs
in natural resources.
Respondent
gender
Most of the
and
minority-
group (84%) respondents
were males. No
signifi-
cant differences existed between
groups
in
gender
frequencies.
Age
A
significant (P =
0.0001) average age
difference
existed between
majority-group (41.2 yr,
SD = 9.0
yrs)
and
minority-group
(40.0
yr,
SD = 8.7
yrs)
re-
spondents.
The
range
in
ages
for both
groups
was
21-69
years.
Management
recommendations
Through interpretation
of
study results, supporting
literature,
and
respondents' comments,
we identified
several
strategies
for
expanding
cultural
(ethnic)
di-
versity
in the natural resources workforce. These
strategies
focus on
personal (individual)
career devel-
opment
and on
long-term proactive
institutional com-
mitments.
Natural resources careers
introduction
Our results revealed that
minority-group respon-
dents became interested in careers in natural re-
sources
fairly
late in their academic lives and immedi-
ate
family members,
natural resource
professionals,
counselors,
and teachers had little influence on their
developing
interests in careers in natural resources.
However,
the
types
of events that stimulated
high
levels of interest in natural resources careers were
fishing, watching
TV
programs
about
nature,
and
per-
sonal concern for the environment. These
findings
prompted
the
following
recommendations.
Activity-based
educational
programming
that
meets the needs of the whole
community
must be-
come a much
higher priority
in state
(Adams
et al.
1988)
and federal
agencies
and schools of natural re-
sources. Activities that introduce career
opportuni-
ties in natural resources to
minority youth
should be
introduced at the earliest education levels
possible;
should instill
awareness, appreciation,
and
inquiry
about careers in natural
resources; and should
target
young people
and their
parents (especially mothers),
counselors,
and teachers.
However, agency
and
school use of these or
any
other educational
pro-
grams
is
currently
limited
by personnel, job-priority,
and
budgetary
constraints.
Public and
community
education
Natural resource
professionals
should become in-
volved in the mainstream of
public
school education.
978 Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
1998, 26(4):971-982
Table 4. Levels of
agreement given
to recommendations for
promoting
ethnic
diversity
in the natural resource workforce
by respondents
in a 1993
survey
of
majority-
and
minority-group
natural resource
professionals
in the southeastern United States.
Levels of
agreementa
Recommendationsb n 1 2 3 4 5
Searching
other academic
disciplines
for interested students
Majority
Minority
Agency development
and
support
of
minority
student
internships
Majority
Minority
University
professors
acting
as
visiting
instructors at
minority
institutions
Majority
Minority
Providing
outdoor
experiences
for
minority youth
Majority
Minority
Agency scholarships
for
minority
students in
college
Majority
Minority
Minority
natural resource
professionals acting
as
visiting
instructors at
minority
institutions
Majority
Minority
Active
recruiting
of minorities for available
positions
Majority
Minority
Agency-sponsored cultural-diversity programs
on the value
of ethnic
diversity
in the workforce
Majority
Minority
Advertising
career
opportunities
in
minority publications
and networks
Majority
Minority
Forming minority support groups
in the
workplace
Majority
Minority
Agency-sponsored continuing
education
programs
for
minority employees
Majority
Minority
Establishing minority mentorship programs
in the
workplace
Majority
Minority
663
498
6.94 14.18 30.02 44.19 4.68
2.81 4.82 19.08 53.21 20.08
661 8.02 13.77 26.02 41.15 11.04
500 3.00 3.80 8.80 37.80 46.60
661 3.33 8.47 36.16 46.14 5.90
499 2.61 4.81 21.84 46.89 23.85
663 1.81 4.37 9.20 54.15 30.47
498 2.21 0.80 3.41 36.95 56.63
663 14.48 22.62 29.56 26.85 6.49
498 4.42 4.02 10.64 35.54 45.38
663 1.96 4.68 20.81 52.34 20.21
499 2.20 1.00 9.62 42.89 44.29
662 13.14 19.18 24.77 33.84 9.06
498 3.21 2.61 9.44 37.35 47.39
662
498
9.82 16.31 40.03 29.46 4.38
3.41 4.62 18.07 40.96 32.93
663 3.62
498 2.41
663
496
6.64 23.38 56.41 9.95
1.41 8.63 44.38 43.17
15.99 27.30 42.38 12.22 2.11
6.05 9.48 27.22 30.44 26.81
662 15.71 25.98 30.66 24.47 3.17
498 4.02 5.42 15.46 39.56 35.54
661 10.89 17.10 37.67 29.95 4.39
500 4.00 4.00 22.80 37.00 32.20
a
Levels of
agreement
were 1 =
strongly disagree,
2 =
disagree,
3 = no
opinion,
4 =
agree,
5 =
strongly agree.
b
Chi-square
test
significant
at P< 0.0001 for all recommendations.
Few
respondents
from either
group
were involved in
public
education. Natural resource
agencies
and
schools should dedicate
personnel
to act as
program
facilitators in formal and informal educational set-
tings. Departments
of
fisheries, forestry,
and wildlife
sciences in
colleges
and universities should become
more involved in
pre-
and inservice teacher educa-
tion.
Many
successful
programs
to introduce
major-
ity
and
minority youth
to natural resource
concepts
and careers are now available. These
activity-based
programs offer,
in
part,
an introduction to careers in
natural resources
(Adams
and
Eudy 1990).
For exam-
ple, Project WILD, Aquatic WILD,
and
Project
Learn-
ing
Tree are
internationally
established inservice
teacher
training programs.
In Missouri and
Texas,
concepts
of natural resource education are
integrated
with the curricula of the
public
school
system.
In-
school, interpretive
exhibits
(Higgenbotham 1997)
Comparative study
*
Adams and Moreno 979
have
proven
successful in
increasing elementary
stu-
dents'
exposure
to and
knowledge
of selected natural
resource
concepts.
The common denominator in all
of these
programs
is that the teachers and natural re-
source
professionals
are
partners
in the educational
process.
Academically
talented
minority
students at the
high school, college,
and
graduate
levels should be
exposed
to career
opportunities
in natural resources.
Examples
of
exposure programs
are summer intern-
ships
for
minority
students with state
agencies (e.g.,
Ark. Game and Fish
Comm.,
Md.
Dep.
of Nat. Re-
sour.,
Tex. Parks and Wildl.
Dep.); cooperative
edu-
cation
programs
between
Historically
Black
Colleges
and Universities
(HBCUs)
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Cooperative
Units
(e.g.,
Univ.
Maryland,
Eastern
Shore);
centers of excellence in HBCUs
(e.g.,
Lincoln
Univ., Jefferson City, Mo);
and
young
scholar
pro-
grams (e.g.,
Nat. Sci.
Found.).
At the
community level,
a
higher
level of
public
ex-
posure
of minorities to natural resource careers is
needed
through
events
(e.g.,
urban
fishing),
the me-
dia
(e.g., print
and
electronic),
and
organizations.
The
goal
would be to
develop
an awareness and
knowledge
of career
opportunities
in natural re-
sources for those individuals
(e.g., parents
and coun-
selors)
who had limited influence over the selection
of career
paths
of
minority youth.
Definition of
natural resource
professional
Some
respondents' comments revealed a stereo-
typic perception
of what a natural resource
profes-
sional
is, i.e.,
one who
actively manages
resources in
the field. We found that
respondents
held a wide va-
riety
of
jobs
and
job
titles and their academic back-
grounds
and technical
training
were in
many
disci-
plines. Nearly
1/3
of the
and >1/2 of the
had a
college-level
or
higher
academic
degree
outside the
natural resources.
Furthermore, nearly
75% of the
minority-group respondents agreed
that 1
way
to
pro-
mote ethnic
diversity
in the natural resources work-
force was to find interested students in other acade-
mic
disciplines (Table 4).
Career
opportunities
in natural resources disci-
plines
should be marketed in terms of the
diversity
of technical skills and academic
training
state and
federal
agencies require
in their
employees.
The
natural resource
management
field
requires
a diver-
sity
of talent and
employees
with a
personal
con-
cern for the environment.
Regardless
of
type
of
work, job title,
technical
training,
or academic
background, many respondents'
comments re-
vealed that
they
wanted to feel that
they
were full
partners
management
process.
The
college
and
university
connections
There will
always
be a finite number of
jobs
at state
and federal natural resource
agencies.
Each
job op-
portunity
will
require specific
skills and
training.
Both
majority-group
and
commented that all
job applications
should be evalu-
ated
according
to how well the
applicant
meets the
job requirements. However,
the
process
of
develop-
ing
racial and ethnic
diversity
workforce
requires qualified applicants
who are also
racially
and
ethnically
diverse.
Our results revealed that
placement
offices of
college
or
universities, college deans,
and contacts
at
professional meetings
contributed little to the
job placement
of both
groups
of
respondents
(Table 2). However,
contact with a natural re-
source
professional
had a
great
influence on >30%
of the
minority-group's
interest in careers in natural
resources. The
survey
did not determine how
these contacts occurred. The
following
recom-
mendation is 1
suggestion
for
enhancing
the
proba-
bility
of such contacts.
More than 70% of both
groups
of
respondents
agreed
or
strongly agreed
that 1
way
of
promoting
ethnic
diversity
in the natural resource workforce
was to have members of
minority groups
who were
natural resource
professionals
serve as
visiting
in-
structors at
minority
institutions. More than 50% of
the
said
they
would
serve in this
capacity.
This
pool
of
minority-group
advocates for natural resource
careers,
as
guest
or
adjunct faculty lecturers,
could offer
specialized
courses
(including
team
teaching)
or occasional
seminars at HBCUs. These
minority-group
advocates
can
provide
information about their
specialty areas,
serve as role
models,
and act as the liaisons between
state or federal
agencies
for other activities that in-
troduce
minority
students to careers in natural re-
sources. For
example, they
could
arrange
to take in-
terested students to
state, regional,
or national meet-
ings
of natural resource
professionals;
establish
intern or
coop programs
between their
agencies
and
schools;
or act as
special
academic mentors or advi-
sors to students as
they progress through
their un-
dergraduate
curricula.
Successful
implementation
of this recommenda-
tion will
require
the
development
of an infrastructure
and network
involving
state or federal
agencies
and
HBCUs.
Networking might begin
with the identifica-
tion of HBCU institutions within a state or
region.
980 Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
1998, 26(4):971-982
The National Association For
Equal Opportunity
in
Higher
Education
(NAFEO)
could
provide
a list of HB-
CUs and universities with their
majors.
Next,
a contact team
(representing
the ethnic di-
versity
of the
agency)
should be formed to
carry
on
several
tasks, including:
1.
developing
an
agency
outreach
program
de-
signed
to stimulate interest of
minority college
students in natural resource
careers,
2.
designing
fact sheets or brochures that
explain
program elements,
3.
making
contact with the
presidents
of the se-
lected HBCUs to
explain
the
program,
4.
identifying
students to
participate
in the
pro-
gram,
and
5.
maintaining
the
program.
The contact team should be released from some
other
job responsibilities
and the
agency
should make
budgetary
commitments commensurate with the
pro-
gram goals
and
objectives.
University
and
college
ad-
ministrators
may
evaluate the
agency
recruitment
pro-
gram
in terms of
perceived agency
commitment
(e.g.,
personnel
and
budget),
relative academic and future
employment
value for their
students,
and enhance-
ment of the overall
university
or
college program.
Some of the immediate benefits to the
agency
would
be identification of
minority
students
already
inter-
ested in natural resource
careers,
an established net-
work with
minority colleges
and
universities,
involve-
ment in the academic
training
of future
employees,
and
an
ongoing program
to meet future workforce needs.
Intra-agency
education
programs
The 2
respondent groups
had
many conflicting
perceptions
about careers in natural resources
(Table
3). They disagreed
that minorities lacked informa-
tion about careers and were
underrepresented
in the
natural resource
workforce,
about career
opportuni-
ties for
minorities,
about the
job performance
factors
that lead to career
advancement,
about the
degree
to
which the workforce is
ethnically representative
of
the United States'
population,
that
hiring practices
were
equitable
and
fair,
and about the
public image
of
professionals.
Comments from both
groups
re-
vealed other
perceptions concerning discriminatory
hiring practices
and
opportunities
for career ad-
vancement.
Furthermore,
the
job-satisfaction ratings
of
were low. Since
these
perceptions
and
job-satisfaction ratings
were
generalizable
to the entire
population
of
majority-
or
minority-group employees,
there
appeared
to be a
genuine
need to offer
intra-agency
education
pro-
grams (e.g., workshops, seminars)
on a
variety
of
top-
ics
including:
1. the
opportunities
and
problems
associated with
agency compliance
with the
equal opportu-
nity-affirmative
action
paradox,
2.
projected agency
workforce needs and
appli-
cant
(internal
and
external) requirements
to
meet future
needs,
3.
specific
factors
causing
low
job-satisfaction
rat-
ings by
both
majority
and
minority,
4. plans to
change
low
job-satisfaction ratings,
5. skills
development
inservice
training workshops,
6. value and
meaning
of cultural
diversity
in the
natural resource
workforce,
and
7. the team
concept
of natural resource
manage-
ment.
Strategies
to enhance
employee job
satisfaction
should be
given
as
high
a
priority
as recruitment of
new
employees.
The immediate benefits to the
agency
would be
positive employee
attitudes about
the
importance
of their
job, employee willingness
to
tell others about the
positive aspects
of a career in
natural
resources,
and
employees
that focus their en-
ergies
on
accomplishing agency,
rather than
personal,
agendas.
Acknowledgments:
This
study
was funded
by
the
member states in
SEAFWA,
the Southeastern Section
of the Wildlife
Society,
Tennessee
Valley Authority,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, USDA/APHIS/ADC,
Forest Service and
Cooperative
Extension
Service,
National Marine Fisheries
Service,
Bureau of Land
Management, Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences at Texas A and M
University,
and the Texas
Agricultural Experiment
Station. We
express appre-
ciation to J. K. Thomas and D. Witter for their
help
in
questionnaire design
and to the
personnel
directors
of state and federal
agencies
who
provided respon-
dents' names and addresses.
Finally,
we
convey
a
special
thanks to all the natural resource
profession-
als who
participated
in this
study.
Literature cited
ADAMS,
C.
E.,
R. A.
STONE,
AND
J.
K. THOMAS. 1988. Conservation
education within information and education divisions of state
natural resource
agencies.
Wildlife
Society
Bulletin
16:329-333.
ADAMS,
C. E., ANDJ.
L. EUDY. 1990. Trends and
opportunities
in nat-
ural resource education. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 55:94-100.
CLAIUSSEN, J. E.,
AND M. C. FABRIZZIO. 1992.
Equal opportunities
in
fisheries sciences. Women in Natural Resources 13:30-31.
COULTER, J. K.,
A. D.
GOECKER,
AND M. STANTON. 1990.
Employment
opportunities
for
college graduates
in the food and
agricultural
sciences:
agriculture,
natural resources and
veterinary medicine.
U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture, Higher
Education
Programs,
Co-
operative
State Research
Service, Washington,
D.C.
Comparative study
DILLMAN,
D. A. 1978. Mail and
telephone surveys:
the total
design
method.
John Wiley
and
Sons,
New
York,
New York.
FIELD,
R.
J. 1989. Black natural resource
managers: why, where,
and how.
Proceedings
of the Annual Conference of the South-
eastern Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies 43:11-17.
HANEY, W.
G.,
AND D. R. FIELD. 1991.
Agriculture
and natural re-
sources:
planning
for educational
priorities
for the
twenty-first
century.
Westview
Press, Boulder,
Colorado.
HIGGENBOTHAM,
B.
J. 1997. Wildlife in the classroom: an overview
of Texas 4-H wildlife school enrichment
programs.
Transac-
tions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference 62:57-65.
HODGDON,
H. E. 1980. Enrollment of women and ethnic minorities
in wildlife curricula: 1977. Wildlife
Society
Bulletin 8:158-163.
HODGDON,
H. E. 1982. Wildlife enrollment of women and ethnic
minorities: 1979. Wildlife
Society
Bulletin 10:175-180.
HODGDON,
H. E. 1990. Wildlife student enrollment in 1987. Wild-
life
Society Bulletin 18:442-446.
JOHNSTON,
W.
B.,
AND A. E. PACKER. 1987. Workforce 2000: work
and workers for the
twenty-first century.
Hudson
Institute,
Washington,
D.C.
JONES,
M.C. 1993. A
profile
of black
agriculture
students at se-
lected 1862 and 1890 land
grant
institutions.
Thesis, Pennsyl-
vania State
University, University
Park.
KNEELAND,
D. R. 1982. Minorities,
women and
professionalism
in
the forest service.
J.
For. 80:472-473.
LANE,
M.
J. 1990. Women and minorities in science and
engineer-
ing.
National Science
Foundation, Washington,
D.C.
LANGENHEIM, J.
H. 1988. The
path
and
progress
of American
women
ecologists.
Bulletin of the
Ecological Society
of Amer-
ica 69:184-196.
MOFFITT,
C. M. 1983. A
survey
of women members of AFS. Fish-
eries 8:12-13.
MURDOCK,
S.
H.,
AND D. R. ELLIS. 1991.
Applied demography:
an in-
troduction to basic
concepts, methods,
and data. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado.
MURDOCK,
S.
H.,
D. K.
LOOMIS,
R. B.
DITTON,
AND MD. N. HOQUE.
1996. The
implications
of
demographic change
for recre-
ational fisheries
management
in the United States. Human Di-
mensions of Wildlife 1:14-37.
OAKES, J. 1990.
Opportunities, achievement,
and choice: women
and
minority
students in science and mathematics. Review of
Research in Education 16:153-223.
PONDS,
P. D. 1993. Under
representation
of minorities in natural
resource
professions:
an examination of African-Americans.
Thesis, Oregon
State
University,
Corvallis.
SAS
Institute,
Inc. 1985. SAS user's
guide:
statistics. Version 5 edi-
tion. SAS
Institute., Inc., Cary,
North Carolina.
THOMAS, J. K.,
AND K. L. SCHIFLETT. 1988. Educational assessments
and labor force
experiences
of former
agriculture
students at
land-grant
universities in the Southwest: a
preliminary report.
Department
of Rural
Sociology, College Station,
Texas.
WASHINGTON,
W.
J.,
AND H. E. RODNEY. 1986. How do students learn
about natural resource careers? Journal of
Forestry
84:22-24.
WHITE, P. E. 1992. Women and minorities in science and
engi-
neering:
an
update.
National Science
Foundation, Washington,
D.C.
WILLIAMSON,
R. D. 1984.
Minority
foresters and the
Tuskegee
In-
stitute. Journal of
Forestry
82:600-602.
Clark E. Adams is a
professor
in the
Department
of Wildlife and
Fisheries Sciences at Texas A and M
University.
He has a B.S. in
biology
and education from Concordia Teachers
College,
an M.S.
in
biology
and education from the
University
of
Oregon,
and a
Ph.D. in
zoology
from the
University
of Nebraska-Lincoln. Clark
chaired the Conservation Education Committee for The Wildlife
Society (TWS),
edited the newsletter for the Human Dimensions in
Wildlife
Society Study Group,
is an associate editor of the
journal
Human Dimension of
Wildlife,
has served on several committees
of the Texas
Chapter
of
TWS,
and was
recently
elected Vice Pres-
ident of the
Chapter.
Since
1981,
he has directed the Human Di-
mensions in Wildlife
Management
research
laboratory
and has
conducted numerous
national, regional,
and statewide studies.
His
primary
research examines the
public's activities, attitudes,
expectations,
and
knowledge
related to wildlife. Marisela Moreno
is science teacher at
Southgate
Middleschool in
Southgate,
CA.
Marisela has a B.S. in education and M.S. in wildlife and fisheries
sciences from Texas A and M
University.
Her
primary
career in-
terest is
teaching
and
developing
environmental education cur-
riculum materials.
Associate Editor:
Bright

Nrproffesional in Minoritymaj Groups

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nrproffesional in Minoritymaj Groups

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Conpavalive Slud oJ NaluvaI Besouvce FvoJessionaIs in Minovil and Majovil Ovoups in

lIe SoulIeaslevn Uniled Slales

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi