Human dimensions in undergraduate fisheries and wildlife degree programs in United States Universities

Reenvisioning the university education needs of wildlife conservation professionals in the United States

“…However, despite recognition that greater capacity to address the human dimensions of conservation is necessary in natural resource agencies (e.g., Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Clark, et al, 2017b; Sexton et al, 2013), less than half of the programs had objectives centering on knowledge and skills in the social sciences. Consistent with our observations, other research reviewing specific courses in all NAUFWP‐associated universities' fish and wildlife degree programs found that all programs offer, and most require, at least one course related to human dimensions or the social sciences; yet, few offer or require multiple courses, minors, or tracks within programs (Dayer & Mengak, 2020). Additionally, we found that learning objectives related to other areas of expertise such as leadership and public administration were rare.…”

“…The broad impetus for our paper stems from needing to consider the role of university education programs in how the wildlife profession can adapt to rapidly changing conditions. While calls for improved training of conservation professionals abound in recent literature (e.g., Blickley et al, 2013; Kelley et al, 2019; Muir & Schwartz, 2009; Schwartz et al, 2017), little attention has been given to wildlife degree programs specifically (but see Kroll, 2007; Dayer & Mengak, 2020), particularly in terms of cultivating agency response to societal change. Key questions guiding our approach include the following: (1) As wildlife agencies confront the need to broaden their relevance to the diversity of public interests in a changing society, how can university programs better prepare future wildlife professionals?…”

“…Further, these programs continue to respond to the American Fisheries Society (2020) and The Wildlife Society (TWS, 2020) certification requirements to ensure students can become certified after graduation. These certifications primarily emphasize biological competencies, though there are some requirements in communications, policy, and human dimensions (Dayer & Mengak, 2020). TWS certifications are especially constraining with their large number of prescribed course credit hours (e.g., 81 for Associate Wildlife Biologist).…”

“…Specifically, for agencies to adapt and remain relevant to an increasingly diverse constituency, there is a need to consider what skills are necessary and can be fostered through university education systems for agency employees to address the challenges of this new era. While training in the biological sciences is still a necessary foundation, building agency capacity will demand a much broader skill set, one that stems from interdisciplinary approaches that more explicitly embrace the social sciences and increasing complexity of conservation problems (Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Christie, et al, 2017a; Dayer & Mengak, 2020; Mahajan et al, 2019).…”

State fish and wildlife agency culture: Access points to leverage major change

“…Current research (Bennett et al, 2017; Manfredo et al, 2019; Morales et al, 2021) has demonstrated, for example, that agencies are at a critical moment for building out programs in the human dimensions of conservation, which could help them to more effectively engage with the social, economic, and political challenges that underlie contemporary wildlife conservation struggles. As one step, university programs that train wildlife practitioners could do more to integrate social science and humanities studies directly into the curriculum of wildlife programs (Dayer & Mengak, 2020; Redford, 2011). Beyond this, however, bringing in those with deeper expertise in the social and political sciences may be necessary, especially as social conflict around conservation grows.…”