Ecological “camps”: How preferences and professional traits shape our field

Background/Question/Methods:

 Ecologists recognize and celebrate the discipline’s professional diversity.  We can classify ourselves into subgroups through many dimensions such as domain of inquiry, method of investigation, competency in biological knowledge, environmental values and analytical skills.  We also can be subdivided with respect to level of academic education and mode of employment.  At least in principle, all of this diversity lends scientific power to the discipline’s ability to engage in the broad range of intellectual and practical challenges of ecology and environmental affairs, although the potential for conflict and incoherence must be recognized.

 We investigated how ecologists might be classified in terms of professional preferences for traits. We surveyed U.S., non-student members in April 2010 to assess their attitudes toward environmental involvement and scientific professionalism.  Part of the survey scored preferences for 15 traits that might be associated with being a good ecologist. Traits ranged from aesthetics to ethics to professional competency. Principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation produced 5 trait factors with Eigen values greater than 1. Factor scores were entered into a Hierarchical Cluster analysis (Ward’s method) and four distinct clusters emerged. Clusters were examined for differences across demographics, traits, and professional inclinations.

 Results/Conclusions

The trait factors included: socially-based environmentalism (3 items), nature aesthetics (3 items) professional skills (3 items), professional epistemology (3 items) and religious  foundations for actions (1item). Respondent clusters were similar in their high ratings for professional skills and epistemology.  Significant differences were seen in attitudes toward socially-driven environmentalism, aesthetic appreciation of nature, and appreciation for religious foundations for action.

 The characteristics of different clusters have implications for different foci among ecologists. For example, one of the clusters is characterized as being relatively older, committed to caring for the environment for social reasons, and broadly represented across domains except for ecosystems, as well as not enjoying data analysis but  enjoying teaching, and as providing moderate to high financial and civic support for environmental causes.  This stands in contrast to a cluster of younger individuals including fewer women, and being: less committed to environmental concern for either social or aesthetic reasons; more concentrated in the organismal domain, least represented in the landscape-aquatic domain, as well as doing less field observation but more modeling. Members of this group enjoy data analysis and writing but not teaching and are less involved and more dubious about engaging in environmental activities.