J. For.

115(6):540 –547
PRACTICE OF FORESTRY https://doi.org/10.5849/JOF-2016-080R3
Copyright © 2017 Society of American Foresters

education & communication

How Do University Students Perceive Forestry

and Wildlife Management Degrees?

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021

Laurie W. Gharis, Shelby Gull Laird, and Douglas C. Osborne

University forestry programs are confronting multiple challenges including enrollment, diversity, image, and majors (Sharik et al. 2015). These numbers
knowledge of career options. Studies have focused on perceptions and factors influencing forestry students, but demonstrate opportunities to attract high
few have concentrated on students who have chosen other majors. Faculty from Stephen F. Austin State school students from diverse (race and ethnic-
University and the University of Arkansas at Monticello worked with students to develop and to deliver a short ity) backgrounds to NR programs in general
survey to students with non-natural resource majors using stratified, purposive sampling. Survey questions were and to attract both women and minority stu-
designed to obtain non-natural resource students’ perceptions of forestry and wildlife management. After dents to forestry programs. Suggestions for in-
categorizing survey responses, ␹2 analysis was applied to investigate differences across demographic variables creasing enrollment of females and minorities
and responses to the survey questions. Significant relationships were found for gender and race on multiple in forestry programs include encouraging re-
survey questions. Perception differences among categories of respondents provide a starting point for more search on women and minority students’ per-
in-depth and representative future studies. By better understanding the perceptions of non-natural resource ceptions of the profession (Sharik et al. 2015).
students, recruitment processes may be improved and diversity enhanced. In 2015, Stephen F. Austin State Uni-
versity (SFA) and the University of Arkansas
Keywords: non-natural resource management students, perceptions, recruitment, gender and racial diversity at Monticello (UAM) worked together to
develop and to conduct a survey with the
aim of providing a better understanding of

D
eans of forestry programs have
identified multiple challenges fac-
ing their programs, including de-
clining enrollment, student recruitment,
and a paucity of diversity (Sample et al.
2015). Of particular importance is the lack
of diversity (race, ethnicity, and gender) in
forestry programs. University forestry pro-
grams are not following the trend of an in-
creasingly diverse US population. This lack
of diversity in university forestry programs is
leading to nonrepresentative future work-
forces. Without a representative workforce,
collaboration and relationship development,
which are necessary for effective forest man-
agement, become more challenging.
In 2014, thematic working groups at
the Berkeley Summit focused on key issues
for forestry programs, such as diversity (Gil-
less 2015). The diversity working group
concentrated on questions related to under-
graduate student demographics in natural re-
sources (NR) academic programs in the
United States such as “Why are women and
minorities less interested in NR programs
compared to most other professions?” (Sharik
2015). Although overall women make up
57% of the undergraduate population, they
make up only 16% of the forestry degree
option and 41% of the NR and conservation
degree population, and although minorities
represent 40% of all undergraduate majors
in the United States, they represent only
14% of undergraduate NR and conservation
the perceptions of non-NR undergraduate
students regarding forestry and wildlife
management. The expectation was that the
survey results would provide a starting point
for the development of future surveys, which
can be administered to a random sample
over a larger geographical area. With this
type of information, administrators of NR
programs may be able to infer perceptions of
non-NR students regarding forestry and wild-
life management, which can improve recruit-
ment efforts of high school students and others
considering attending a university.
Literature Review
Over the past 10 years, multiple studies
have explored recruitment, degree concerns,

Received September 27, 2016; accepted February 27, 2017; published online March 23, 2017.
Affiliations: Laurie Gharis (lgharis@uwsp.edu), University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI. Shelby Gull Laird (lairdsg@sfasu.edu), Stephen F. Austin
State University. Doug Osborne (osborne@uamont.edu), University of Arkansas at Monticello and University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture under McIntire Stennis project
number 1008379. The authors would like to thank SFA and UAM undergraduate students for their help administering and responding to the surveys and SFA and
UAM faculty and staff for input on the survey instrument and analysis.

540 Journal of Forestry • November 2017

career perceptions, and student challenges in
both forestry and NR programs. Only a few
studies have included non-NR students.
Lhotka et al. (2010) reviewed factors and
recruiting techniques to encourage students
to major in forestry in the southern United
States, whereas Sharik and Frisk (2011) sur-
veyed students to find out why they had
joined forestry programs and what factors
concerned them about their degree. Lhotka
et al. (2010) observed that NR students
ranked enjoying work higher than students
from other majors and that NR students’
most noted life event or activity influencing
their choice of a major was the outdoors.
were more interested in the ability to produce
benefits through collaboration but that they
did not see science careers as offering this op-
portunity. Furthermore, their results showed
that although the participating middle school
females had positive attitudes toward science,
they did not see themselves as future scientists;
rather they saw themselves in more helping ca-
reers such as medicine or education (Dare and
Roehrig 2016).
Grossman and Porche (2014) surveyed
more than 1,000 students and interviewed a
subset of more than 50 students in grades 9
and 10 to find out about their STEM-related
aspirations and experiences. Their results
Methods
Survey Instrument
The survey was composed of six close-
ended demographic questions and six
open-ended NR questions. Demographic
questions covered gender, race, ethnicity,
childhood environment, class standing, and
school. Respondents were allowed to check
and be counted in multiple categories for
race. NR questions were designed to obtain
non-NR students’ first impressions of for-
estry and wildlife management, to find out
what non-NR students think that foresters
and wildlife managers do at work on a daily

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021

Sharik and Frisk (2011) found that the
greatest career factor for joining a forestry
program was the potential to have an envi-
ronmentally and/or socially beneficial ca-
reer, followed by the work conditions (e.g.,
the ability to work outdoors); concerns re-
garding their career choice included employ-
ment opportunities and earning potential.
Other research and discussions have fo-
cused on challenges to forestry programs and
to culturally diverse NR students and pro-
fessionals. McGown (2015) identified im-
age, the appearance of “stagnant and overly
structured” degree programs (compared to
other NR degrees), the cost of education
compared to earning potential, and lack of
diversity as challenges from discussions
among the seven student participants at the
2014 Berkeley Summit. Researchers (Bal-
carczyk et al. 2015, 2016) have considered
challenges to culturally diverse NR students
and professionals. The most frequently
mentioned barrier for culturally diverse un-
dergraduates interviewed at West Virginia
University and Alabama Agricultural and
Mechanical University was the lack of
knowledge of the NR field (Balcarczyk et al.
2016). The most noted barrier for US Fish
& Wildlife Service’s (FWS) culturally di-
verse recent hires was institutional barriers
such as lack of knowledge of US FWS ca-
reers (Balcarczyk et al. 2015). Similarly,
Hager et al. (2007) documented a lack of
knowledge in their research regarding high
school students’ interest in NR careers.
Research has also focused on differences
between males and females and white and
nonwhite students regarding science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematical
(STEM) fields. Dare and Roehrig (2016) re-
viewed the perceptions of middle school stu-
dents regarding physics and physics-related ca-
reers using surveys and focus group interviews.
Their results showed that female participants
showed that 45% of participants had experi- basis, and to learn whether and why non-NR
ences with discrimination, 19% related to gen- students were interested/not interested in
der and 36% related to race/ethnicity. Stu- becoming foresters and/or wildlife manag-
dents from African-American and Latino ers. An advisory group of faculty members at
backgrounds also had a lower likelihood of SFA and UAM reviewed and revised the sur-
perceived support for careers in science; results vey questions to better meet the objective of
for females were similar. Whether or not a stu- this study.
dent aspired to be a scientist was connected to
perceived support (for careers in science) for Survey Administration
females but not underrepresented minorities Surveys were conducted in person by
(Grossman and Porche 2014). NR university students. The survey targeted
Many questions still exist regarding undergraduate students at both universities
perceptions of students toward forestry and through stratified, purposive sampling. Stu-
NR degrees. To help answer these questions, dents were given categories of non-NR stu-
perceptions of non-NR undergraduate stu- dents to target, which were congruent with
dents toward NR careers may be used as a their specific university’s population. SFA’s
proxy for understanding future undergradu- population is approximately 63% female
ate students’ perspectives. The objective of and 37% male; the racial and ethnic makeup
this study is to better understand the percep- is approximately 58% white, 21% black/Af-
tions of non-NR students at SFA and UAM rican American, 14% Hispanic, and 7%
to provide a starting point to enhance re- other (two or more races, race unknown,
cruitment efforts focused on both numbers Asian, non-US citizen, American Indian or
of and diversity of recruits. Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Management and Policy Implications
As forestry professionals are called on to manage forests in increasingly diverse societies, the need to have
more women and people of color as forestry graduates becomes more essential. With challenges facing
forestry programs, including declining enrollment, student recruitment, and a paucity of diversity,
programs must become more successful at not only recruiting and retaining more students but also
recruiting and retaining more diverse students. Successful forestry programs must better understand the
perceptions of students who are considering enrolling in universities. Current non-natural resource
management students have chosen to attend universities but not to attend forestry or natural resource
programs. These choices make them ideal candidates for studying how to improve recruitment of students.
The survey conducted in this study was an introductory effort aimed to capture and understand the
perceptions of current non-natural resource management students. Statistically significant relationships
were found between demographic factors (race and gender) and perceptions of careers (forestry and
wildlife). By knowing which categories female and nonwhite respondents are most likely to choose,
recruitment efforts aimed at high school and other future students may be improved. In-depth and
representative future studies should focus on these relationships to better understand how to encourage
gender and racial diversity in programs.

Journal of Forestry • November 2017 541

Table 1. Questions, categories, and example qualifiers for survey.
Question
When you think of forestry, what is the first
thing that comes to mind?
What do you think a forester does at work
on a daily basis?
Would you be interested in becoming a
forester?
When you think of wildlife management,
what is the first thing that comes
to mind?
What do you think a wildlife manager
does at work on a daily basis?
Would you be interested in becoming a
wildlife manager?
NA, not applicable.
Islander) (SFA 2016). UAM is approxi-
mately 59% female and 41% male; the racial
and ethnic makeup is approximately 65%
white/non-Hispanic, 27% black/African
American, 3% Hispanic, and 5% other (two
or more races, race unknown, Asian,
non-US citizen, American Indian or Alaska
Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Is-
lander) (UAM 2016). Before administering
the surveys, NR students received a lecture
on how surveys should be conducted and
were provided with instructions on how to
maintain the integrity and confidentiality of
data. NR students approached possible par-
ticipants in campus areas such as the cafete-
ria, student center, and/or library to request
that they participate in the study. Instructors
were with and available to NR students to
provide support in administering the surveys
effectively. Potential survey participants
may have been offered small pieces of candy
as a token of appreciation whether or not
they chose to participate in the survey.
Survey Analysis
We worked together to review the sur-
veys and determined that we could develop a
coding scheme for the open-ended survey
questions using keywords/example qualifiers
found in the actual survey responses. When
developing the categories to organize the
data, we considered grouping, interpreta-
tion, and representativeness as suggested in
Elo et al. (2014) to improve the trustworthi-
ness of the organization phase of a content
analysis study. We reviewed items such as
542 Journal of Forestry • November 2017
Categories Example qualifiers
Extractive Log, cut, mill, deforest, hunt
Nature Nature, outside, park, forest, animal
Conserve Conserve, preserve, protect, help, save
Manage Manage, health, check, study, watch
Other Misunderstanding, not quite sure, other
Yes NA
No
Maybe/both
Extractive Log, cut, mill, deforest, hunt
Nature Nature, outside, park, forest, animal
Conserve Conserve, preserve, protect, help, save
Manage Manage, health, check, study, watch
Law enforcement Patrol, ticket, legal, endangered, officer,
Other poach, rules
Misunderstanding, not quite sure, other
Yes NA
No
Maybe/both
whether overlap occurred among categories
for grouping, the degree of interpretation for
categorizing responses, and the trustworthi-
ness of the analysis process for representa-
tiveness. After categories were developed,
two student coders were provided with the
categories and example qualifiers (Table 1)
and were tasked with independently categoriz-
ing the open-ended responses. By providing
example qualifiers taken from keywords in the
surveys, we hoped to decrease the degree of
interpretation in the organization phase.
To test for overlap among categories,
we reviewed whether the two independent
student coders categorized responses the
same. The independent student coders cate-
gorized responses the same at least 67.9% of
the time (“What do you think a forester does
at work on a daily basis?”) and at most
83.4% of the time (“When you think of for-
estry, what is the first thing that comes to
mind?”). When the student coders chose
categories that did not overlap with each
other, we selected what we perceived to be
the best category by reviewing the actual sur-
veys a second time. We were consistent with
at least one of the independent student cod-
ers at least 97.2% of the time (“What do you
think a wildlife manager does at work on a
daily basis?”) and at most 99.5% of the time
(“What do you think a forester does at work
on a daily basis?”).
For the two career-choice questions re-
garding why/why not students were inter-
ested in becoming foresters or wildlife
managers, we attempted to apply categories
previously developed by Sharik and Frisk
(2011). However, responses were not detailed
enough to categorize accurately for these two
questions. Thus, these questions were only cat-
egorized as yes, no, and maybe/both.
␹2 statistical analyses were conducted to
investigate differences across the demo-
graphic variables of gender, race, ethnicity,
childhood environment, and class standing
with categorized responses to each of the
questions listed in Table 1. For analysis, the
following categories were combined: race
was merged to white or nonwhite; ethnicity
was merged to Hispanic or non-Hispanic;
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021
childhood environment was merged to rural
or nonrural (suburban and urban); classes
were merged to lower (freshman and sopho-
more) or upper (junior or senior); and a re-
spondent’s interest in becoming a forester or
wildlife manager was merged as positive
(yes, maybe, both) or negative (no). A Fish-
er’s exact test was also run for analyses,
which had warnings that 25% or more of the
cells had expected counts of less than 5.
Results
In total, 861 surveys were completed.
Students from SFA completed 615 surveys,
whereas students from UAM completed 246
surveys. Surveys were removed from the
sample if the respondent noted that he or she
was a forestry student or a graduate student
or was not a student at SFA or UAM. We
also elected to remove one survey because
the respondent selected multiple categories
for race, ethnicity, childhood environment,
and school (e.g., the respondent noted that
he was in five different schools). This left
835 surveys. SFA retained 597 surveys,
whereas UAM retained 238 surveys. SFA
and UAM survey data were combined.
Demographics Questions
Females made up more than 56% of the
respondents, and respondents most fre-
quently identified as white or black/African
American (Table 2). It is important to note
that multiple respondents categorized them-
selves as other under race and then identified
Hispanic next to the other category. Ap-
proximately, 15% of respondents identified
themselves as having Hispanic ethnicity.
The survey also asked respondents
about their childhood environment, class
ranking, and school enrollment. Respon-
dents most frequently stated that they spent
the majority of their childhood in a subur-
ban environment (44%) followed by rural
Table 2. Gender, race, and ethnicity of environment (38%). SFA is approximately actual student class standing was not readily
survey respondents at SFA and UAM. 140 miles from Houston, Texas, and 160 available, a rudimentary comparison might
miles from Dallas, Texas, whereas UAM is be made using age; approximately 37% of
Characteristic No. approximately 90 miles from Little Rock, students at SFA and 61% of students at
Arkansas. Some respondents identified with UAM are younger than age 20 years (SFA
Gender 2016, UAM 2016).
Male 360
more than one childhood environment and
Female 467 thus were counted more than once. Respondents most frequently attended
Race Respondents most frequently classified the school of Math & Science and the school
American Indian or Alaska Native 15 of Education at both SFA and UAM (Figure
Asian 22
themselves as freshman (44%), followed by
Black or African American 190 juniors (21%) and sophomores (20%). 1). Some respondents selected more than
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6 Some respondents selected more than one one school and thus were counted more than
White 545 once. SFA and UAM have different schools,
Other 80
class and thus were counted more than once.
Ethnicity An example of when this might happen is if so some degree comparisons may not be pos-
Hispanic 128 a student was in his or her second year of sible (e.g., SFA’s computer science and nurs-
Non-Hispanic 701 ing degrees are part of the College of Science

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021

college but had less than 30 credits. The stu-
Totals are not additive because of nonresponses and respon- dent might then classify himself or herself as and Mathematics).
dents who identified with multiple categories.
both a freshman and a sophomore. Because
NR Questions
Categorized responses to the open-
ended question for the first thing that comes
to mind when you think of forestry or wild-
life management show that respondents
most frequently thought of nature followed
by management for forestry and manage-
ment followed by nature for wildlife, respec-
tively (Table 3). Similar to other research,
more responses were coded into an extrac-
tive category for forestry than for wildlife.
For example, Hager it al. (2007) found that
a typical incorrect response for high school
students regarding the definition of a for-
ester was a person who “cuts down trees.”
Figure 1. Comparison of schools attended by survey respondents at SFA and UAM. Unexpected results were that a higher per-
centage of responses were coded as nature
Table 3. SFA and the UAM survey responses for the first thing that comes to your mind for forestry than for wildlife. It is also impor-
when you think of forestry or wildlife management. tant to note that responses appeared more
balanced for wildlife among the categories of
Category Forestry (No.) Percentage Wildlife (No.) Percentage nature, conservation, and management than
for forestry.
Extractive 70 8 27 3
Nature 575 69 232 28
The categorized responses to the open-
Conservation 48 6 170 20 ended question for what a forester or wildlife
Management 123 15 296 36 manager does at work on a daily basis show that
Law enforcement NA NA 89 11 respondents most frequently thought of manage-
Other 19 2 19 2
Total 835 100 833 100 ment for both foresters and wildlife managers
when asked about daily work (Table 4).
NA, not applicable.
One-fifth of the respondents remarked
that they were either interested or possibly
Table 4. SFA and the UAM survey responses for what a forester or wildlife manager interested in becoming a forester, whereas
does at work on a daily basis. almost one-third remarked that they were
interested/possibly interested in becoming a
Category Forestry (No.) Percentage Wildlife (No.) Percentage wildlife manager (Table 5).

Extractive 107 13 5 1 ␹2 Analyses

Nature 139 17 26 3 Statistically significant (␣ ⫽ 0.05) rela-
Conservation 153 18 190 23
Management 383 46 517 62 tionships were found for gender and race
Law enforcement N/A N/A 50 6 (Table 6) but not for ethnicity, childhood en-
Other 51 6 44 5 vironment, or class standing. Specifically, rela-
Total 833 100 832 100
tionships were found between gender and
NA, not applicable. daily work of a forester, gender and interest in

Journal of Forestry • November 2017 543

Table 5. SFA and the UAM survey responses for whether respondents were interested in values provide more insight into possible
becoming a forester or wildlife manager. differences. The categories contributing
most to the overall ␹2 value for gender and
Category Forestry (No.) Percentage Wildlife (No.) Percentage what respondents thought a forester does at
work on a daily basis are nature (55%), ex-
Yes 123 15 203 24.6 tractive (22%), and manage (16%). Female
Maybe/both 39 5 56 6.8
No 662 80 566 68.6 responses were coded as nature more often
Total 824 100 825 100 than male responses, whereas male responses
were coded as extractive and manage more
NA, not applicable.
often than female responses.
Table 6. ␹2 analyses for statistically significant responses from SFA and UAM. For the question of whether the respon-
dent is interested in becoming a forester,
Variables ␹2 value ␹2 probability
both males and females chose a negative cat-
egory most often, but differences exist in re-
Gender by “What do you think a forester does at work on a 13.7681 0.0081 sponses between males and females (Figure

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021

daily basis?”
Gender by “Would you be interested in becoming a forester?”
Gender by “When you think of wildlife management,
what is the first thing that comes to mind?”
Race by “When you think of forestry, what is the first
thing that comes to mind?”
Race by “When you think of wildlife management,
what is the first thing that comes to mind?”
3). Males who responded positively to being
8.0768 0.0045
18.7694 0.0021 interested in becoming a forester made up
45% of the overall ␹2 value, whereas females
13.3366 0.0097 who responded positively to being interested
18.8844 0.0020 in becoming a forester made up 35% of the
overall ␹2 value. Reviewing the actual state-
ments for this question, the authors noted
that female respondents wrote multiple times
that they would not be interested in becoming
a forester because they wanted to work with
people. Examples of statements from female
respondents are included below.
I want to do more traveling with my career
and work with people.

I want to work with people and save lives

and make people feel better.

More interested in people.

I am not interested in checking on trees. I

Figure 2. SFA and UAM survey results comparing male and female responses for what would rather work with people.
foresters do on a daily basis.
Because I want to work with children.

My passion is children.

I love animals but want to work with children.

For the question, “When you think of

wildlife management, what is the first thing
that comes to mind?” male responses were
coded as manage and law enforcement more
often than female responses, whereas female
responses were coded as nature more often
than male responses (Figure 4). The catego-
ries contributing most to the overall ␹2 value
Figure 3. SFA and UAM survey results comparing male and female responses to the for this relationship are nature (53%), law
question of whether they would be interested in becoming a forester. enforcement (22%), and manage (17%).
For the question, “When you think of
forestry, what is the first thing that comes to
becoming a forester, gender and the first thing pare responses by gender and by race, and ␹2 mind?” both nonwhite and white responses
that comes to mind for wildlife management, values for specific cells were reviewed. For most frequently were coded as nature, but
race and the first thing that comes to mind for the question regarding what foresters do at differences exist between nonwhite and
forestry, and race and the first thing that comes work on a daily basis, both male and female white responses (Figure 5). The categories
to mind for wildlife management. responses were coded as management most contributing most to the overall ␹2 value for
To explore statistically significant rela- often, but differences exist between male this relationship are extractive (32%), manage
tionships, graphs were developed to com- and female responses (Figure 2). The cell ␹2 (29%), and nature (23%). White responses

544 Journal of Forestry • November 2017


Figure 4. SFA and UAM survey results comparing male and female responses to the
question regarding the first thing that comes to mind with wildlife management.
Figure 5. SFA and UAM survey results comparing nonwhite and white respondents to the
question regarding the first thing that comes to mind for forestry.
Figure 6. SFA and UAM survey results comparing nonwhite and white respondents to the
question regarding the first thing that comes to mind for wildlife management.
were coded as extractive and manage more of-
ten than nonwhite responses, whereas non-
white responses were coded as nature more of-
ten than white responses.
For the question, “When you think of wild-
life management, what is the first thing that
comes to mind?” both nonwhite and white re-
sponses most frequently were coded as manage,
but differences exist between nonwhite and white
responses (Figure 6). The categories contributing
most to the overall ␹2 value are other (46%) and
law enforcement (43%). Nonwhite responses
were coded as other more often than white re-
sponses, whereas white responses were coded
as law enforcement more often than nonwhite
responses. Examples of statements from non-
white respondents regarding the first thing
that comes to mind for wildlife management,
which were categorized as other, are included
below.
I’m not sure.
I don’t know.
The 110% of kids in forestry want to be
game wardens.
Smokey Bear.
Nothing.
Discussion
Overall, student respondents were gen-
erally accurate and positive in their percep-
tions of forestry and wildlife management,
with most respondents thinking of nature,
conservation, or management with both
fields. With one-fifth of students surveyed
interested in forestry and one-third inter-
ested in wildlife management, recruitment
potential of future undergraduate students
may exist. Although there were generally en-
couraging results, there are also statistically
significant differences, which should be fur-
ther discussed.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021
Differences in Perceptions by Gender
The analyses demonstrate a need to bet-
ter understand the relationships between
gender and perceptions of forestry and wild-
life management. Why did female respon-
dents list responses that fell into the nature
category, whereas male respondents list re-
sponses that fell into the extractive and law
enforcement categories? Are certain catego-
ries considered more positively?
Studies in related fields such as engi-
neering have shown that female students
want to have careers where they “improve
the quality of life or serve the public” (Seron
et al. 2016) and where they are able to col-
laborate and help others in meaningful ways
(Dare and Roehrig 2016). Female students
may be able to see themselves as forestry pro-
fessionals if these connections are more
clearly articulated and demonstrated. Re-
cruiting could emphasize the potential to
work in more socially oriented positions fo-
cused on forestry sustainability, urban for-
estry, wildlife conservation, and/or environ-
mental justice.
Besides differences in categories, our
data point to another important variance be-
tween genders. Even though non-NR fe-
male student respondents often associated
forestry with nature and conservation, they
were still less likely to consider forestry as a
potential career option. This dichotomy
could be similar to the research by Dare and
Roehrig (2016) in which females had a pos-
itive attitude toward science but did not see
themselves as scientists because they did not
consider the career as collaborative and help-
ing. Future research should focus on ad-
dressing this dichotomy. Because the same
differences were not present for wildlife
management, it may be reasonable to con-
clude that the field of forestry itself may be a
barrier more so than other NR fields.
Journal of Forestry • November 2017 545
Differences in Perceptions by Race
The analyses also showed a need to bet-
ter understand the relationships between
race and first perceptions of forestry and
wildlife management. Many of the non-
white respondents wrote that they did not
know what a wildlife manager does on a
daily basis; this response was categorized as
other. These results appear similar to those
of Balcarczyk et al. (2016) and Hager et al.
(2007), which showed that culturally diverse
undergraduates and high school students
lack knowledge on the careers available as
NR professionals.
When looking at factors for students to
become forestry majors, Sharik and Frisk
(2011) identified positive personal factors
such as family influence, childhood experi-
ences, and high school exposure. Lack of di-
versity in NR careers could lead to differ-
ences in responses between white and
nonwhite respondents, especially if few to
no connections exist between nonwhite stu-
dents and NR professionals. The research
further demonstrates a need to develop com-
munication efforts to better inform diverse
students about the potential of NR careers.
Besides improving outreach efforts on
potential career options, future research
should also focus on whether certain catego-
ries such as working in or with nature are
perceived differently by race. If so, university
programs may be able to frame their degrees
more positively, improving the likelihood of
students of color choosing NR careers. Fu-
ture research regarding reasons why stu-
dents, particularly those from nonwhite
groups, might choose other careers over NR
majors could also include prestige and in-
come as possible factors. Lhotka et al. (2010)
noted that forestry, wildlife, and NR stu-
dents ranked enjoying work higher than stu-
dents from other majors, whereas Sharik and
Frisk (2011) stated that concerns regarding
forestry careers included employment op-
portunities and earning potential.
Possibilities for Improving Knowledge
and Recruitment of Underrepresented
Students
Although meant to provide only a start-
ing point for future research, information
gleaned from this survey combined with re-
search from others focused on NR, STEM
fields, and nontraditional careers can pro-
vide insight into improving knowledge and
perceptions of NR careers. Mohr-Schroeder
et al. (2014) noted that to increase the rep-
resentation of females and students of color
546 Journal of Forestry • November 2017
in STEM disciplines, more educational pro-
grams were needed outside of schools. Their
recommendation was backed up by results
showing that after spending a week working
on STEM material, both middle school stu-
dents and their parents noted that they
would like to attend the camp again. Fur-
thermore, after the camp, multiple female
students changed their interest from non-
STEM fields to STEM fields (Mohr-Schroe-
der et al. 2014). Recommendations from
Balcarczyk et al. (2015) also encompassed
advertising about career fields earlier and
connecting young adults and families with
NR career options and pathways. Recom-
mended actions from the National Alliance
for Partnerships in Equity (2009) for prepar-
ing students for nontraditional careers
include interceding earlier in a student’s ca-
reer, providing access to out-of-school pro-
grams, engaging parents, offering positive
role models, providing information about
the wages and skills of the career field, en-
hancing support systems, arranging for stu-
dents to go through programs as cohorts,
and providing mentors.
University forestry and wildlife pro-
grams have the opportunity to connect with
and/or establish outreach initiatives, which
take into account the research by Mohr-
Schroeder et al. (2014), Balcarczyk et al.
(2015), and the National Alliance for Part-
nerships in Equity (2009). These types of
programs could be met through camps and
afterschool programs, which are affiliated
with the university programs or by develop-
ing stronger connections with current envi-
ronmental education efforts such as Project
Learning Tree and Project WILD. Other ac-
tion items, such as enhancing support sys-
tems, arranging for students to go through
programs as cohorts, and providing men-
tors, could be met early in the student’s uni-
versity career through special university pro-
grams. By providing mentors and sending
students through as cohorts, a more sup-
portive and inclusive network could be pro-
vided for minority students who have often
experienced discrimination in multiple areas
(Grossman and Porche 2014).
Study Limitations
There are limitations to this study. The
results from this survey were obtained
through nonprobability sampling of two
small, rural universities in the southern
United States and cannot be used to infer
perceptions for the student population as a
whole at either university or elsewhere. Stu-
dent circumstances at other universities in-
cluding larger and/or urban universities
could be very different. Furthermore, the
wording of survey questions may bias re-
spondents toward certain responses, and the
survey questions may not be encompassing
(e.g., questions may miss certain attitudes
about NR programs, which discourage stu-
dents from joining). In addition, survey re-
sponses may not encompass a respondent’s
entire perception regarding forestry and
wildlife management. This limitation may
be especially true for the question regarding
first thoughts on forestry and wildlife man-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021
agement. This survey only provides a start-
ing point to better understanding percep-
tions of non-NR students. Future research is
necessary.
Conclusion
The survey conducted in this study was
an introductory effort aimed to capture and
understand the perceptions of current
non-NR management students regarding
forestry and wildlife management. The sur-
vey results showed statistically significant re-
lationships between gender and what a for-
ester does on a daily basis, whether or not the
respondent was interested in becoming a
forester, and what was the first thing that
came to mind for wildlife management. Re-
sults were also significant for race and the
first thing that comes to mind for both for-
estry and wildlife management. Although
this study was purposive and cannot be used
for generalizations, it demonstrates an op-
portunity for future research focused on
these relationships. Specifically, the relation-
ships between race/gender and perceptions
could be used to develop and to target com-
munication and outreach efforts aimed to
encourage diverse (race, ethnicity, and gen-
der) future NR undergraduate populations.
Future research efforts should focus on de-
veloping a more in-depth, generalizable
study on non-NR students’ perceptions, on
understanding whether female students
with positive forestry perceptions are still
less likely than male students to choose for-
estry careers, and on whether framing and
education can be used to encourage females
to choose forestry careers and students of
color to choose forestry and/or other NR ca-
reers. Understanding non-NR students’ per-
ceptions is especially important in terms of
recruiting for forestry and NR undergradu-
ate programs.
Literature Cited
BALCARCZYK, K.L., D. SMALDONE, S.W. SELIN, J.
DOUGLAS, K. MAUMBE, AND C.D. PIERSKALLA.
2016. Barriers and supports to pursuing a nat-
ural resource degree. Nat. Sci. Educ. 45(1). doi:
10.4195/nse2015.11.0028.
BALCARCZYK, K.L., D. SMALDONE, S.W. SELIN,
C.D. PIERSKALLA, AND K. MAUMBE. 2015. Bar-
riers and supports to entering a natural re-
source career: Perspectives of culturally diverse
recent hires. J. For. 113(2):231-239. doi:
10.5849/jof.13-105.
DARE, E.A. AND G.H. ROEHRIG. 2016. “If I had
to do it, then I would”: Understanding early
middle school students’ perceptions of physics
and physics-related careers by gender. Phys.
Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12(2). doi:10.1103/Phys
RevPhysEducRes.12.020117.
ELO, S., M. KAARIAINEN, O. KANSTE, T. POLKKI,
K. UTRIAINEN, AND H. KYNGAS. 2014. Quali-
tative content analysis: A focus on trustworthi-
ness. SAGE Open. January–March:1–10. http://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/215
8244014522633.
GILLESS, K.J. 2015. The Berkeley Summit. J. For.
113(6):527-527. doi:10.5849/jof.15-095.
GROSSMAN, J.M., AND M.V. PORCHE. 2014. Per-
ceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers to
STEM success. Urban Educ. 49(6):698-727.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.
1177/0042085913481364.
HAGER, S., T. STRAKA, AND H. IRWIN. 2007.
What do teenagers think of environmental is-
sues and natural resources management
careers? J. For. 105(2):95-98. http://www.
ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2007/
00000105/00000002/art00010.
LHOTKA, L., M. FLY, K. BELLI, AND S. BULLARD.
2010. A summary of forestry and natural re-
source majors in the southern US. Univ. of Ken-
tucky, Lexington, KY. 37 p.
MCGOWN, K.I. 2015. Student perspectives on
North American forestry education. J. For.
113(6):585-586. doi:10.5849/jof.15-022.
MOHR-SCHROEDER, M.J., C. JACKSON, M.
MILLER, B. WALCOTT, D.L. LITTLE, L. SPELER,
W. SCHOOLER, AND D.C. SCHROEDER. 2014.
Developing middle school students’ interest in
STEM via summer learning experiences: See
Blue STEM Camp. Sch. Sci. Math. 114(6):
291-301. doi:10.1111/ssm.12079.
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PARTNERSHIPS IN EQ-
UITY. 2009. Nontraditional career preparation:
Root causes and strategies. Cochranville, PA.
Available online at www.napequity.org/nape-
content/uploads/Root-Causes-Document.
pdf; last accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
SAMPLE, V.A., R.P. BIXLER, M.H. MCDONOUGH,
S.H. BULLARD, AND M.M. SNIECKUS. 2015. The
promise and performance of forestry education
in the United States: Results of a survey of forestry
employers, graduates, and educators. J. For. 113(6):
528-537. doi:10.5849/jof.14-122.
SERON, C., S.S. SILBEY, E. CECH, AND B. RU-
BINEAU. 2016. Persistence is cultural: Profes-
sional socialization and the reproduction of sex
segregation. Work Occup. 43(2):178-214. doi:
10.1177/0730888415618728.
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY. 2016.
Student enrollment demographics. Available
online from http://colleges.startclass.com/l/
4234/Stephen-F-Austin-State-University; last
accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
SHARIK, T.L. 2015. Diversifying student demo-
graphics in forestry and related natural re-
sources disciplines. J. For. 113(6):579-580.
doi:10.5849/jof.15-031.
SHARIK, T.L., R.J. LILIEHOLM, W. LINDQUIST,
AND W.W. RICHARDSON. 2015. Undergradu-
ate enrollment in natural resource programs in
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/115/6/540/4760422 by guest on 21 December 2021
the United States: Trends, drivers, and impli-
cations for the future of natural resource
professions. J. For. 113(6):538-551. doi:
10.5849/jof.14-146.
SHARIK, T.L., AND S.L. FRISK. 2011. Student per-
spectives on enrolling in undergraduate for-
estry degree programs in the United States. J.
Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 40:160-166.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id⫽EJ936034.
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT MONTICELLO. 2016.
Student enrollment demographics. Available
online from http://colleges.startclass.com/l/157/
University-of-Arkansas-at-Monticello; last ac-
cessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Journal of Forestry • November 2017 547