On the occasion of the Ecological Society of America's centennial, we sought to learn which ecological concepts members value in terms of their utility. This required defining “concept,” and selecting concepts from current ecology textbooks that might arguably belong to a normative set. All ESA members were invited to participate in an online survey in October 2014 in which they rated 70, randomly selected concepts (out of a total set of 131) in terms of utility. Alternative to rating, respondents could mark the concept as unfamiliar. Respondents were also able list concepts that were important to them that were not encountered in the survey. Fifteen percent (1324) of the ESA membership participated in the survey. Of these, 89% were addressed in North America, 62% were male, 77% held Ph.D. degrees, 67% were involved in academia through employment or as students, and about one‐half of the total were divided between community and ecosystem ecology domains of interest. The 10 highest ranked concepts (in descending order) for utility were scales (small, local, regional, global, etc.), ecosystem, habitat, species, disturbance/perturbation, organism, population, community, competition, and species life history. The 10 lowest ranked concepts (in descending order) for utility were Lotka‐Volterra predator–prey/competition models, Allee effect, nutrient spiraling, character displacement, doubling time, climax, Hardy‐Weinberg equation, red queen hypothesis, chemoautotroph/chemoautotrophy, and mimicry. Respondents entered 2800 terms not encountered in the survey. After parsing for concepts missed due to the survey's random presentation process, for semantic redundancy and for terms deemed non‐concepts, 119 candidate concepts emerged. Many of these deserve consideration for inclusion in a normative set and introduction in textbooks. This research provides a well‐considered definition of “concept,” a basis for defining a normative set of concepts expected to be known to all ecologists, and a measure of familiarity but, more importantly, a measure of usage by contemporary ecologists who were members of ESA. These results help us to understand ourselves and our science, to better teach ecology, to guide the initiatives of the collective ecological community, and to further explore the extent and intellectual structure of the principal concepts by which ecologists pursue their work.

This article reports the results ofa survey of 1215 nonstudent Ecological Society of America (ESA) members. The results pertain to three series of questions designed to assess ecologists' engagement in various advocacy activities, as well as attitudes on the relationship between environmental advocacy, values, and science. We also analyzed the effects of age, gender, and employment categories on responses. While many findings are reported, we highlight six here. First, ecologists in our sample do not report particularly high levels of engagement in advocacy activities. Second, ecologists are not an ideologically unified group. Indeed, there are cases of significant disagreement among ecologists regarding advocacy, values, and science. Third, despite some disagreement, ecologists generally believe that values consistent with environmental advocacy are more consonant with ecological pursuits than values based on environmental skepticism. Fourth, compared to males, female ecologists tend to be more supportive of advocacy and less convinced that environmentally oriented values perturb the pursuit of science. Fifth, somewhat paradoxically, ecologists in higher age brackets indicate higher engagement in advocacy activities as well as a higher desire for scientific objectivity. Sixth, compared to ecologists in other employment categories, those in government prefer a greater separation between science and the influences of environmental advocacy and values.

A subset of members of the Ecological Society of America was surveyed to describe the current status and infer the future state of ecology. Today's modal ecologist is a 55‐year‐old male professor who uses field observations and experiments to study communities and ecosystems and finds fulfillment in his research. Younger ecologists rely more heavily on laboratory experiments and modeling but obtain satisfaction in field work. If gender‐based retention rates equalize, there may soon be as many women as men in ecology – and their interests differ markedly. Women and men report greater fulfillment from teaching and from data analysis/written communication, respectively. These patterns may explain the poor retention of women in the discipline, given the professional emphasis on publications and grants. Such dissonance between personal satisfaction and the missions of employing institutions must be addressed in order to advance the goals of ecology and enhance the diversity of its practitioners.

Abstract. Much is inferred, but little is actually known, about how ecologists view themselves and what they value as scientists. We investigated these attitudes as part of a survey of non-student, U.S.-addressed members of the Ecological Society of America. The part of the survey reported in this paper requested ratings of 15 possible traits of a good ecologist. These traits embodied values associated with religious principles, aesthetics, caring for nature, and epistemic competence (via professional proficiency). The survey was completed by 20% of the potential respondent pool of 6,083 ecologists. The resulting trait scores were analyzed with respect to age, gender, level of education, nature of employment, primary domain of inquiry, principle method of analysis, and source of greatest professional satisfaction.Respondents ranked traits associated with professional proficiency highest and religious principles lowest. Reactions to ethical and aesthetic traits were mixed. With increasing age, rankings for ethical and aesthetic traits increased while scores for some aspects of epistemic proficiency declined. Gender effects were few. Ecologists with BA/BS or MA/MS degrees scored aesthetic and pro-social traits higher and epistemic proficiency traits lower than did PhD degree-holding respondents. Ecologists employed by government, business, or non-profits had uniquely different scoring spectra from one another and from the entire pool. Characterization of values held by ecologists classified by various domains of inquiry, primary methods of analysis, or sources of greatest professional satisfaction was complex. Particularly intriguing was that those who worked in the ecosystem domain, who used modeling and meta-data analysis as methods, or who received the most professional satisfaction from these same activities, exhibited strong support for several epistemic proficiency-related traits, while being relatively negative about traits in the aesthetic and nature-caring categories. These results put some empirical substance and conceptual structures behind perceptions that distinct subcultures exist in U.S. ecology.These results are relevant in three ways. First, they provide a framework by which individual ecologists may become aware of the motivations that drive them, the values that shape their attitudes, and the source and meaning of their professional priorities. Second, these results challenge mentors to be mindful of how they guide young ecologists in the development of their own values and priorities. Third, these results inform the leadership of professional organizations of the range and variation of positions that their member hold and that are relevant to initiatives the leadership may which to promote.