Traits of a good ecologist: What do ecologists think?

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.