Quantity, Quality, and Support for Research 

in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

An Organizational Assessment 

By Joan M. Ratz, Phadrea D. Ponds, Jennefer R. Neilson, Joyce Liverca, and Berton Lee Lamb 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 

Open-File Report 2005-1391 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Cover photo courtesy of Katherine D. Wundrock 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2005 

This report is available online at: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/publications/21528/21528.pdf 

For product and ordering information: 
 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 
 


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 
 


For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 
 


its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 
 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 
 


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 
 


Suggested citation: 

Ratz, J.M., Ponds, P.D., Neilson, J.R., Liverca, J., and Lamb, B.L., 2005, Quantity, quality, and support for 

research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An organizational assessment: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Discipline, Open-File Report 2005-1391, 173 p. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 
Contents 

Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................1 
 

Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................................3 
 

Chapter Two: Organizational Units ..................................................................................................5 
 

Chapter Three: Research Positions ...............................................................................................14 
 

Chapter Four: Survey of Employees in Professional Series Positions within the U.S. Fish and 
 

Wildlife Service ..................................................................................................................25 
 

Chapter Five: Conclusions .............................................................................................................41 
 

References Cited............................................................................................................................43 
 

Appendix 2A: Organizational Units that Conduct Research...........................................................44 
 

Appendix 3A: Regional Appendices ...............................................................................................57 
 

Appendix 3B: Manifest Content Analysis Results ........................................................................118 
 

Appendix 3C: Latent Content Analysis Results............................................................................122 
 

Appendix 4A: Responses to Open-ended Question Asking All Respondents for 

 Other Comments .............................................................................................................138
 

Appendix 4B: Survey Instrument..................................................................................................164 
 

Appendix 4C: Demographic Comparison of Known Publishers versus Other Survey 

 Respondents ...................................................................................................................172 
 

iii 
Quantity, Quality, and Support for Research in 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

An Organizational Assessment 

By Joan M. Ratz, Phadrea D. Ponds, Jennefer R. Neilson, Joyce Liverca, and Berton Lee Lamb 

Executive Summary 

To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent and quality of management support available for 

conducting research within the FWS, we completed investigations to identify organizational units within the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; identify positions in 

the FWS that include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; and assess the attitudes of employees 

and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS. 

Objectives 

The objective of the organizational units task was to develop a comprehensive list of the units within the 

FWS that conduct research as either their primary or significant secondary mission. The objective of the research 

positions task was to identify individual position descriptions that are associated with or include the potential to 

conduct research. The objective of the attitudinal survey task was to ascertain the attitudes and perceptions of 

employees involved in research regarding the nature of their research assignment, resources available for research, 

reporting research results, use of research products, and the obstacles and opportunities for conducting research. 

We defined research has having two principal components: 

1.	 Testing formal hypotheses. This type of research is primarily driven by the state-of-the-art scientific 

literature in a given field. Although the research may be applicable to management issues, the primary 

purpose of study or investigation is to advance the state of scientific knowledge. 

2.	 Gathering and analyzing data. This type of research is primarily driven by the needs of natural resource 

managers and/or policy-makers. Although the research may advance the state of scientific knowledge 

to some degree, the primary purpose is to help managers or decision-makers develop plans or policies 

or provide input to environmental impact statements, administrative rule-makings, permits, or licenses. 

Overview of Findings 

The FWS has a research capacity. That capacity derives from several factors. First, the employees of the 

FWS have a strong science orientation, which might be termed a science professional culture. The typical FWS 

employee is trained in the scientific method, enjoys the opportunity to conduct research, and appreciates the research 

elements of work assignments. Second, based on the respondent’s answers to survey questions, the FWS maintains a 

sizeable data-gathering effort nationwide and especially at its network of fish and wildlife refuges. Third, the FWS 

includes within the ranks of its employees a range of experts in the natural sciences, especially in fields that apply 

generally to ecology and habitat and population monitoring. Fourth, a sizeable portion of FWS employees (11%) 

have published articles in the scientific literature. 

1
 
However, the science capacity of the FWS is neither consistently highlighted in the public documents of the 

agency nor reflected in the official position descriptions of its employees. Although some FWS regions are more 

forthcoming about announcing research related activities in web pages and fact sheets, a review of these documents 

demonstrates that the public face of the agency is not reflective of the research that is underway. Similarly, the 

utility of position descriptions to highlight research-oriented jobs varies by region and there is little consistency 

among the regions in how research jobs are described. 

From our review of public documents, position descriptions, and the attitudinal survey we have concluded 

that the research conducted by FWS employees is principally opportunistic. For the most part, research, while 

recognized as vital and encouraged, is not systematically promoted. Moreover, the most common methods for 

reporting research findings are through symposia, conferences, or the publications of other state or federal agencies, 

rather than through the peer reviewed literature. 

Even so, FWS employees are basically satisfied with their jobs. Results of the survey show that employees 

are relatively neutral in assessing the encouragement to conduct or recognition for research they receive from 

supervisors. Employees expressed lower satisfaction with the management support they receive for research, but did 

indicate that they have the basic tools—such as computers, vehicles, etc. They are also less satisfied with the 

financial support or time they receive for research. Employees would strongly favor enhancements to the science 

reputation of the FWS and those not now involved in research would likely appreciate more research opportunities. 

2
 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife so 

that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United 

States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges 

and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory bird programs, law enforcement, 

and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. 

Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on 

the best conservation management practices consistent with federal law. Each of these activities requires a 

workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and expert knowledge (Cohn, 

2005). Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS 

personnel direct, conduct, and report research that is focused on questions of importance for natural resource 

management. The findings reported in this document result from a three-part study of the status of perceived 

organizational support for research in FWS. The study was commissioned by the FWS Directorate and funded by 

the FWS, and the Science Support Program and Fort Collins Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

When commissioning this report, the FWS provided an historical and organizational context to serve as a 

guide. In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and 

subsequently into the U.S. Geological Survey. This transfer was accomplished, principally, by moving whole 

research units from one agency to the other, although some FWS research personnel were probably not transferred. 

Indeed, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies 

conducted within the FWS itself despite the loss of much research capability, although the FWS does rely on staff of 

the U.S. Geological Survey and others for many investigations. The leadership of the FWS expressed the issue that 

the agency cannot rely solely on others for all of its research needs due to financial and time constraints; therefore, it 

is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such analytical tasks. It is in the best interest of the FWS to 

promote a culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such a culture would reflect organizationwide shared assumptions and values about the importance of research to the mission of the FWS. In commissioning 

this research, the FWS Directorate recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully 

understand its research capacity. 

To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of management support available for 

conducting research within the FWS, we completed investigations to: 

•	 identify organizational units within the FWS that conduct research as a significant portion of their 

mission; 

•	 identify positions in the FWS that include scientific research as a component of the position 

description; and 

•	 assess the attitudes of employees and managers toward the obstacles and opportunities for scientific 

research existing within the FWS. 

In consultation with the FWS, we limited our investigations to individuals in professional series positions. 

We assumed that the education and skill level necessary for research would be primarily limited to individuals in 

professional series positions. 

Objectives 

To effectively meet the objectives of this study, it is necessary to define “research” rather precisely. For the 

purposes of this study, research has two principal components: 

1.	 Testing formal hypotheses. This type of research is primarily driven by the state-of-the-art scientific 

literature in a given field. Although the research may be applicable to management issues, the primary 

purpose of study or investigation is to advance the state of scientific knowledge. 

3
 
2.	 Gathering and analyzing data. This type of research is primarily driven by the needs of natural resource 

managers and/or policy-makers. Although the research may advance the state of scientific knowledge 

to some degree, the primary purpose is to help managers or decision-makers develop plans or policies 

or provide input to environmental impact statements, management rule-makings, permits, or licenses. 

There are three tasks addressed in this organizational assessment study, each with a corresponding 

objective: 

•	 The organizational units task: to develop a comprehensive list of the units within the Service that 

conduct research as either their primary or significant secondary mission. 

•	 The research positions task: to identify individual position descriptions that are associated with or 

includes the potential to conduct research. 

•	 The attitudinal survey task: to ascertain the attitudes and perceptions of employees involved in 

research regarding the nature of their research assignment, resources available for research, reporting 

research results, use of research products, and the obstacles and opportunities for conducting research. 

Basic Approach 

We did not set out to test any hypotheses. Rather, we intended to provide descriptive information suitable 

for use by the FWS Directorate in designing improved recordkeeping systems, promoting future research activities, 

encouraging publication, and providing research guidance. 

The Organizational Units Task 

For the organizational units task, we took the following steps: (1) identified organizational units from the 

official Service directory for each regional office; (2) conducted a review of the unit web page or official 

documentation to identify unit mission; and (3) interviewed unit leaders to clarify unit mission. The result is a 

carefully screened listing of units that are potentially involved in research activities. 

The Research Positions Task 

For the research positions task we took the following steps: (1) telephoned the chief personnel officer in 

each Service region to discuss unique regional characteristics that might suggest the best methods available to 

identify potential positions, and enlisted their support and assistance with subsequent steps in the study; (2) asked 

personnel offices to query the Department of the Interior standard personnel reporting system to create a roster that 

included names, titles, series, grades, pay plans, position numbers, organizational codes, birth dates, gender, service 

computation dates, functional classifications, educational levels, supervisory levels, work schedules, tenures, and 

servicing personnel offices; and (3) using FWS Region 6 as a prototype, gathered position descriptions from each 

region to investigate the extent and type of research content in FWS positions descriptions. 

We conducted a qualitative analysis of the position descriptions to identify types of research content using 

NVivoTM, a software package that exports results from a qualitative to a quantitative format (Lamb and others, 

2001). We then used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSTM) to analyze the data. The results of this 

analysis permitted us to identify positions in the FWS with research-related components and specify the type of 

research content in these positions. 

The Attitude and Perception Survey Task 

The survey results answer these questions: What is nature of current research assignments? What resources 

are available for research studies? How are research results reported? How are research products used by managers? 

What are the obstacles and opportunities for conducting research? We pre-tested the survey instrument by asking the 

regional research coordinators and regional chiefs of human resources to complete the questionnaire and then we 

analyzed the results for internal consistency of measures, time required to complete the instrument, Internet 

accessibility of the questionnaire, and utility of the results. Before finalizing the survey instrument, we also 

conducted a pretest with several FWS field biologists. We have produced a Report to Respondents (Neilson and 

others, 2005), which includes a description of survey methods and the descriptive statistics for each question 

contained in the survey. 

4
 
Chapter 2 

Organizational Units 

The objective for this task was to develop a comprehensive list of the units within the FWS that have, as 

either their primary or significant secondary mission, the conduct of scientific research. The data represent the 

results of an organizational unit assessment conducted in the spring of 2004. Occasionally, direct quotes from 

websites and fact sheets are used to illustrate the findings. 

By examining documents that are widely available to the public (e.g., websites and fact sheets), we have 

tried to illuminate the agency’s self-understanding of its capacity to conduct research. Systematically gathering these 

data allowed us to build a broad overview of the FWS. Our goal was to develop an accurate and up-to-date list of 

FWS research units. Through this approach we also constructed a database linking published authors to FWS units, 

and examined specific textual information on FWS web pages and public fact sheets. We used three primary 

information sources to identify the research oriented organizational units: 

1. Web of Science publication database, 

2. official FWS websites, and 

3. regional fact sheets (including specific organizational units such as refuges or fish hatcheries). 

Methods 

Data were collected in two steps. First, we aggregated information from the Web of Science database to 

identify the published FWS researchers in each of the eight FWS regions. Second, we analyzed text-based media 

(TBM) to find the names and number of units within the FWS that describe research on either their web pages or in 

their public fact sheets. 

Identification of Researchers 

The first step in our work involved identifying individuals within FWS who are engaged in research 

activities. We interviewed Regional Research Coordinators to identify individuals in the FWS who were conducting 

research. We expected to interview those individuals to ask for the names of other individuals likewise involved 

with research. Because we determined that this task could be accomplished more efficiently through a standardized 

database search and because we did not want to bias any potential respondents to the upcoming survey, we used the 

Web of Science to identify individuals affiliated with FWS who had published research-based articles during the 

time frame of 1995 through July 21, 2004. We crosschecked the resulting list with the names of those individual 

people who continue to be listed as employed by the FWS. The Web of Science database does not reference all 

publication outlets relevant for FWS employees, but it does include the broad subjects of natural sciences and water 

resources. It also includes more specific subjects such as earth resources, and wildlife and fishery/fisheries. 

Although we recognize that the resulting list of published researchers is most likely not exhaustive, the Web of 

Science database indexes several thousand journals (including Journal of Wildlife Management, Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, and North American Journal of Aquaculture) and should provide a rather good representation of those 

FWS employees who have published. We restricted the documents included in the search to research articles, 

research notes, and research-based reviews. The initial search resulted in the identification of 1,355 articles. 

We looked at each article individually to determine if the author had been an FWS employee during the 

period 1995–2004, based on the FWS directory and the personnel roster. We used the FWS directory and roster to 

identify their current FWS organizational affiliations. We physically reviewed the articles if the journal was 

available at the U.S. Geological Survey library at the Fort Collins Science Center, at the library of Colorado State 

University, through interlibrary loan, or in online/electronic journals. Upon review of each article, if the author had 

another affiliation at the time of the study but a footnote indicated that his/her current address was with the FWS, 

that record was eliminated. For example, someone who published their master's thesis after joining the FWS would 

show a university affiliation at the time of the study and would not be counted as a published FWS employee. 

5
 
n 

a

units 

FWS region 

Region 1 2 114 50 27 

Region 2 6 36 27 16 

Region 3 1 56 30 25 

Region 4 5 61 41 17 

Region 5 9 50 34 4 

Region 6 2 64 40 23 

Region 7 1 64 22 8 

Region 9 4 51 14 1 

Total 30 496 258 121 

The result of this effort was a database of published FWS employees ( = 576). We found that 50 

individuals were no longer FWS employees and those names were deleted from our list. Of the remaining 526 

individuals identified as having published while employed by the FWS, 30 were in nonprofessional series positions. 

Accounting for these factors resulted in a list of 496 people who had published while in professional series positions 

while employed by the FWS from 1995–2004 (Table 2.1). 

Table 2.1. Number of authors and organizational units identified by review of publications and websites. 

# published authors (between 1995–2004) # organizational # websites analyzed 

Non-professional series Professional series 

a 

Includes all identified authors without distinguishing between professional and non-professional series employees or current employees. 

We believe this method yielded a higher volume of names in a shorter amount of time than would the 

interview-based approach. Additionally, the database search identified researchers in the most objective way 

possible and provided sufficient information to address the issues associated with each task of this study in a reliable 

and straightforward manner. This revision to the original study plan was essential and beneficial. Although 

identification of published researchers in this manner is not an ideal measure of research capability, we believe this 

technique was a valid means to identify those engaging in research. However, we acknowledge that individuals who 

are conducting research but are not publishing would not be identified by this approach. We used these names in the 

organizational units task to identify in which organizational units people were likely to be conducting research, in 

the research positions task to identify which position descriptions we should analyze, and in the attitudinal survey 

task to identify target individuals to receive the survey. 

Websites and Fact Sheets 

We used the World Wide Web (i.e., Internet) to search for relevant websites and facts sheets. We based our 

searches on phrases combining “Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, refuges, research, and monitoring.” We searched 

MSN (16,695,607 hits), Google (232,661,991 hits) and Netscape (1,350,000 hits). Comparing the three web search 

engines we found that the first 5 “hits” were typically the same in each case: 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home (www.fws.gov) 

• For Kids: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home (www.fws.gov/kids) 

• Who We Are (www.fws.gov/who) 

• Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered.fws.gov) 

• Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (southeast.fws.gov) 

To select the FWS websites, we used the database of published individuals within FWS (as 

described above; Table 2.2). 

6
 
Table 2.2. Examples of information on selected Fish and Wildlife Service websites. 

Official Fish and Wildlife Service websites 

National 

http://search.fws.gov/ 

http://refuges.fws.gov/index.html 

http://www.recreation.gov/ 

by state 

centers were transferred in the mid-1990's to become, 

FWS national web page 

Birds) 

links to other programs 

http://faq.fws.gov/resrch.html 

http://info.fws.gov/ 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/statelinks/nmlinks.htm 

FWS search engine; 701 sites listed; alphabetical 

listing of refuges and programs 

national web page - links to PDFs of brochures and 

planning documents; also refuges alphabetically and 

the Service's current science and research 

coordination capability is limited - the research 

ultimately, the U.S. Geological Survey's 

lists DOI recreation areas (NPS, COE, BLM, and 

FWS by state and recreational opportunities), links to 

links to national programs (Division of Migratory 

local pages sponsor refuge information 

lists field stations, fisheries technology centers, and 

Official Fish and Wildlife websites 

By region 

Region 1 http://pacific.fws.gov/refuges/ 

home page, featuring the six refuges of the complex 

Region 2 

http://sacramento.fws.gov/about_us.htm 

“featured refuge”; links refuges by states; links to 

Region 3 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ links to offices and services in Region 3; 

/ 

Region 4 

most consistent website and content. 

Region 5 http://northeast.fws.gov/ 

http://northeast.fws.gov/facts.html 

Region 6 

Wildlife Service, 

Region 7 http://alaska.fws.gov/index.htm 

news and photos 

easy to search drop down alphabetical list of refuges, 

list fisheries and programs separately 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/oregoncoast/ Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/pacificislands/ 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/index.html 

national site 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/fisheries/ “will work with the USGS to identify research 

priorities” 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/InsideRegion3 inside Region 3 – information update of regional 

activities; articles about monitoring and cooperative 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/refuges/ 

research efforts and planning 

links to a regional page with links to refuges 

alphabetically by state, Regional office news, etc. 

http://www.fws.gov/southeastlouisiana/ does not link back to Region 4 homepages; links to 

regional, state and local pages; FWS national page; 

and a map to SE LA refuges 

“reports from the field” 

http://www.fws.gov/patuxent/prrdefault.html 

this page contains more than 100 fact sheets from 

refuges, field offices, Fish Hatcheries, and 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/ 

management districts 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/preble/ since 1995, much has been learned about PMJM due 

to research conducted by the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, U.S. 

Air Force, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and 

links to R7 Refuges, partnerships, science projects, 

7
 
We used a modified content analysis technique (Busch and others, 2005) to evaluate available FWS webbased and print media. We used the list of published researchers to search the Internet to find the Regional websites 

(Refuges, Fish Hatcheries, Field Offices, and affiliated science centers) and used an a priori coding method to 

establish key word categories (research, investigations, studies, projects, and monitoring) to perform our initial 

analysis of the websites and fact sheets (Weber, 1990). This consisted of identifying the existence of certain words 

and phrases used to communicate research. Afterwards, we examined the relationships of the words in the text to 

determine how the words or phrase were used to describe research (Busch and others, 2005). The following rules 

were used to select websites or fact sheets: 

•	 all links had to include fws.gov; 

•	 links to second level websites were included only if they were an “official” FWS website (e.g., a 

refuge, project, or supporting program website); 

•	 graphics attached to the website depicting a monitoring activity (e.g., banding, electro-shocking, or 

specimen collecting) were not included; 

•	 the link was included only if it described research that was physically and currently being conducted 

by FWS researchers; 

•	 if the work was co-sponsored by FWS as an agency, the site was coded as “FWS sponsored research”, 

•	 we omitted Law Enforcement and FWS Administrative offices; and 

•	 although often interesting, links to third-level websites were not included. 

Once these data were collected, we identified common themes and organized the data into six distinct 

subcategories. To understand how the descriptors were used, we selected Refuges and Hatcheries because we 

believed they were more likely to conduct studies to meet specific management needs. The following categories 

represent recurring topics found on Refuge and Hatchery websites, and in fact sheets used to describe the application 

of research as: 

1.	 specific management tools 


2.	 applied or basic techniques 


3.	 specific Refuge objectives 


4.	 supported by other federal and state agencies 


5.	 “promoted” or “encouraged” 


6.	 a “major activity” 


We created separate data sets and tabulations for each FWS region. Creating these tabulations was a rather 

complicated task because the currency and availability of fact sheets varied across regions. Region 3 made their 

complete fact sheets available online (for 2003). Regions 4, 5, and 6 informed us that individual fact sheets were 

available online. We were able to obtain fact sheets for Regions 1, 2, and 7. We were able to obtain hard copies of 

fact sheets for all states, with the exception of California and Nevada, and for all regions except Region 9. We 

reviewed the hard copies of available fact sheets for indications that research was being conducted. Although fact 

sheets were usually available online and were usually linked to a unit’s homepage, we discovered that these 

documents tended to represent general descriptions of the unit’s goals and highlights of activities rather than 

descriptions of research. 

Findings 

Individual Researchers 

Identifying individual known researchers was a critical first step for the successful completion of this study. 

For all FWS professional series employees, 1 out of 9 (11%) had published (Table 2.3). Of the geographic regions, 

Region 1 had the most individual researchers (n = 114; 23% of 496 who had published) and Region 2 had the fewest 

(n = 36; 7%). Region 7 had the highest ratio of researchers to professional series employees (n = 64; 20%). Other 

than for Region 7, the ratio of researchers to number of professional series employees per region was roughly 

proportional. Fourteen percent (n = 51) of employees in Region 9, the FWS Headquarters, had published. The 

proportion of published researchers in Region 3 (12%) was slightly higher than either Regions 5 or 6 (11%), and 

markedly higher than Regions 2 and 4 (9%). 

8
 
Of the 4435 individuals in the FWS 

36 (9%) of them have published 

61 (9%) of them have published 

36 (7%) of them are located in Region 2 

1. 

2. 

3. Ecological Services 

4. 

5. 

n

n n

Number of published authors 

173 

132 

Ecological Services 126 

Migratory Birds 55 

Region 9 8 

Total 494 

Table 2.3. Percentages for publishers versus non-publishers in Fish and Wildlife Service, professional series positions (citations 

from 1995–2004, Web of Science database). 

Of the 1142 individuals in Region 1 of the FWS 

Of the 420 individuals in Region 2 of the FWS 

Of the 465 individuals in Region 3 of the FWS 

Of the 706 individuals in Region 4 of the FWS 

Of the 449 individuals in Region 5 of the FWS 

Of the 561 individuals in Region 6 of the FWS 

Of the 321 individuals in Region 7 of the FWS 

Of the 371 individuals in Region 9 of the FWS 

496 (11%) of them have published 

114 (10%) of them have published 

56 (12%) of them have published 

50 (11%) of them have published 

64 (11%) of them have published 

64 (20%) of them have published 

51 (14%) of them have published 

Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore may not sum to 100. 

Of the 496 individuals in the Fish and Wildlife Service who have published: 

114 (23%) of them are located in Region 1 

56 (11%) of them are located in Region 3 

61 (12%) of them are located in Region 4 

50 (10%) of them are located in Region 5 

64 (13%) of them are located in Region 6 

64 (13%) of them are located in Region 7 

51 (10%) of them are located in Region 9 

Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore may not sum to 100. 

We used the four FWS programs to categorize each organizational unit into the following groupings: 

National Wildlife Refuges and Complexes 

FRO, FWMAO National Fish Hatcheries, Health Science Centers, Fish Technology Centers 

Migratory Bird 

Region 9 (headquarters) 

The Wildlife Refuges were responsible for 35% ( = 173) of the research publications authored by FWS 

employees. Fish Resource Office (FRO) and Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Office (FWMAO) were 

coded into a single variable that also included fish hatcheries and Health Science Centers collectively representing 

25% ( = 132) of the published researchers. Ecological Services ( = 126), including regional and field offices, 

accounted for another quarter (25%) of known researchers. Less than 1% of the published researchers were found in 

Region 9 (Table 2.4). 

Table 2.4. Number of published authors by organizational unit, including non-professional series personnel. 

Organizational unit variables 

National Wildlife Refuges and Complexes 

FRO, FWMAO, National Fisheries Hatcheries, Health Science Centers 

and Fisheries Tech Centers 

9 

Public Fact Sheets and Websites 

We reviewed all the available websites and fact sheets that indicated research was being conducted in an 

organizational unit (Appendix 2A). The degree to which research was identified in fact sheets varied a great deal 

from region to region and among organizational units. A total of 399 descriptors were collected using an a priori 

coding method. We found that the words “research,” “investigations,” “studies,” “projects,” and “monitoring” were 

often included under a heading of “Management Tools” or “Refuge Objectives” without any elaboration of the 

research being conducted (Table 2.5). 

We found that these descriptors were used in different regions and in many combinations. Some examples 

of how the descriptors were used on websites and fact sheets to communicate research efforts include: 

1.	 specific management tools - Clarks River NWR, Cross Creek NWR 

2.	 applied or basic techniques - Hakalau Forest NWR, Cape Romain NWR 

3.	 specific Refuge objectives - #6 at Agassiz NWR, and #7 at Turnbull NWR 

4.	 supported by other federal and state agencies - Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR 

5.	 “promoted” or “encouraged” – Bayou Teche, NWR and Cameron Prairie NWR, Lee Metcalf NWR, 

Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

6.	 a “major activity” Florida Panther NWR and Sevilleta NWR 

Organizational unit fact sheets included a range of specificity in descriptions of research. For example, the 

fact sheet for the Green Lake National Fish Hatchery in Maine included as a management activity to “Assist with 

ongoing Atlantic salmon research” but did not describe how the hatchery assisted or provided any specific 

information about the research. Other fact sheets are more specific; the fact sheet for the Willow Beach National 

Fish Hatchery in Arizona stated that the unit, “Successfully examined the effects of temperature on growth of 

razorback suckers, bonytail chub and humpback chub for captive propagation recovery.” 

Regional Scenarios 

Of particular interest is Region 7’s website. The Alaska region stands out as having the most organized and 

consistent mode of communicating research activities. Study plans for research projects that are either being 

conducted by FWS employees or in cooperation with other agencies are listed on each web page. The Alaska 

“science” web page was very specific: 

Science is the foundation for the work of the Service. In our commitment to quality science we 

strive to ask the right questions, base our work on accepted scientific principles, seek independent 

peer review and publish our results (http://alaska.fws.gov/science/index.htm - retrieved 4/12/05). 

The websites for Region 7 all included a link to “biological studies,” biological projects” or “science.” 

These pages consistently included links to management plans, publications, projects in progress, and graphs of 

population trends. Typical statements include: 

Science is the backbone of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Quality scientific projects are the 

underpinning of good management and decision-making. Fish and Wildlife Service employees in 

the various programs and field offices in Alaska are engaged in a wide variety of scientific 

projects to meet our stewardship and conservation missions. 

(http://alaska.fws.gov/science/project.htm - retrieved 3/19/05) 

The Refuge also sponsors and conducts basic and applied research projects, develops monitoring 

methods, and evaluates management strategies (http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/kodiak/biowork.htm -

retrieved 3/19/05) 

Websites and fact sheets for Region 4 consistently identified research as a “management tool.” Unlike 

Region 7, there were no links to specific study plans or attribution of research projects to a specific FWS employee. 

The Region 4 documents tended to be very generic in describing projects with language such as the following: 

Scientific research, investigations and monitoring projects on the refuge help us to answer the 

“what” and “why” questions about the Everglades-both the wildlife and their habitats. Projects 

such as alligator surveys help us understand how many alligators there are, how productive they 

are and how they relate to the world around them. Studies on tree islands help us to learn their 

10
 
importance to wildlife and how changes in water management may affect them. 
 

(http://loxahatchee.fws.gov/home/default.asp - retrieved 3/30/05). 
 

Deer management includes medical and rehabilitation, habitat restoration and enhancement, 


routine herd health monitoring and population checks, and research on population density, 


behavior and migration patterns. (http://nationalkeydeer.fws.gov – retrieved 3/30/05) 


The public documents for Region 4 and 6 link monitoring, research and management. For example, 

Loxahatchee NWR web page states: 

Monitoring can be a part of research which is a systematic investigation into a subject in order to 

discover facts or principles. 

Current research projects being conducted by refuge biologists include examining the impacts of 

hydrology on tree island vegetation and wildlife; answering the question: "Do melaleuca and 

lygodium influence the vegetation, insect, and bird communities on tree islands?", and "How does 

the body condition of alligators in the refuge relate to the body condition of alligators in other 

areas?” (http://loxahatchee.fws.gov/biology/research.asp) 

A web page from Region 6 reports: 

Monitoring/Research is being done at Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on all the 

following subjects with our limited staff and the help of volunteers. 

This research includes total avian species richness, endangered/threatened species, including the 

piping plover, spring and fall waterfowl migration, duck production estimates with research on 

nest searches, nest success, nest predation and artificial nest structures, marsh/water birds, raptors, 

and other migratory bird observations are noted as part of this research. 

(http://longlake.fws.gov/research.htm) 

The website for Patuxent Research Refuge in Region 5 reports that it is the “Nation’s only National 

Wildlife Refuge established to support wildlife research,” however acknowledges the U. S. Geological Survey’s 

research function: “Today most of the research on the refuge is conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

through the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.” 

Overall, in Regions 2, 3, and 5 the information regarding research in FWS was inconsistently presented in 

fact sheets and websites. However, there tended to be more consistency within these Regions in specifying site 

location, management objectives and available activities. 

11
 
Table 2.5. Examples of research and related terminology found on a sample of web pages. 

Monitoring 

Science 

Research 

Project 

( ) 

( ) 

) 
 

As a management tool ( ) 
 

) 
 

) 
 

( ). 
 

) 
 

refuge for wildlife. ( ) 
 

( ) 
 

( ) 
 

and Earthspan...
 

( ) 
 

Investigations Our Bio-Monitoring Branch conducts field studies to determine sources of pollution, to 

investigate pollution effects on fish and wildlife and their habitat and to investigate fish and 

wildlife die-offs. (Sacramento FWS Office website) 

Monitoring/Research is being done at Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on all the 

following subjects with our limited staff and the help of volunteers. 

http://longlake.fws.gov/research.htm

Science is an integral part of the Fish and Wildlife Service. We employ many biologists, who 

through our various field and laboratory programs, generate scientific information that supports 

our conservation mission. The scientific activities we conduct are diverse, ranging from basic 

inventories of fish and wildlife species on remote National Wildlife Refuge lands, to population 

monitoring of select wildlife species, to applied research to help us make management decisions. 

The ever-escalating complexity of natural resource conservation in Alaska demands that the 

scientific information we collect and use is rigorous, timely and relevant. 

http://alaska.fws.gov/science/overview.htm

AFWO's diverse workload responsibility includes field research and monitoring, regulatory and 
 

advisory roles in various federal agencies, habitat conservation planning on nonfederal lands, 
 

permit review, and many other biological related activities. (http://www.ccfwo.r1.fws.gov/

http://www.fws.gov/crosscreeks/

“...the Patuxent Research Refuge is the nation's first and only National Wildlife Refuge devoted 
 

to wildlife research.” (http://www.fws.gov/patuxent/prrdefault.html

The refuge is engaged in research that is unlocking the natural history secrets of American and 
 

least bitterns, moose and timber wolves (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/agassiz/

The priorities of the Program are as follows... #4 Coordinate and conduct research activities 
 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/issues/invasivespecies.cfm

The Fish and Wildlife Service oversees the research program, working jointly with several 
 

cooperating organizations and agencies. (http://midway.fws.gov/wildlife/research.html

Refuge wildlife biologists conduct scientific research to understand how to better manage the 
 

http://moosehorn.fws.gov/wildlife_research.htm

1) “For every scientific project that we conduct in the field, Service biologists are required to 
 

analyze their data and write a report. In order to complete the scientific process, these reports are 
 

reviewed, revised and then disseminated to managers, other researchers and the public. For 
 

projects that pioneer new techniques, provide findings new to science, or are of high interest to 
 

the scientific community, these reports may form the basis for manuscripts that are later submitted
 

to peer-reviewed scientific journals or are presented at scientific meetings.” 
 

http://alaska.fws.gov/science/report.htm

2) A scientific study is complete when the manuscript summarizing the results of the work has 
 

undergone peer review, been revised and disseminated to the scientific community. 
 

http://alaska.fws.gov/science/publication.htm

This project is being conducted by researchers from Medicine Lake NWR, St. Cloud University, 
 

http://medicinelake.fws.gov/Wildlife/PelicanBrief.pdf

Discussion 

The purpose of the organizational unit assessment was to use at least three media sources to identify FWS 

units reporting research as either a primary or a secondary role or objective. We chose the three sources for this task 

(publications, websites, and fact sheets) because they were the most conspicuous and up-to-date references used to 

describe current FWS activities. Our findings suggest that the public documents of the FWS often point toward the 

existence of noteworthy site-specific research. This is indicated by the descriptive language and terminology we 

found on the web pages and fact sheets. However, the various FWS Regions use at least six distinct categories of 

language to describe the nature of research activities in which their organizational units are engaged. There is little 

consistency among the public documents and they do not appear to conform to any standard for research. 

12
 
We were able to identify 275 units that conduct research, and 496 individuals in professional series 

positions as having published since 1995. Science continues to be “the foundation for the work of the Service.” 

Regions 7, 1, and 4 were the most consistent in reflecting this philosophy on their public documents. Their websites 

and fact sheets generally underscore their commitment to science by offering “science” or “project” pages. 

It seemed that most of this work is aimed at using data to meet a specific management objective or goal. 

The public documents for Loxahatchee NWR are typical in suggesting that FWS managers believe research and 

monitoring provides a necessary foundation for successfully managing the unit. 

Regions 9, 5, 3 and 6 were the most consistent in stating that the research functions of the FWS are now 

part of the U.S. Geological Survey. Their websites and fact sheets generally provide a link to the U.S. Geological 

Survey Biological Resources Division’s website or, in the case of Patuxent Research Refuge, to the Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center’s website. Because the public documents do not consistently underscore the science 

commitment of the FWS, it is difficult to develop a sense from the public documents that science is an important 

part of the agency’s management philosophy. 

Our analysis of all the documents suggests that individual organizational units view themselves as 

conducting research to meet management obligations. Not all organizational unit web pages and fact sheets succeed 

in describing the research conducted, but taken together it is clear that the management needs of the FWS are being 

met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although it is apparent that for larger scale research the FWS relies 

on the U.S. Geological Survey and others for many investigations, the web pages and fact sheets are neither 

consistent across the regions nor between regions and headquarters. The overall impression is that the FWS conducts 

studies to meet management needs and larger scale scientific research is the business of someone else. 

13
 
Chapter 3 

Research Positions 

The objective for this task was to identify positions that are creating knowledge or conducting research, and 

to determine whether or not these position descriptions reflect a research capacity in the FWS. To that end, we used 

a query of the Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS), interviews with Regional Personnel Officers, and analyses 

of position descriptions of select FWS employees to determine which positions had research-related content and 

what type of research content was present in these positions. The primary research strategy in addressing this 

objective was a content analysis of FWS position descriptions. The FPPS query and interviews were preliminary 

steps, which contributed to the content analysis. 

Methods 

FPPS Query 

Personnel in the FWS Department of Human Resources queried the FPPS for us. The query provided us 

with a database of information for all individuals in the FWS who are in professional series positions (i.e., we 

excluded personnel in administrative, technical, clerical, and trade/labor positions). The database included name, 

title, series, grade, pay plan, position number, organizational code, birth date, gender, service computation date, 

functional classification, educational level, supervisory level, work schedule, tenure, and servicing personnel office. 

We did not analyze this personnel data extensively; rather, we used the data to facilitate the other aspects of this 

task. We derived questions for our interviews with the personnel officers from the personnel data. We used the 

personnel data in selecting a sample of position descriptions for the content analysis. 

Interviews with Regional Personnel Officers 

We generated a list of questions for our interviews with the Regional Personnel Officers (RPOs) including 

questions about characterizing the work of the region, classification of positions, and research within the region. We 

first interviewed the RPO for Region 6, and used his responses to edit our initial questions (Table 3.1). 

We contacted the RPOs to arrange telephone interviews with them or delegates of their choice. Most RPOs 

opted to take part in the interview personally rather than delegate the responsibility, and some chose to include one 

or more classification specialists in the conversation. The responses to the interview questions that are most 

pertinent to the objective of this study are summarized here. 

Consistently, the RPOs expressed the view that their region had characteristics (such as geography, 

habitats, or species) that set them apart from other regions. They frequently cited either the types or numbers of 

endangered species present as being a contributing factor to the uniqueness of their region. Other factors cited in 

response to this question include climate differences and interactions with outside entities such as Tribal nations or 

other countries. They suggested that these differences may affect research productivity and that some species and 

habitats may be more conducive to study or generate more research interest than others. 

We were particularly interested in functional classification 11, which denotes the primary work content of a 

position as research and we used the FPPS database to identify individuals in each region with this functional 

classification. In our interviews with the Regional Personnel Officers, we asked them specifically about positions in 

their regions with a functional classification of 11(6 of the 8 regions had personnel with this classification). Many of 

them expressed surprise to learn that any positions in their region were classified as 11. We pressed the RPOs to 

verify the accuracy of these classifications, and in every region they judged the majority of these classifications to be 

inaccurate. We asked about the use of the Research Grade Evaluation Guide (RGEG) in personnel actions, and all of 

the RPOs indicated that they rarely used it. [As a side note, within the sample of position descriptions we analyzed 

14
 
Table 3.1. Interview questions asked of regional personnel officers. 

decreasing; series shifts?) 

Research questions 

grade level? 

about XX position descriptions. 

General questions 

1. Describe your region from a personnel perspective. How is the work done in Region X different from the work done 

in other regions? (e.g. some regions have more WMDs than others or different types of species that induce more 

research interest.)What is unique about this region in terms of personnel? 

2. Any trends occurring in the professional series positions? (e.g., more or fewer professionals; grades increasing/ 

3. Is there a goal supervisory ratio in your region? Is the goal realized in the region? 

4. We see about X code 4 supervisors in the professional series roster [Code 2 (official supervisor) and Code 4 

(performs some supervisor functions, such as a team leader, but not the full range required to be officially titled a 

supervisor)] What are the circumstances under which you are using Code 4? 

5. I see X titles in Region X using “lead” in the job title designating team lead’s in the professional series roster. What 

is the situation with regard to the use of team leads in this region? Throughout the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

6. What’s the region’s biggest challenge in terms of professional series classification? 

7. How accurate do you think the educational level coding is in FPPS (Federal Personnel and Payroll System)? 

1. There are X employees in the roster who are assigned a functional research code (11). Do they go through peer 

review panels for promotions or does classification just use the RGE (Research Grade Evaluation) Guide to determine 

2. Aside from those employees with a functional code of research (11), to your knowledge, are there any other 

employees doing research in your region? Any ideas on how they might be identified through the Personnel system? 

3. What is the Fish and Wildlife Service policy (or Region X policy) on describing research activities in PDs? 

4. How standardized are professional series PDs? 

5. Are there any key words we should look for in PDs that might be suggestive of someone involved in research 

activities? 

6. Are there particular entities (org codes) doing more research than others? 

7. How accurate do you think the PDs are? 

8. Do you think the other regions are similarly situated in regards to the extent of research going on, the ability to 

determine who is involved in research work, how the PDs are written, etc.? 

Request for position descriptions 

Part of this study involves an analysis of position descriptions between those of employees known to be doing research 

and a matched set of those where we do not know if they are doing research or not. For this purpose we need to obtain 

(discussed below), only one indicated that the RGEG had been used in classification. That position description was 

for a geneticist in Region 2.] While we were discussing classification issues with the RPOs, we asked them if they 

knew of any policy in the FWS or within their region regarding describing research activities in position 

descriptions. They unanimously agreed that there was no policy regarding this issue. Two of the RPOs added the 

comment to their response that research was not part of the mission of FWS, and that as a consequence no such 

policy would be necessary. 

We asked the RPOs to identify other employees or organizational units doing research in their region. Their 

responses to these inquiries most commonly suggested that research is more likely to be done by individuals in 

fisheries, fish health, or technology centers. Two interview questions asked about identifying employees doing 

research through the personnel system or position descriptions. The RPOs were skeptical that researchers could be 

identified through either of those methods. Several keywords were suggested by the RPOs, which we used later as 

part of our content analysis of position descriptions. 

Although the RPOs were in agreement on many of the questions we asked, they gave a broader range of 

answers to our questions regarding standardization and accuracy of position descriptions. The responses to the 

question about standardization ranged from there being so much standardization as to create the potential for 

overuse to there being little to no standardization of position descriptions. Their opinions about the accuracy of 

position descriptions ranged from very accurate to not at all accurate. 

15
 
Analysis of Position Descriptions 

The primary aim for the research position component of the overall study was to identify positions that are 

creating knowledge or conducting research. Evaluation of required knowledge, skills, and abilities that relate to 

research provides information relevant to assessing the capacity within FWS for conducting research. The analysis 

of position descriptions gained in importance once we realized that the other personnel data obtained in the FPPS 

query, which we initially anticipated would be most useful, would not provide much of the information needed for 

analysis. 

Description of Content Analysis 

We opted to use the method commonly known as content analysis because of its systematic approach and 

applicability to textual information (Riffe and others, 1998). Content analysis can be used to evaluate content at two 

distinct levels: manifest and latent. The manifest content of a document is the surface level content and is commonly 

measured with counts of predetermined keywords. Latent content refers to the content meaning derived from text by 

an individual. In this case, we developed a predetermined set of research related content categories and determined 

whether or not there was content from each category represented in each position description. We conducted 

analyses of both manifest and latent content on a sample of FWS position descriptions. 

Three caveats are important to note at this point, First, it must be emphasized that the focus of this analysis 

was the position descriptions, not the positions. Our analysis is directly applicable to the work of employees of the 

FWS only insofar as the position descriptions are representative of the actual work done by these employees. Our 

interviews of the RPOs indicate that we may need to interpret these results with some reservation because of 

questions about accuracy of position descriptions in describing the work done. This concern was reinforced by the 

fact that only 62% of survey respondents believed their position descriptions were accurate (see Neilson and others, 

2005). 

Second, subjective judgment is an inherent part of content analysis. We took the necessary measures to 

ensure that coding was as reliable as possible. The background of all three coders who coded the latent content of 

the position descriptions is in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Although these coders are well versed with 

research methodology, they are unfamiliar with the particular sciences relevant to FWS. We found that some of the 

wording in the position descriptions was too vague to indicate research clearly and applied the interpretation of the 

categories as strictly as possible. As a result, there may be more research content in the position descriptions than we 

actually coded. What was unclear to us may have been crystal clear to coders with backgrounds in Wildlife or 

Fishery Biology who, had they been given the opportunity, may have coded the content differently. 

Third, we initially intended to conduct analyses of the manifest and latent content of the entire set of 

position descriptions we sampled (the sampling procedure is described below). We did conduct analysis of the 

manifest content for the entire sample; however, due to the labor-intensive nature of the coding of the latent content, 

we could only code a subset of our original sample (Table 3.2). The smaller sample was not problematic overall, but 

did create some difficulties in interpreting within region analyses. 

Selection and Sampling of Position Descriptions 

We used the list of known published researchers generated from a search of the Web of Science database 

(Chapter 2) as the basis for selecting position descriptions. We requested position descriptions for all of the known 

published researchers. Additionally, we used the FPPS report to identify a matching set of individuals who were not 

on the list of known publishers. We treated the list of published researchers as a known group; we knew they were 

doing research. The matched sample may have been doing research, but they were not publishing (as far as we 

knew) and we consequently used that group as a proxy for non-researchers because there was no way for us to 

definitively identify non-researchers. We selected our matched sample to be as similar as possible to the published 

individuals in occupational classification, grade level, educational level and location. We included location as a 

matching variable based on our interviews with the RPOs. We did not match on Functional Classification because 

the interviews with personnel officers indicated that most of the classifications of 11 (Research) were unreliable. We 

used a matched sample because that strategy allowed us to identify characteristics in position descriptions that 

distinguish between individuals publishing research and those not publishing, while controlling for potential effects 

of occupational classification, grade level, and educational level. 

16
 
Table 3.2. Sample sizes for content analyses. 

Number of position Number of employees in Number of position 

FPPS report descriptions sampled descriptions coded for 

(manifest analysis) content (latent analysis) 

All FWS 3729 761 247 
 

(less Region 4) (20% of FWS) (7% of FWS) 
 

(32% of FWS sample) 
 

Region 1 1142 217 43 
 

(19% of Region 1) (4% of Region 1)
 

(20% of R1 sample) 
 

Region 2 420 68 31 
 

(16% of Region 2) (7% of Region 2)
 

(46% of R2 sample) 
 

Region 3 465 61 29 
 

(13% of Region 3) (6% of Region 3)
 

(48% of R3 sample) 
 

Region 5 449 95 32 
 

(21% of Region 5) (7% of Region 5)
 

(34% of R5 sample) 
 

Region 6 561 122 38 
 

(22% of Region 6) (7% of Region 6)
 

(31% of R6 sample) 
 

Region 7 321 105 36 
 

(33% of Region 7) (11% of Region 7) 
 

(34% of R7 sample) 
 

Region 9 371 93 35 
 

(25% of Region 9) (9% of Region 9)
 

(38% of R9 sample) 
 

At the end of our phone interviews with the RPOs, we explained to them why we needed the position 

descriptions and requested that they provide us with the position descriptions for the individuals on the list that we 

had sent them about a week after their phone interviews. All of the regions complied with our request. However, 

because of ongoing changes in the personnel in the Region 4 Personnel Office, we did not receive the Region 4 

position descriptions in time for them to be included in our analyses. 

When we received the position descriptions, we examined them to remove any duplicates. Although we 

may have missed some duplicates, we did attempt to identify and eliminate them so that we analyzed a unique set of 

position descriptions. We used a scanner to create electronic versions of the position descriptions and then proofread 

the electronic versions for accuracy. 

The sample of position descriptions we coded contained the following occupational classifications: 170 

(History); 193 (Archaeology); 301 (Miscellaneous Administration and Program); 401 (General Biological Science); 

408 (Ecology); 430 (Botany); 454 (Rangeland Management); 480 (Fish and Wildlife Administration); 482 (Fishery 

Biology); 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management); 486 (Wildlife Biology); 701 (Veterinary Medical Science); 1,320 

(Chemistry); and 1530 (Statistician). The majority of position descriptions were from 401, 482 and 486 

classifications. 

Manifest Content Analysis Procedure 

We identified keywords to use in the manifest content analysis based on the terms suggested by the RPOs, 

by reviewing the position descriptions of a small sample of known published FWS employees from Region 6 and 

handful of the research position descriptions in the U. S. Geological Survey. We looked for any words that might be 

indicative of research. We initially identified over 100 potential keywords. We used the small sample of Region 6 

position descriptions to evaluate all the potential keywords and selected those that appeared in a minimum of 75% of 

the sampled position descriptions. The 10 keywords used in the manifest analysis are the following: analysis, 

evaluating, evaluation, methods, monitoring, national (not in a proper name such as the name of legislation or of a 

refuge), problems, research, scientific, and studies. 

17
 
We used the content analysis software NVivoTM to conduct a word count within each position description 

for each of the 10 keywords. We analyzed these data, specifically comparing the results of the word counts for the 

position descriptions of published individuals to the counts for the descriptions of non-published individuals, to 

determine if any of these keywords were characteristic of research position descriptions. 

Latent Content Analysis Procedure 

We developed a set of content categories derived in part from the research checklist used in the attitudinal 

survey component of this study (Chapter 4). We augmented this list with other categories we believed to be relevant 

to research, and added a list of research-related knowledge, skill, and ability requirements. Several members of our 

team reviewed and edited the initial list of categories. This internal review panel included an individual with 

expertise in position descriptions and two individuals who had previously worked in the FWS and were, therefore, 

uniquely qualified to assess the content of the coding categories. Our list includes seven primary categories of 

content, which break down into 27 total sub-categories. The seven primary categories are research, planning, 

execution, analysis, dissemination, application, collaboration, and research-related knowledge, skill, and ability 

requirements. The complete list of the categories, sub-categories and their definitions is provided in Table 3.3. 

Because of the subjective nature of the judgments involved in conducting a latent content analysis, we 

incorporated a reliability check into our methods. We planned to have all of the position descriptions in the original 

sample coded by the primary coder with a sub-sample of the position descriptions coded by a secondary coder. We 

could then compare the coding values of the primary and secondary coder to determine how reliably the primary 

coder applied the content categories to the content of the position descriptions. Due to practical considerations, we 

were unable to code the entire sample of position descriptions. We coded the reliability sample for each region 

instead. So in this case, instead of only a sub-sample of the position descriptions being coded by a secondary coder, 

all of the position descriptions coded by the primary coder were coded by a secondary coder as well. 

We determined the size of the reliability sample using a formula provided in Riffe, Lacy and Fico (1998). 

We used the random selection function of SPSSTM to select a sub-sample of position descriptions from within each 

region. We used regional level data to calculate the reliability sample (Table 3.2). 

Before beginning the actual coding, the coders trained themselves by studying and discussing the content 

categories, coding a sample of position descriptions, and calculating their inter-coder agreement. The coders did not 

begin the actual coding of position descriptions until their inter-coder agreement exceeded the minimally acceptable 

standard of 80% (Riffe and others, 1998). 

When both coders completed the coding for a region, we calculated inter-coder agreement for the region 

overall and for each position description. For any position description on which the coders’ level of agreement was 

less than 80%, the coders discussed the coding of that description and reached a consensus about what the codes 

should be. Once the coders finalized their consensus coding for a region, we recalculated the overall inter-coder 

agreement. The average initial intercoder agreement was 90% (range = 85–94), and the average consensus intercoder agreement was 92% (range = 90–96). We also calculated kappa for each content category within each region. 

Kappa is an additional measure of inter-coder reliability that takes into account the possibility for chance agreement 

(Riffe and others, 1998). The majority of the kappa values were significant, indicating a sufficient level of 

agreement: The kappa values that were lower and non-significant most often occurred in content categories that 

were rarely used by the coders. The agreement levels along with the kappa values are provided for each region in the 

Regional Appendices (Appendix 3A). We used the primary coder’s data as modified by the consensus discussions in 

the analyses. 

18
 
Category 

did not personally collect the data or 

is otherwise not using original data. 

formulate hypothesesa 

a 

a 

a 

a 

actionsa 

a 

formulate decision documentsa 

analysis 

Definition 

by a specific project 

Designing the format of a study or the 

projects to be pursued; this may include 

Compiling data into a database 

surveying people) 

some type of intervention is applied) 

of a plant or animal 

comparison to a standard 

Writing up results of a data set into a report 

journals 

Presenting research in professional forums 

Statements, Environmental Assessments, or 

Create a new approach to data collection, 

Table 3.3. Latent content category terms. 

(1) Research planning 

(2) Research execution 

(3) Research analyses 

(4) Research dissemination 

(5) Research application 

Note: Research application can be 

used in situations in which a person 

Sub category 

(1) Develop research question/ 

(2) Design research study/data 

collection method

(3) Write research project proposal

(4) Develop research program/Set 

research agenda 

(1) Collect data 

(2) Organize and manage data/database 

(3) Conduct surveys 

(4) Conduct studies/experiments 

(5) Conduct inventories/field studies 

(6) Conduct monitoring 

(7) Conduct literature review 

(1) Analyze data

(1) Write reports from data

(2) Write articles for publication from 

research data 

(3) Present research in professional 

forums (conferences, meetings, 

symposia, etc.) 

(1) Use research-based information to 

evaluate or inform management 

(2) Use research-based information to 

inform policy-makers

(3) Use research-based information to 

(4) Develop new techniques/ 

technologies/methods for research or 

Creating a specific question to be addressed 

process by which a study will be conducted 

Writing a research project proposal 

Identifying information needs, or research 

determine which projects will be funded 

Participating in data collection for a 

research project 

Participating in conducting a survey type 

research project (i.e., public use, attitudes, 

Participating in conducting a research study 

(i.e., a non-survey study; a study in which 

Participating in a count of the current status 

Participating in a measure of the 

performance of some indicator against a 

standard; this category may apply to 

projects addressing a specific characteristic 

that more likely than not will require 

Conducting a literature review 

Analyzing data using qualitative or 

quantitative method 

Writing research based articles for 

publication in (professional or scientific) 

(conferences, meetings, symposia, etc.) 

Use research-based information to evaluate 

or inform management actions 

Use research-based information to inform 

policy makers. The document must indicate 

a specific recipient of the information 

Use research-based information to 

formulate Environmental Impact 

other decision documents 

or research design 

19
 
Category Definition 

(1) Collaborate with non-FWS 

personnel on research projectsa 

employees on research projectsa 

research 

proposals 

This position requires knowledge/skill/ 

data analysis 

methods 

This position requires knowledge/skill/ 

methods ability in research methods, including data 

This position requires knowledge/skill/ 

software 

This position requires knowledge/skill/ 

preparation 

based on research for dissemination or 

publication 

Sub category 

(6) Research collaboration 

Working with any one outside of the FWS 

on a research project in any capacity 

(2) Supervise or coordinate other FWS Supervising or coordinating among other 

FWS employees in any aspect of the 

research process 

(3) Identify sources of funding for Identifying sources of funding for research 

(4) Write research funding proposals Writing research grant or other funding 

(7) Knowledge/skill/ability required 

(1) Knowledge/skill/ability – statistical 

ability in data analysis techniques and 

(2) Knowledge/skill/ability – research 

collection techniques and study design 

(3) Knowledge/skill/ability – statistical 

ability in use of statistical software 

packages 

(4) Knowledge/skill/ability – document 

ability to write reports, papers, manuscripts 

a 

This category reflects an item included on the list of activities that constitute involvement in research on the FWS survey. 

Results 

Manifest Content Analysis 

We asked four questions regarding the link between keywords and publication status (published or not) of 

the individual in the position. We analyzed the data at an aggregate level (all FWS) as well as at regional levels. Our 

interest in these analyses was to determine if someone looking at this relationship within a particular region would 

come to the same conclusion as someone looking at this relationship within another region. We were not particularly 

interested in the degree to which this relationship differs across regions (i.e., is the relationship stronger in Region 3 

than it is in Region 5). Therefore, rather than conducting an omnibus test to detect differences among regions, we 

decided to treat each region as a separate data set and conduct separate analyses within each set. 

For all of these analyses, we believed that the implication of making a Type II error was much more 

problematic than making a Type I error within the context of this study. This component of the study is exploratory 

in nature and we believe that some leeway in statistical interpretation is acceptable. The consequences of Type I 

errors in this situation are negligible. It is highly unlikely that a significant relationship between a keyword and 

publication status, even if found in error, would have any impact on the science capacity of the FWS or even on the 

manner in which position descriptions are written. If the FWS did decide to revise position descriptions, it is likely 

that the agency would evaluate the PDs more comprehensively. Finally, we anticipated that the effect size of the 

relationship between these variables would be quite small. Although it seems that the sample size is more than 

adequate overall, it is barely adequate for detecting a small effect size (Murphy and Myors, 1998). In fact, at the 

regional level, the sample size is insufficient to detect any relationship smaller than a moderate effect size. Any 

attempt to minimize Type I error, such as an adjustment to the family-wise error rate, would further decrease 

statistical power (Murphy and Myors, 1998). For the reasons listed above, we opted to evaluate each statistical test 

with a P-value of .05, even though doing so is contradictory to what most people understand as being the traditional 

approach to hypothesis testing. The complete results of these analyses are available in Appendix 3B. 

20
 
1.	 Is there a relationship between the presence (or absence) of each keyword in a position description and 

publication status? We used the Chi square measure of association for this analysis. At the aggregate 

level, the presence of four of the keywords (analysis, monitoring, research, and scientific) was 

significantly related to publication status. However in each of these cases the effect size (phi) was 

small indicating a weak relationship. Interestingly, of these four words only the term “research” had 

significant associations with publication at the regional level; “research” was related to publication 

status in regions 3 and 6. The words “evaluation” and “studies” showed significant relationships with 

publication status only in Region 3. 

2.	 Is there a relationship between the sum of each keyword appearing at least once in a position 

description (range = 0–10) and publication status? We used a t-test to evaluate this relationship. The 

two primary assumptions underlying use of a t-test are normality in distribution of the data and 

homogeneity of variance. We were not concerned about the normality issue because the t-test is robust 

to violation of this assumption when the sample size is large (Hays, 1988). Levene’s test for equality of 

variances indicate that for this analysis we can assume equal variance for the two groups (published 

and non-published) at the aggregate as well as regional level. The results of t-test analyses indicate that 

the sum of the keywords was significantly related to publication at the aggregate level, as well as in 

Region 3. 

3.	 Is there a relationship between the frequency of each keyword in a position description and publication 

status? We checked these data for equal variances for the two groups (published and non-published). 

When Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated that the two groups were not equal we used 

Welch’s t-test for unequal variances, otherwise we used a series of one-way analysis of variance 

(ANOVA) tests to determine whether or not an individual had published was related to the keyword 

frequency. At the aggregate level, publication status showed small but significant relationships with 

the frequencies of five of the keywords (analysis, monitoring, research, scientific, studies). The 

aggregate results were not consistent with regional results. However, of the five keywords, three of 

them had significant relationships with publication when analyzed at the regional level (analysis – 

Regions 5 and 7; research – Regions 1 and 6; scientific – Regions 6 and 7). Additionally, two 

keywords demonstrated a significant relationship at the regional level (evaluation – Region 3; national 

– Region 5) but not at the aggregate level. 

4.	 Is there a relationship between the sum of the frequencies of all keywords in a position description (all 

keyword frequencies summed) and publication status? We used ANOVA to evaluate the relation 

between the grand sum of keywords and publication status. We calculated Levene’s test for equality of 

variances because homogeneity of variance is a critical assumption of the ANOVA statistic. The 

variance for the aggregate FWS was unequal and therefore we calculated a Welch’s t-test. Variances 

were sufficiently similar for all of the regions to permit the use of ANOVA. The relationship was 

significant at the aggregate level and at the regional level for Regions 5 and 6. 

We can identify some keywords in position descriptions that distinguish between people who have 

published and people who have not published, but only for some FWS regions. The keywords that distinguish 

between position descriptions of publishers and non-publishers differ across regions. A number of keywords showed 

significant relationship with publication at the aggregate level. However, in these cases, the effect size was small. It 

is likely that we found statistical significance for some of these keywords at the aggregate level as an effect of the 

large sample size, which increases the statistical power of our tests. 

We conclude that evaluation of the surface level content of the position descriptions is likely to be an 

unreliable method for identifying positions involved in conducting research, particularly if one is comparing 

positions across regions. Conducting a closer examination of the content of the position descriptions provided us 

with more direct and more detailed information about the research content of the positions. 

Latent Content Analysis 

We calculated the frequencies for each content category. We also conducted Chi square analyses to 

determine if there were relationships between category content and publication status, GS-level, or occupational 

classification. The overall latent results, at both the aggregate level, for all of FWS-less Region 4, and at the regional 

level, are provided in Appendix 3C. Breakdowns for the overall FWS and for each region are provided separately in 

the Regional Appendices (Appendix 3A). For some of the analyses at the regional level, specifically the analyses of 

the relation between content categories and GS-level or occupational classification, the sample sizes within cells are 

too small to provide statistically reliable results. We provide frequencies at the regional level for the interest of the 

21
 
regions, but we are unable to determine statistical relationships between GS level and latent content or between 

occupational classification and latent content. 

Of all of the information that the latent content analysis yielded, the most useful is the frequencies with 

which each content category appeared in the sample of position descriptions. A list of the categories and their 

frequencies for the overall FWS, in order of most to least frequent, is provided in Table 3.4. The most frequent 

categories coded in the position descriptions were knowledge, skill, and ability for research methods (7–2) and data 

analysis (7–1), confirming the presence within the FWS for conducting research. The third most frequent category, 

application of research information to management actions (5–1), supports the mission of the FWS as a management 

agency rather than a research agency. However, the fact that the next three most frequent content categories, 

designing studies (1–2), analyzing data (3–1), and collecting data (2–1), are all related to conducting research 

reinforces the contention of many in the FWS that, while basic research may not be part of their mission, applied 

research is an essential component of resource management. 

Table 3.4. Content categories organized by frequencies, number of position descriptions coded = 244. 

Coding category Present in PD Not present in PD 

(7–2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - research methods 117 (48) a 127 (52)a 


(7–1) Knowledge/kill/ability required - data analysis 104 (43) 140 (57) 


(5–1) Research application - management actions 103 (42) 141 (58) 


(1–2) Research planning - design study 96 (39) 148 (61) 


(3–1) Research analyses - analyze data 95 (39) 149 (61) 


(2–1) Research execution - collect data 93 (38) 151 (62) 


(2–5) Research execution - conduct inventories 82 (34) 162 (66) 


(6–1) Research collaboration - non-FWS 78 (32) 166 (68) 


(6–2) Research collaboration - supervision 59 (24) 185 (76) 


(7–4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - document preparation 58 (24) 186 (76) 


(4–1) Research dissemination - write reports 57 (23) 187 (77) 


(1–4) Research planning - develop research program 49 (20) 195 (80) 


(2–6) Research execution - conduct monitoring 46 (19) 198 (81) 


(2–2) Research execution - database management 29 (12) 215 (88) 


(4–2) Research dissemination - publication 28 (12) 216 (89) 


(7–3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - statistical software 27 (11) 217 (89) 


(4–3) Research dissemination - presentation 21 (9) 223 (91) 


(5–4) Research application - new techniques 21 (9) 223 (91) 


(1–3) Research planning - write proposal 12 (5) 232 (95) 


(2–4) Research execution - conduct studies/experiments 11 (5) 233 (96) 


(2–7) Research execution - conduct literature review 11 (5) 233 (96) 


(5–2) Research application - policy makers 9 (4) 235 (96) 


(5–3) Research application - decision documents 7 (3) 237 (97) 


(6–4) Research collaboration - write funding proposal 6 (3) 238 (98) 


(1–1) Research planning - develop question 4 (2) 240 (98) 


(6–3) Research collaboration - identify funding 3 (1) 241 (99) 


(2–3) Research execution - conduct surveys 2 (1) 242 (99) 


a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

At the other end of the spectrum, the content category that was coded the least frequently was conducting 

surveys (2–3). This is probably the result of the category definition. We defined surveys as being targeted towards 

people. There were many position descriptions that included statements regarding conducting wildlife surveys; those 

statements were coded as conducting inventories/field studies (2–5). Two of the infrequent content categories dealt 

with obtaining research funding, (6–3) and (6–4). Given that the emphasis of the FWS is on management rather than 

research, it is not surprising that these content areas would occur only rarely in position descriptions. Similarly, 

content category (1–1) was defined as defining a research question or formulating hypotheses, and would be more 

likely to occur in a position description of someone who was conducting basic rather than applied research. 

Due to some sparseness in our tables, we used the Fisher’s Exact test to evaluate the results of these 

analyses. Our analyses to determine if each content category related to publication status yielded significant results 

for the eight categories listed in Table 3.5. Specific statistical information regarding these relationships is provided 

in the “All FWS” portion of the regional appendix (3A). The presence of these content categories in a position 

description is associated with an increase in the likelihood that an individual has published. This analysis also 

22
 
provides a form of validation for our content categories. Our intent was for the categories to capture research-related 

content. Our assumptions that the categories and coding would capture what we intended are supported when 

categories that have content specifically related to the process of conducting and publishing research relate 

statistically to whether or not a person has published. 

Similarly, our categories contain content at varied levels of complexity. We therefore expected and 

confirmed that some of the content categories would show differential relationships with GS level. In other words, 

we expected the proportion of position descriptions containing a given category to vary across GS levels. The 

sample of position descriptions we coded contained position descriptions at GS grades 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, 

with the majority of descriptions concentrated at grades 11, 12, and 13. Due to sparseness in the tables, we 

conducted analyses only with data for GS levels 11 – 14. Even with this reduction, some categories occurred too 

infrequently to permit statistical analysis. The nine categories in Table 3.6 related significantly to GS level. 

Table 3.5. Categories with significant relationships to publication status. 

(1–2) Research planning - design study 
 

(3–1) Research analyses - analyze data 
 

(4–1) Research dissemination - write reports 
 

(5–1) Research application - management actions 
 

(6–1) Research collaboration - non-FWS 
 

(7–1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - data analysis 
 

(7–2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - research methods 
 

(7–3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - statistical software 
 

Notes. Categories listed appeared with greater frequency in the position descriptions of published versus non-published individuals. 

Table 3.6. Categories with significant relationships to GS-Level in the range of GS 11, 12, 13, 14. 

(1–2) Research planning - design study 
 

(2–1) Research execution - collect data 
 

(2–5) Research execution - conduct inventories 
 

(2–6) Research execution - conduct monitoring 
 

(3–1) Research analyses - analyze data 
 

(4–1) Research dissemination - write reports 
 

(4–2) Research dissemination - publication 
 

(7–1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - data analysis 
 

(7–4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - document preparation 
 

Table 3.7. Categories with significant relationships to occupational classification. 

(1–2) Research planning - design study 


(2–1) Research execution - collect data 


(2–5) Research execution - conduct inventories 


(2–6) Research execution - conduct monitoring 


(3–1) Research analyses - analyze data 


(4–1) Research dissemination - write reports 


(4–2) Research dissemination - publication 


(5–4) Research application - new techniques 


(6–1) Research collaboration - non-FWS 


(7–1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - data analysis 


(7–2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - research methods 


Due to the varied nature of positions in the FWS, we expected and confirmed that some of the content 

categories would show differential relationships with occupational classification. The occupational classifications 

differed greatly in terms of the work conducted by individuals in each classification. We expected that each content 

category would not be equally applicable to all occupations. Due to sparseness in the distribution of the data, we 

conducted analyses only with data for the most common Occupational Classifications: 401 (General Biological 

Science; 480 (Fish and Wildlife Administration); 482 (Fishery Biology); 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management); and 

486 (Wildlife Biology). 

23
 
Even with this reduction, some categories occurred too infrequently to permit statistical analysis. The 11 

categories listed in Table 3.7 were significantly associated with occupational classification. More detailed 

information on both the GS level and the occupational classification analyses are included in the “All FWS” portion 

of the regional appendix (Appendix 3A). 

Discussion 

We conclude from the information we obtained from the Research Positions task that while clearly there 

are positions in the FWS that involve conducting research, there is no simple and direct method of identifying them. 

We found no data in the FPPS report to enable identification of researchers. In fact, we learned that a person who 

used the functional classification for research to pinpoint researchers would likely be misled. Interviews with the 

Regional Personnel Officers suggested that there was no easy way to identify researchers and that differences among 

regions may prevent such identification. Similarly, the word count method of the manifest content analysis yielded 

results that varied across regions. 

The analysis of the latent content of the position descriptions provided useful information regarding 

research-related work done by FWS employees. Nearly half of the position descriptions we coded indicated a 

requirement for knowledge, skill and ability related to research methods and data analysis. However, we still lack a 

direct means to identify researchers. Many of the position descriptions of non-published individuals contained 

research-related content, so looking for publications is not a fool-proof way to identify researchers. Research content 

was not restricted to the position descriptions of a particular GS level or a particular set of occupational 

classifications. Even within classifications, some position descriptions would indicate research content and others 

would not. Our best guess, given the information we have, is that factors of the level of experience, capability, and 

possibly personal interest converge with occupational type, culture of region, and location to create opportunity to 

conduct and publish research (see Chapter 4 regarding attitudes and expectations of employees). 

Although we cannot offer a direct method for identification of researchers within the FWS, we can state 

that the content of the position descriptions clearly indicates that research, primarily research directed toward 

answering questions important for management, is being conducted by some FWS employees as part of their jobs. 

Given the content of the position descriptions, we assert with confidence that the FWS is an agency with substantial 

research capability. 

24
 
Chapter 4 

Survey of Employees in Professional Series Positions within the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Introduction 

The objective for this task was to ascertain the attitudes and perceptions of employees involved in research 

regarding the obstacles and opportunities for research. We designed the survey to answer the following questions: 

What is the nature of current research assignments? What resources are available for research studies? How are 

research results reported? How are research products used by managers? What are the obstacles and opportunities 

for conducting research? 

Methods 

Participants 

Our goal was to select a sample of employees who had job titles and grades that made them candidates to 

conduct research. We queried the Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) for FWS employees and limited this 

query to professional positions (including biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, economists, etc); this procedure 

eliminated administrative, technical, clerical, and other positions. Subsequently, we created a database of all FWS 

employees who were obtained from this query. We defined this database of employees as our population (N = 

3,939); this is the total population of FWS employees who hold positions that might allow them to conduct research. 

We used standard probability statistics to determine that a sample size of 843 employees would allow us to say with 

95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects would be plus or minus 3% for the 

overall survey. In survey research, it is common to have a response rate in the range of 65%; therefore, in order to 

obtain at least 843 respondents, and to make sure our completed sample was representative of the population, we 

administered the survey to at least 1,297 individuals. 

We also wanted to ensure that the eight FWS regions (Regions: 1–7, and 9) were proportionately 

represented in the survey sample. We stratified the random sample so that the number of participants in the survey 

sample from each region represented the proportion that each region makes up of the study population. We 

calculated the percentage of employees that each region contributed to the entire study population. We established 

parameters within SPSStm so that the program would randomly select a percentage of employees from each region 

that corresponds to the region’s percentage of the study population. For example, Region 1 makes up approximately 

25% of the total study population of potential FWS researchers. We used the SPSStm software to randomly select 353 

employees from Region 1 so that employees from this region would make up approximately 25% of the study 

sample. Once we made certain that the appropriate percentage of participants from each region was represented in 

the study sample, we ended up with a sample size of 1,392. 

In addition to the stratified random sample of potential FWS researchers, we identified a group of FWS 

employees who had published at least one article in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal since 1995 while they were 

employees of the FWS (see Chapter 2). This search process resulted in 496 names. Out of this group of “known” 

researchers, we included in our study sample those who were in professional series positions and for whom we had 

email addresses (n = 471). Adding the known researchers to the random sample of 1,392 professional series 

employees (Table 4.1) resulted in a total sample size of 1,863. 

25
 
Table 4.1. Description of sampling design. 

Region 1 

Region 2 

Region 3 

Region 4 

Region 5 

Region 6 

Region 7 

Region 9 

Known researchers 

353 25 

157 11 

149 11 

214 15 

132 10 

176 13 

93 7 

118 9 

Total = 1,392 

471 

# of individuals receiving the survey % of overall study sample 

Total sample size = 1,863 

Survey Development 

Our objective for the survey instrument was to ask questions that would ascertain the attitudes and 

perceptions of employees involved in research regarding: (1) the nature of their research assignments, (2) the 

resources available for their research activities, (3) how their research results are reported, (4) how their research 

results are used, (5) both the obstacles and the opportunities for conducting research, and (6) the level of satisfaction 

they experienced associated with working in a research capacity at the FWS. We wrote a number of questions to 

map onto these objectives. Two pre-tests of the survey instrument were conducted to improve the survey. 

The first pre-test of the survey instrument took the form of a review by FWS regional research coordinators 

who were asked to either pre-test the survey instrument themselves or identify someone in their region who would 

be willing to do so. Specifically, they were asked to serve as a pre-test panel by completing the questionnaire and 

recording the time required and noting any difficulties they encountered. There were also encouraged to provide 

specific feedback on any of the items encountered on the survey. Seven individuals served on the first pre-test panel, 

one from Region 5, five from Region 6, and one from Region 9. The second pre-test was given to five field office 

employees of the FWS. These employees were asked to complete the questionnaire, record the time required, and 

comment on any problems encountered. The results from these employees were examined to ascertain whether or 

not significant problems could be identified. Finally, three scientists outside of the USGS were asked to review the 

survey instrument regarding its content, structure, and wording. The comments and suggestions from both pre-tests 

and the peer review were incorporated into the final survey instrument. 

Procedures 

Dillman’s (2000) Tailored Design Method was followed to conduct the survey. Data were collected 

primarily via an interactive web page located on a server housed at the Fort Collins Science Center. Because most of 

the employees of the FWS have access to computers connected to the Internet, we followed Dillman’s method by 

sending email invitations to the FWS employees included in the study sample that asked them to access a web page 

to complete the questionnaire. We provided three follow-up invitations via email. Because we recognized that some 

remote FWS locations would not have adequate Internet access and anticipated that we might encounter technical 

difficulties in administering an Internet survey, we provided a back-up procedure. All of the study participants were 

given the options of either downloading a PDF version of the questionnaire or requesting that a hard copy of the 

questionnaire be mailed to them. Before the survey began, notification was given to employees indicating that the 

study was an official activity of the FWS. A total of 1,149 respondents (88.9%) used the Internet to complete the 

questionnaire, and 144 (11.1%) either requested a paper questionnaire or downloaded the PDF file and submitted the 

questionnaire through the mail. The overall response rate for this survey, including Internet and mail-back, was 

69.4% (n = 1,293; Table 4.2). 

26
 
Table 4.2. Description of sample by region of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Region 1 233 25.8 

Region 2 89 9.9 

Region 3 95 10.5 

Region 4 135 15 

Region 5 95 10.5 

Region 6 134 14.9 

Region 7 64 7.1 

Region 9 56 6.2 

Total = 901 

(+ 24 who left region blank) 

Known researchers 368 

# of individuals completing the survey % of study sample 

Total number of respondents = 1,293 

The average age of survey participants was 44.5 years, with a standard deviation of 8.8 years. Sixty-six 

percent of the sample was male. The participants have worked for the FWS an average of 12.8 years, with a standard 

deviation of 8.9 years. We asked participants to designate their highest completed academic degree and found that 

37% had completed a Bachelor’s Degree, 49% had completed a Master’s Degree, and 11% had completed a Doctor 

of Philosophy Degree. The other 3% of the sample completed another type of degree (e.g., High School diploma, 

Associate’s Degree, Medical Degree, etc.). We conducted a check for non-response bias by contacting via telephone 

a sample of 31 people who had not answered the survey (Text Box). Although there were minor differences among 

the demographic variables of the non-respondents and survey respondents, non-response bias was not detected. 

Follow-up phone interview 

We chose a sub-sample of our original study sample for a phone interview. The purpose of this phone interview was to examine 

whether non-response bias occurred for the survey. Non-response bias occurs when survey respondents provide different 

responses than would have been provided by sample members who did not respond. Fifty individuals, who were part of our 

study sample but did not respond to the survey, were randomly selected for a follow-up interview. Work phone numbers could 

only be obtained for 31of these 50 individuals, and ten of those phone numbers proved to be invalid (resulting a follow-up 

sample = 21). The non-respondents were slightly older (mean = 46.6) than the survey respondents (mean = 44.5) and more 

likely to be male (76%) than the survey respondents (66%). The average non-respondent was a GS12 with a higher average 

number of years of service (mean = 14.8) than the survey respondents (mean = 12.8). The non-respondents had a variety of 

occupational titles: fish and/or wildlife biologist (n = 9), refuge manager (n = 3), geneticist (n = 1), project leader (n = 1), fire 

management officer (n = 1), lead instructional specialist (n = 1), fisheries coordinator (n = 1), biology technician (n = 1), and 

others (n = 3). 

Of those who told us why they did not answer the questionnaire 52% (n = 11) said it was a matter of available time. Nineteen 

percent (n = 4) said that they felt the study survey was not relevant to them. One of the non-respondents (5%) had technical 

difficulty with the on-line survey. Finally, 24% (n = 5) of the non-respondents chose the “other” option for why they did not 

respond to the survey. Of the individuals who responded with the “other” option, one said that she did not respond because she 

was on maternity leave. Another did not respond because of problems with an office computer. Two said that they did not 

respond because they were skeptical about the usefulness of the survey results. A fifth non-respondent reported being told by a 

supervisor not to respond to the survey. 

It appears that no non-response bias occurred for the study survey. The fact that the average age of the non-respondents was 

slightly higher than for the survey respondents may raise red flags for some, possibly indicating that older individuals were less 

likely to participate in the survey because it was presented as an on-line survey. However, 19% (n = 4) of the non-respondents 

were in their early 30s. Furthermore, only one non-respondent said that the reason for not participating in the survey was due to 

technical difficulties and this individual was between 30 and 40 years of age. 

Although a higher percentage of males were in the non-respondent group, there is sparse literature about why men would be 

less likely to participate in the survey than women. Past researchers (Dillman and others, 2001) found that for household 

surveys, non-respondents were more likely to be female, and that a higher proportion of males respond to web questionnaires 

(http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers.htm). 

Another difference is higher average length of service in the FWS among the non-respondents. It is possible that individuals 

who have worked for the FWS for a long time were less likely to participate in the study survey. However, it is worth noting 

that out of the two non-respondents who said that they did not participate because they were skeptical that the results would be 

useful, one had 29 years of service and the other 12 years. 

27
 
We asked participants if their research responsibilities had changed in the past three years to include more 

or less research responsibility. We found that 9% moved to a job within the FWS that included more research 

responsibilities, 12% moved from a job within the FWS that included more research responsibilities, 13% remained 

in their current jobs but now have added research responsibilities, 9% remained in their current jobs but now have 

fewer research responsibilities, and 56% indicated that none of the options applied to them. From this information it 

can be concluded that approximately 21% of the survey participants reported that their research responsibilities had 

changed to include fewer research responsibilities, while 22% reported that their research responsibilities had 

changed to include more research responsibilities. 

Findings 

Overall Feedback on Survey 

At the end of the survey instrument all respondents were asked “Please tell us if you have any other comments, 

suggestions, or information.” Two hundred and fifty respondents answered this open-ended question (Appendix 

4A). The category with the most responses included comments regarding research in the FWS. That category 

accounted for 52% (n = 130) of the responses to this open-ended question. We subdivided the category into subgroups. Of those, the most responses were received about the necessity of research in the FWS. Twenty-one percent 

(n = 53) wrote about this aspect. They said things such as: “Fish and Wildlife should be involved in more 

monitoring activities,” “The FWS needs to upgrade their research,” “Encourage more research without jeopardizing 

our management responsibilities.” In a longer statement, one respondent made the following observations: 

I believe that data gathering through responsible research should be top priority for the FWS. The 

FWS cannot responsibly update the status of species or resources under our jurisdiction without 

appropriate data. Biologists should be directed and encouraged to coordinate, lead, and/or 

supervise research activities or research possibilities (e.g., partnerships, contracts, or grants) that 

would better assist the FWS in making properly-informed management and recovery decisions. 

Without the necessary tools and support, FWS biologists cannot provide the Agency with the best 

available information to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife resources. 

A similar set of sentiments was expressed about the resources needed to conduct research in the FWS 

(18%; n = 46). One respondent said, “I partner like crazy all the time, [to get research resources] but that is still not 

satisfactory, it isn't working.” A longer response highlighted specific concerns: 

Research is not important or emphasized by the RO. Participation in professional societies and 

symposia is not encouraged or supported. Individual Development Plans are left unsigned/ 

unapproved and in some cases been used as an excuse not to permit attendance/participation a 

professional conferences because they are not signed. It is critical and essential for those of us in 

natural resource management and research to stay in touch with our respective fields and all the 

information that is being generated today. I find the Service ultra conservative in its attitude and 

philosophy towards research and professional society participation of its employees. 

Other comments in this category addressed a conundrum of publicly-funded research: 

Research is needed, but we need to get our house in order. Adequate funding needs to be obtained 

for core activities before funding is spent on research activities. If core funding is not obtained 

how can a non-core activity like research even be considered? The research needs to be linked to a 

core activity so something useful could possibly come out of it. 

As one respondent said, “Increased base funding would be nice, but I am sure everyone says that!” 

Also in the category of research within the FWS we received responses about perceptions of the FWS as a 

research agency (10%; n = 24) and outside influences on research (6%; n = 15). About FWS as a research agency, 

one respondent observed the following: “Most positions in the Service are not oriented towards research. In general, 

we provide oversight of program funding, review of actions, and evaluate impacts.” Another said, “I have been told 

more than once that "FWS does not do research...." Some comments were very pointed: 

28
 
When I asked four other employees if they were filling out this survey, they laughed at me and 

said ‘research in FWS is a joke,’ and ‘why bother – they will just add a little spin control and it 

will all mean nothing because ‘everything is fine.” If you complain, you get passed over for 

advancement. FWS is amassing a large bobble-head collection of biologists under the current 

regime. 

The comments about outside influences on research were also sharp. As the observations of one respondent 

illustrate, this is a multi-level concern: 

Politics plays way too much of a role in our agency’s decisions and in funding from D.C. Hiring 

practices weigh heavily on nepotism and cronyism and most offices are very incestuous. The 

managers at every level are populated by climbers who show up to work to work on their next 

promotion, not working to recover listed species and their habitats. 

Others said, “the politicization of science is extremely disturbing, and I object to a non-scientist defining 

"bad science" for me.” “[T]he perception that BRD should do research... leaves the perception that the Service does 

‘hobby science.’” “Policies are instituted based on political influence, not biological facts.” One respondent summed 

the category this way: “A scientifically-based management agency without a R&D arm is left to accept new and 

evolving information w/n the context of political priorities, budgeting shortfalls, agency ownership issues which is 

not conducive to 'good science' or the scientific method.” 

Twenty-five percent of the comments we received were about the questionnaire itself or about the survey. 

Of those, 6% (n = 63) were generally positive, thanking us for conducting the survey and 4% (n = 11) were 

generally negative. The negative comments included statements such as “Research should be better defined for your 

survey purposes.” “Do not request any personal info.” “The website was slow and not user friendly.” A further 9% 

(n = 22) thought that the survey was not applicable to them. 

Typical statements from those respondents were the following: “My position does not involve conducting 

research; therefore most of the questions in this survey were left blank.” “Your questionnaire is not really geared to 

those who coordinate research.” Finally, 6% (n = 14) criticized specific questions on the survey instrument. 

Another main category of responses to the open-ended question concerned a respondent’s personal 

background. Three percent (n = 7) described their time in the job--most were recently employed by the FWS—and 

4% (n = 9) described experience they had received in other agencies. Ten percent of respondents (n = 24) presented 

information about the amount of research content in their jobs. For example, three people said: “I am more of a data 

manager than a researcher.” “I have just started in a job that has more research potential.” “I value the opportunity I 

have to apply that which I have learned through practical experience to policy and management decisions.” An 

additional 5% (n =13) discussed the type of research content in their jobs. One respondent said: “The research that 

I'm involved in project monitoring.” Another commented: “My current involvement with 'research' does not include 

field work; thus, my responses about 'research' covers not only field data-gathering, but data and related problem 

analysis (for example, computer-based analysis). Two percent (n = 6) made a variety of comments, such as “I hope 

to complete my PhD within a year” that we categorized as miscellaneous comments about respondent’s background. 

A general category of miscellaneous comments (9%; n = 23) included a statement that the agency should, “Fund 

research that is specific to questions that need to be answered to address management issues. Do not fund research 

projects that study the same issue over and over, or are simply written to obtain publications. Resources are too 

meager to support research for research's sake.” But many statements in this category simply said “none” or “good 

luck.” 

Type of Research Activities 

The question of what type of research activity employees are engaged in was the first to be addressed. A 

list of research activities was given to the respondents and they were asked to select any of the activities that they 

perform in their current positions with the FWS. Table 4.3 shows the list of research activities and the number of 

participants who answered that they engage in each of the activities as part of their current position. 

29
 
“no” 

396 (30.6%) 897 (69.4%) 

526 (40.7%) 767 (59.3%) 

485 (37.5%) 808 (62.5%) 

697 (53.9%) 596 (46.1%) 

557 (43.1%) 736 (56.9%) 

665 (51.4%) 628 (48.6%) 

actions 

672 (52.0%) 621 (48.0%) 

makers who develop plans or policies 

237 (18.3%) 1056 (81.7%) 

622 (48.1%) 671 (51.9%) 

causes of trends 

513 (39.7%) 780 (60.3%) 

final research output 

567 (43.9%) 726 (56.1%) 

n n 

n 

n 

n 

Frequency (#) Percentage (%) 

Said that ≥ 77 8 

Said that ≥ 217 22 

Said that ≥ 371 38 

 Table 4.3. Research activities claimed by respondents. 

# respondents answering # respondents answering 

“yes” 

Test hypotheses that further the state of scientific knowledge 

Design methods of data collection for research projects 

Write research project proposals 

Analyze data (statistically or qualitatively) 

Write reports of research results 

Collect data and use those data to evaluate particular management 

Collect data and use those data to inform managers or decisionCollect data and use those data to provide input to environmental 

impact statements 

Use monitoring data to detect environmental or ecological trends or 

Collaborate with individuals from other organizations (e.g., U.S. 

Geological Survey, universities) on a research project where they 

may be the Principal Investigator, but you write some portion of the 

Supervise or coordinate the efforts of other FWS employees who 

are engaged in one or more of the research activities listed above 

Notes. = 1293. These results reflect the entire survey sample, both Question Track 1 respondents ( = 981, 76%) and Question Track 2 

respondents ( = 312, 24%). 

The majority of this sample of FWS employees reported that they engage in some sort of research activity. 

The research activities most frequently reported by respondents included: (a) analyze data (53.9%), (b) collect data 

and use those data to inform managers or decision-makers who develop plans or policies (52.0%), and (c) collect 

data and use those data to evaluate particular management actions (51.4%). Additionally, participants were asked 

how much of their research they would consider to be applied (i.e., collecting data with the goal of solving a 

practical problem) and how much of their research they would consider to be basic (i.e., collecting data with the goal 

of increasing scientific knowledge). The responses to these questions were in the form of a five-point Likert-type 

scale (1 = None, 2 = Very Little, 3 = Some, 4 = Most, 5 = All). On average, survey respondents answered that some 

to most of their research is considered applied (mean = 3.89, SD = 1.01, n = 959) and that very little to some of their 

research is considered basic (mean = 2.43, SD = 1.11, n = 949). 

Employees Conducting Research 

There are a couple of ways in our survey instrument to answer the question of how many people conduct 

research in the FWS. First, anyone who answered that they engage in one of the listed research activities was 

considered to be someone who conducts research as part of their position. As shown in Table 4.3, 76% of the survey 

sample (Question Track 1, = 981) affirmed participation in at least one of these listed research activities. A second 

way to answer this question is to examine the number of survey respondents who reported that a significant portion 

of their jobs involve research. In this sample, 38% of respondents ( = 371) said that at least 75% of their job 

involves conducting research (Table 4.4). 

Table 4.4. Percent of job that involves research. 

 75% of job involves research 

 50% of job involves research 

 25% of job involves research 

Notes. Only respondents who answered Question Track 1 (n = 981) were presented this question. Eleven of the Question Track 2 respondents left 

this question blank. Therefore, the percentages reflect the number of respondents in each of the categories divided by the total number of 

respondents who answered the question (n = 970). 

30 
Presentation or Publication of Research Results 

A third study question asked with what frequency FWS employees publish their research. Using a Likerttype Scale (1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Frequently, 4 = Always), survey participants were asked to answer how 

frequently they present the results of their research in any one of a variety of outlets. When asked about publishing 

research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, participants' mean response was infrequently (mean = 1.76, SD = .78). 

In Table 4.5, a list of possible sources for presenting one's research is given, along with the mean level of responses 

from the sample for each possible source. Seventeen percent (17%) of the survey respondents said that they 

published their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals either Frequently or Always (n = 949). Although 

presentation of results for all types of outlets scored as infrequent, the most frequent outlet for presentation of 

research products was scientific symposia or conferences (mean = 2.05), followed closely by publications of the 

FWS or other government agencies (mean = 1.96).

 Table 4.5. Outlets for presentation of research results. 

1 2 3 4 

Never Infrequently Frequently Always 

Mean St. Dev. n 

Publications of the FWS or other government agencies 1.96 .89 947 


Peer-reviewed scientific journals 1.76 .78 949 


Peer-reviewed professional or trade journals 1.33 .54 944 


Non-peer-reviewed magazines 1.33 .51 943 


Newspaper or TV media 1.56 .66 944 


Web-based media 1.57 .73 942 


Scientific symposia or conferences 2.09 .83 949 


Chapters in edited books 1.24 .48 946 


Sole-authorship books 1.03 .19 943 


Multiple-authorship books 1.13 .37 942 


FWS internal symposia or conferences 1.87 .74 930 


Notes. Only respondents who answered Question Track 1 (n = 981) were presented these items. Therefore, for each item, some respondents left 

the item blank. 

The Value of Science to FWS Employees 

Although there were no specific questions in the survey that directly asked FWS employees if they value 

science, one question asked participants how likely it is that they would be happier with their jobs at the FWS if they 

included greater opportunities for research. A second question asked how likely it is that they would be happier with 

their jobs at the FWS if their work included fewer research obligations. The response options for these two question 

were presented on a 5-point Likert-type Scale (1 = Completely unlikely, 2 = Somewhat unlikely, 3 = Neither 

Unlikely nor Likely, 4 = Somewhat Likely, 5 = Completely Likely). These two items were negatively correlated (r = 

-.31). Responses to these questions can be considered an indication of how much the employees of FWS value a 

research role. Table 4.6 shows average responses to these two items for this sample of employees and the percentage 

of respondents who answered using each response option. The survey findings indicate that employees on average 

are likely to be happier with greater opportunities for research (62% answered with a 4 or 5 to the first question) and 

are unlikely to be happier with fewer research obligations (69% answered with a 1 or 2 to the second question). 

31
 
Table 4.6 Measure of the value of science to individual Fish and Wildlife Service employees as measured by asking how happy 

respondents would be if their jobs included more or fewer opportunities for research. 

1 2 3 4 5 

Completely unlikely Somewhat unlikely Neither unlikely Somewhat likely Completely likely 

nor likely 

Mean St. Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 

1. How likely is it that you would be happier 

with your job at the FWS if it included greater 3.61 1.24 103 59 205 340 255 

opportunities for research? (11%) (6%) (21%) (35%) (27%) 

2. How likely is it that you would be happier 

with your job at the FWS if it included fewer 1.96 0.96 389 272 251 31 13 

research obligations? (41%) (28%) (26%) (3%) (1%) 

Notes. These two questions are negatively correlated (r = -.31, P < .001). For Question 1, n = 962 and for Question 2, n = 956. Only respondents 

who answered Question Track 1 (n = 981) were presented these questions. Therefore, some respondents left these two questions blank. Due to 

rounding, percentages may not equal 100%. 

Management Support for Research 

The fifth study question asked about employees' perceptions of management support for research in the 

FWS. Five items on the survey addressed this question. Table 4.7 shows these five questions along with the average 

response of the survey participants and the percentage of participants who chose each of the response options (1 = 

Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Overall, the results indicated that the majority of survey respondents 

disagreed that there is management support for research at the FWS. Feelings of lack of support were expressed 

most strongly on measures of career opportunities (“There is a clear career path leading to advancement for me 

through conducting research’ [mean = 2.12]) and obtaining “financial resources that are necessary to conduct 

research from FWS funds” (mean = 2.21). Respondents were nearly neutral about management support in the form 

of supervisory (mean = 2.97) and agency encouragement (mean = 3.05) to be involved in research. 

We know from organizational psychology literature (e.g., Robinson, 1995) that employees’ perceived 

psychological contracts, or beliefs about promises made by the organization or expectations of the organization, can 

influence employees’ attitudes towards their employer. One item of the survey asked respondents if they initially 

sought employment with the FWS because they expected research opportunities. Of the 945 individuals who 

responded to this item, 387 (41%) responded in the affirmative. The relationships between this expectation of 

research opportunities and respondents’ satisfaction with the FWS, intent to look for another job, and attitudes 

towards increasing or decreasing the research opportunities at the FWS were all examined using t-tests. The results 

indicated that general satisfaction with the FWS was lower for respondents who said that they initially sought 

employment with the FWS because they expected research opportunities (mean = 2.98) than for respondents who 

said that they did not entertain such expectations (mean = 3.23; t923 = -4.71, P < .001). The results also demonstrated 

that respondents who expected research opportunities working for the FWS were more likely to look for another job 

outside of the FWS (mean = 2.34) than respondents who did not expect research opportunities (mean = 1.67; t939 = 

8.25, P < .001). Additionally, respondents who expected research opportunities working for the FWS reported that 

they would be happier with their jobs if they included greater opportunities for research (mean = 4.09) as compared 

with respondents who did not expect research opportunities (mean = 3.26; t935 = 10.61, P < .001). In contrast, 

respondents who did not expect research opportunities working for the FWS reported that they would be happier 

with their jobs if they included fewer opportunities for research (mean = 2.17) as compared with respondents who 

expected research opportunities (mean = 1.68; t929 = -7.85, P < .001). 

32
 
Table 4.7. Administrative support for research. 

1 2 3 4 5 

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 

Mean St. Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 n 

1. There is a clear career path 2.12 1.12 362 284 203 89 33 972 


leading to advancement for (37%) (29%) (21%) (9%) (3%) 


me through conducting 


research. 


2. I am able to obtain the 2.21 1.10 309 330 183 130 22 974 


financial resources that are (32%) (34%) (19%) (13%) (2%) 


necessary to conduct research 


from FWS funds. 


3. My supervisor encourages 2.97 1.24 163 143 358 175 132 971 


me to publish research. (17%) (15%) (37%) (18%) (14%) 


4. I feel that the FWS 2.72 1.12 173 215 341 194 47 970 


encourages me to publish (18%) (22%) (35%) (2%) (5%) 


research. 


5. I feel that the FWS 3.05 1.16 113 204 253 318 82 970 


encourages me to get (12%) (21%) (26%) (33%) (8%) 


involved in research. 


Notes. Only respondents who answered Question Track 1 (n = 981) were presented these questions. Therefore, some respondents left these 

questions blank. Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to100%. 

Employee Satisfaction 

The question of how satisfied FWS employees are with their jobs was the sixth issue to be addressed. The 

survey participants were asked five questions about their satisfaction with various aspects of working at the FWS. 

These questions appear in Table 4.8 along with the average response to each question and the percentage of 

respondents who chose each of the response options. The response options to the satisfaction questions were in the 

form of a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = Completely Dissatsified to 5 = Completely Satisfied). Overall, 

respondents tend to be somewhat satisfied with their current positions in the FWS (mean = 3.91) and nearly neutral 

about the level of encouragement they receive from supervisors to do research (mean = 3.38) and the weight given 

to research as part of their individual performance evaluation (mean = 3.25). They are far less satisfied with the level 

of financial support they receive for research (mean = 2.54) and the amount of time they have to conduct research 

(mean = 2.55). 

33
 
Table 4.8. Measure of job satisfaction. 

1 2 3 4 5 

Completely Somewhat Neutral Somewhat satisfied Completely satisfied 

dissatisfied dissatisfied 

How satisfied are you with: Mean St. Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 n 

1. Your current position at the FWS 	 3.91 1.04 20 135 47 477 294 975 


(2%) (14%) (5%) (49%) (30%) 


2. The weight that is given to research 3.25 1.11 54 184 341 230 152 961 


productivity in your performance (6%) (19%) (35%) (24%) (16%) 


evaluations, in your current position at 


the FWS 


3. The level of financial support you 2.54 1.13 180 347 217 171 47 962 


receive for research in your current (19%) (36%) (23%) (18%) (5%) 


position 


4. The level of encouragement you 3.38 1.22 77 151 280 235 219 962 


receive from your supervisor for (8%) (16%) (29%) (24%) (23%) 


research in your current position 


5. The amount of research time you 2.55 1.19 176 378 172 155 74 955 


have, free from other commitments, in (18%) (40%) (17%) (16%) (8%) 


your current position 


Notes. Only respondents who answered Question Track 1 (n = 981) were presented these questions. Therefore, some respondents left these 

questions blank. Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100%. 

Comparison of Known Researchers with Other Professional Series Employees 

A seventh study question was whether those participants who had been identified as known researchers (see 

Chapter 2) were more likely to say that they engage in basic science research activities than those not identified as 

researchers. We measured participation in four activities thought to be associated with traditional research: testing 

hypotheses, designing research methods, writing research project proposals, and writing reports of research results. 

On each of these activities, known researchers were more likely than other professional series employees to report 

that they participated in these research-related activities. 

For the activity “testing hypotheses that further the state of scientific knowledge” more of the known 

researchers answered “yes” than answered “no,” while amongst the non-known researchers a larger proportion 

answered no than yes to this activity (Figure 4.1). A Chi-square test revealed that these differences were statistically 2

significant (χ = 57.18, df = 1, P < .001). For the activity “design methods of data collection for research projects” 

more of the known researchers answered yes than no, while among other respondents more answered no than yes to 2 this activity (Figure 4.2). A Chi-square test revealed that these differences were statistically significant (χ = 45.74, 

df = 1, P < .001). For the activity, “write research project proposals,” more known researchers answered yes than no 

while amongst the non-known researchers more answered no than yes to this activity (Figure 4.3). A Chi-square test 2

revealed that these differences were significant (χ = 52.84, df = 1, P < .001). For the activity “write reports of 

research results,” more known researchers answered yes than no, while amongst the non-known researchers more 

answered no than yes to this activity (Figure 4.4). A Chi-square test revealed that these differences were significant 2 (χ = 53.09, df = 1, P < .001). These findings suggest that although many FWS employees participate in some kind 

of research activity, those with a closer involvement in designing studies and describing the findings are more likely 

to be the ones who are actively involved in publishing. These findings may also suggest that there exists in FWS a 

cadre of employees who might best be described as principally conducting research. 

34
 
 Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2. 

0 

50 

0 

50 

i 

Test of Whether Known Researchers are More 

Likely to Test Hypotheses 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

Not Known 

Researcher 

Known Researcher 

Number of Respondents 

Don't Test Hypotheses 

Test Hypotheses 

Test of Whether Known Researchers Design More 

Research Methods 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

Not Known 

Researcher 

Known Researcher 

Number of Respondents 

Don't Design Research 

Methods 

Des gn Research 

Methods

 Figure 4.3. Figure 4.4. 

0 

50 

i 

i 

0 

50 

i 

l 

i l 

Test of Whether Known Researchers Write More 

Research Proposals 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

Not Known Researcher Known Researcher 

Number of Respondents 

Don't Wr te Research 

Proposals 

Wr te Research 

Proposals 

Test of Whether Known Researchers Write More 

Reports of Results 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

Not Known 

Researcher 

Known Researcher 

Number of Respondents 

Don't Wr te Reports of 

Resu ts 

Wr te Reports of Resu ts 

To cross-check this possibility, we asked both the known researchers and the other survey respondents 

what percentage of their jobs involve research. Because these data were in the form of a proportion (percentage) we 

graphed a box-plot of the distribution of the responses grouped by published versus non-published status in order to 

check for unequal variances, which is a common problem with proportional data. The box-plots indicate differences 

in the variances for the two groups. Therefore, all subsequent analyses using this percentage item were conducted 

using Welch’s t-test (also known as t-test with unequal variances). The Welch’s test revealed that the known 

researchers (mean = 31.12, SD = 26.04) reported a higher mean percentage of their work involving research than did 

the other professional series employees (mean = 21.91, SD = 23.95; t1, 615 = 28.75, P < .001). Those who had 

published were more likely to report that they spend more time on research activities than were other employees 

(For other differences between publishers and other survey respondents, see also Appendix 4C). 

Similarly, we examined whether those who claimed involvement in any particular research activity were 

associated with reporting a larger percentage of research in the job. The relationships between the percentage of the 

job involving research and all of the 11 research activities were investigated using Welch’s t-test. For all but one 

research activity, there was a relationship between claiming the research activity and the percentage of research in 

the job. Those who claimed involvement in these items reported higher percentages of their jobs involving research 

as compared to those who did not endorse these research activity items. Only the activity “supervise or coordinate 

the efforts of other FWS employees who are engaged in one or more of the research activities listed above”, was not 

related to the percentage of job involving research (Table 4.9). This finding also supports the notion that there is a 

cadre of scientists in the FWS whose job it is to actually conduct research endeavors. To further investigate this 

finding, the responses to the research activities were used to create two groups: (1) participants endorsing only the 

“supervise or coordinate the efforts of other FWS employees who are engaged in one or more of the research 

35
 
activities” and (2) participants endorsing any of the other research activities, excluding the supervisory activity. The 

first group of participants was considered “non-active researchers” and the second group was considered “active 

researchers.” These groups were compared on general satisfaction with the FWS and on responses to an item that 

measured respondents’ perceptions that they are expected to conduct research as part of their normal job duties. The 

results indicated that active researchers were more likely to perceive that they are expected to conduct research as 

part of their normal job duties (mean = 3.17) than non-active researchers (mean = 2.17; t971 = -7.34, P < .001). 

However, there was no group difference in level of satisfaction with working at the FWS, with regards to research 

(t944 = 0.42, ns). The mean level of satisfaction for the active researchers (mean = 3.12) was almost the same as the 

mean level of satisfaction for the non-active researchers (mean = 3.16). 

Table 4.9. Percentage of job involving research reported by individuals engaged in specific types of research activity. 

Welch’s t-test Significance Mean for group Mean for group 

Research activity results level answering answering 

“no” “yes” 

Test hypotheses that further the state of t1, 697 = 172.65 


scientific knowledge 


Design methods of data collection for research t

1, 916 = 209.23 


projects 


Write research project proposals t1, 919 = 132.41 


Analyze data (statistically or qualitatively) t1, 776 = 179.53 


Write reports of research results t1, 932 = 260.19 


Collect data and use those data to evaluate t = 25.22 


P < .0001 16.64 37.30 

P < .0001 13.88 34.53 

P < .0001 16.39 33.79 

P < .0001 11.63 30.41 

P < .0001 12.39 34.48 

P < .0001 19.26 27.74 1, 618 

particular management actions 


Collect data and use those data to inform t = 119.38 P < .0001 13.86 30.08
 1, 764 

managers or decision-makers who develop 


plans or policies 


Collect data and use those data to provide t

1, 412 = 12.71 P < .0001 23.47 29.96 


input to environmental impact statements 


Use monitoring data to detect environmental t

1, 764 = 30.69 P < .0001 19.31 28.30 


or ecological trends or causes of trends 


Collaborate with individuals from other t = 84.33 P < .0001 17.62 31.69
 1, 960 

organizations (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, 


universities) on a research project where they 


may be the Principal Investigator, but you 


write some portion of the final research output 


Supervise or coordinate the efforts of other t1, 906 = 1.44 P = .23 23.92 25.86 


FWS employees who are engaged in one or 


more of the research activities listed above 


Job Satisfaction and Likelihood to Seek Other Employment 

We asked respondents: "How likely are you to begin looking for another job outside of the FWS in the next 

six months, due to a lack of opportunity for research in the FWS?" The scores on this question were represented by a 

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Completely Unlikely to 5 = Completely Likely. By assessing the number of 

respondents who reported the intent to begin looking for another job outside of the FWS in the next six months due 

to a lack of opportunity for research in the FWS, we hoped to explore the intensity of satisfaction or dissatisfaction 

present. The survey findings indicate that most of the respondents were unlikely to have this intent, because 54.6% 

(n = 529) answered that they were completely unlikely to begin looking for another job, 17.4% (n = 168) indicated 

that they were somewhat unlikely to begin looking for another job, 12.3% (n = 119) answered that they were neither 

unlikely nor likely to begin looking for another job, 9.5% (n = 92) indicated that they were somewhat likely to begin 

looking for another job, and only 6.2% (n = 60) answered that they were completely likely to begin looking for 

another job. The total number of respondents who answered this survey item represented 968 out of the 981 

respondents who replied to Track 1. 

36
 
There were five items measuring job satisfaction on the survey (Table 4.8). We averaged these five 

measures together to form a general satisfaction variable and calculated a Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient 

between the general satisfaction variable and the item measuring the intent to look for another job. The results 

indicate that as satisfaction increases, intent to look for another job decreases proportionately (r = -.42, P < .01). 

Science Encouragement and Job Satisfaction 

Is there is a relationship between being encouraged to conduct research and satisfaction working at the 

FWS? Respondents used a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) to answer 

three items that measured encouragement to conduct research. The first item stated “my supervisor encourages me to 

publish research,” the second item stated “I feel that the FWS encourages me to publish research,” and the third item 

stated “I feel that the FWS encourages me to get involved in research.” An individual’s responses to these items 

were averaged to form a general Encouraged to Conduct Research variable. To measure satisfaction, survey 

respondents used a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = Completely Dissatisfied to 5 = Completely Satisfied) to indicate 

their level of satisfaction (See Table 4.8 for a list of the items measuring satisfaction). An individual’s responses to 

the five satisfaction measures were averaged to form a general Satisfaction with working at the FWS variable. A 

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated that indicated these two aggregate variables are positively correlated 

(r = .47, P < .001). For the whole sample, encouragement to conduct research is associated with job satisfaction. 

Table 4.10. Type of science open-ended question. Responses exceed the number of respondents because some entered more 

than one type of research. 

Type of research Number of responses (%) 

Education, outreach 3 (0.02%) 

Silvaculture 2 (0.02%) 

Invertebrate monitoring, ecology 26 (2.1%) 

No research 29 (2.3%) 

Hydrology 36 (2.9%) 

Population assessments 40 (3.2%) 

Fire ecology, management 64 (5.1%) 

Protocols, techniques, methods 70 (5.6%) 

Other 89 (7.1%) 

Contaminants 108 (8.7%) 

Vertebrate monitoring 165 (13.2%) 

Fish ecology, behavior, habitat 192 (15.4%) 

Habitat and/or vegetation 207 (16.6%) 

Wildlife ecology, behavior, habitat 217 (17.4%) 

Total of all mentions 1248a 

a 

Does not equal 100% due to rounding 

Type of Research Engaged in by FWS Employees 

We asked respondents to indicate the type of research that they are currently doing or in which they 

recently had been involved. We compressed the narrative responses into 14 common categories (Table 4.10). 

Almost half (49.4%) of the responses to this open-ended question were classified as fish and wildlife ecology, 

habitat, or behavior. Monitoring accounted for 18.5% of all reported research types, if “population assessments” is 

included in that category. Contaminants research accounted for 8.7% of responses to this question. 

Impediments or Inducements to Research 

It is evident from the answers to the Likert-type fixed response questions that respondents rated finances 

and availability of time as important limits on their ability to conduct research. To learn more about the impediments 

to research in the FWS we asked the question: “Is there any other information you would like to provide regarding 

37
 
the support, lack of support, obstacles, inducements, or resources at the FWS with regard to research?” A total of 

415 respondents answered this question, which was available only to those who answered Track 1 of the survey 

instrument. We condensed the open-ended answers, resulting in four general categories: Support, Lack of Support, 

Obstacles, and Other (Table 4.11). 

Table 4.11. Open-ended responses to the question: Is there any other information you would like to provide regarding the support, 

lack of support, obstacles, inducements, or resources at the Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to research? (n = 415) 

Supporta

 14% (57) Lack of supporta 45% (188) Obstacles a 74% (308) Othera 15% (63) 

Technical 1% Technical 13% Time 30% Survey 7% 

Resources 1% Resources 4% Funding 49% Personal Experiences 4% 

Internal 7% Incentives 8% Staff 11% Miscellaneous 5% 

Internal 26% Credibility 35% 

Political Influences 9% 

a 

Totals more than 100% because respondents provided multiple responses. 

Fourteen percent of those who provided an answer to this open-ended question remarked upon items we 

categorized as “support” for research. About 1% (n = 5) indicated that technical support was important. A typical 

respondent wrote: “The primary support that I get within the USFWS is one or two seasonal Biotech positions, 

which is very valuable support.” Less than 1% (n = 3) said resources were important. A response typical of this 

group was: “Recent additions to FWS library, on-line journals, and literature search [are] a Big plus for remote 

refuges.” Internal support was mentioned by 7% of respondents to this question (n = 29), with a typical response 

being “My supervisor, who is new, is supportive of research but past supervisors were not and in fact frowned on 

research efforts.” 

Forty-five percent of respondents to this question (n = 188) indicated that a lack of support was evident in 

the FWS. Of these, 13% (n = 55) said that technical issues were a problem and a typical response along these lines 

was “FWS does not actively support networking with their peers, participation in professional symposia and/or 

conferences.” Only 4% (n = 18) of those who mentioned lack of support said that the problem was “resources” such 

as the availability of literature and reference materials. A response typical of this category was as follows: “Better 

access to web-based scientific journals and literature-reviewing databases would be an improvement.” We 

categorized 8% (n = 18) as falling in the realm of incentives and advancement (e.g., “I am not going to get a 

promotion by doing great science. There are few opportunities for field biologists to advance as biologists within the 

FWS.”) Similarly, one respondent wrote that, “There should be more recognition for those biologists [who] publish 

their results in peer reviewed publications than there currently is - perhaps grade increases.” We place 26% (n = 

107) in the category of internal lack of support, which is typified by comments such as: “I am baffled at the lack of 

support for research - this has been the single largest frustration in my career.” 

Seventy-four percent (n = 308) were categorized as having remarked upon obstacles to conducting 

research. Of these 30% (n = 123) mentioned time availability (See also Table 4.8) with comments such as this: 

“Those that are involved with FWS research projects are rarely given adequate staff time to analyze and prepare 

results. More often, staff time is being usurped by administrative reports and activities.” Another survey respondent 

observed the following: “The required paperwork and daily demands to oversee on-the-ground management actions 

make it very difficult to take time for reading current peer reviewed journals, and for data analysis and writing.” 

Funding was mentioned as an obstacles by 49% (n = 205) of those who answered this question (See also Table 4.8). 

Those who mentioned funding said things such as these: “The Fish and Wildlife Service should be granted more 

capacity for research and should be funded to do so,” “I find it frustrating that we have little base-funding or time to 

conduct baseline research so that we can make better and more informed management decisions.” Staffing was an 

obstacle mentioned by 11% (n = 47). Some of those remarks included: “The greatest weakness in the refuge system 

is the lack of biological staff that can spend the time necessary with research to give managers better information 

with which to make decisions.” Another respondent said, “It's tough when you've never even been staffed at your 

minimum staffing level, and then lose more positions through attrition, to even begin to think about research.” 

An additional obstacle mentioned was political influences. Nine percent (n = 39) of respondents to this 

question said something about this subject. A typical statement was: “To be very candid, the current political climate 

does not seem to be conducive to Service scientists coming out with studies that contradict the current 

administration's policies, or that contradict some special business interest's agenda.” The largest number of 

38
 
respondents in this grouping remarked upon the subject of credibility. Thirty-five percent (n = 145) expressed 

thoughts about the need for sound science, feelings that the loss of research capability was detrimental to the FWS, 

and that more research is needed. Respondents we placed in this category made statements such as these: 

•	 Our credibility in the public arena suffers when we are not perceived as experts in our field. We need 

to maintain active research in order to preserve our credibility and to (slowly) address important 

management issues. We also need to continue research in order to maintain our creativity in the ways 

in which we address management issues. 

•	 It is very frustrating for biologists to be judged or required to sustain their ideas and rationale under the 

concept of "best scientific information available" when research appears not to be a priority for the 

Field Offices and the biologists are not encouraged or supported to obtain data from research activities 

about the resources. 

•	 It is my understanding that when the research capabilities of the FWS went to USGS in the mid 1990s, 

our agency lost considerable conservation opportunities, research flexibility, and departmental 

respect/integrity. 

•	 This may have actually started when the national biological survey (precursor to BRD) was formed - 

perhaps resulting in an unspoken mindset that Interior's best & brightest scientists were siphoned off 

into that new agency. I think it has resulted in an unintended and unfortunate paradigm shift that there 

are others (outside FWS) that ‘do science’ and we just apply it. 

Fifteen percent (n = 63) of respondents remarked upon other subjects. These included the survey instrument 

itself (7%; n = 27). Most of these comments were critical of some aspect of the questionnaire. Personal experience 

accounted for another 4% (n = 18) of responses, with statements such as “My first position with the service was 

100% research. My current position is largely management and I am trying to incorporate a research component.” 

Finally, a grouping we labeled miscellaneous contained 5% (n = 19) of responses, including statements of this kind: 

“I feel FWS should continue to foster research opportunities for tribal governments and Native organizations on 

Refuges while maintaining a lead role, but should absolutely not consider contracting our research efforts to the 

private sector.” 

Discussion 

Our findings suggest that research is a key component to working with employees of the FWS, and that 

issues that cloud the scientific reputation of the FWS are likely to be strong negative motivators. 

The purpose of the administration of the scaled-response survey instrument was to ascertain the attitudes 

and perceptions of employees involved in research regarding the obstacles and opportunities for research at the 

FWS. The items included on the survey instrument were chosen to address a number of questions about the 

obstacles and opportunities for research at the FWS. The survey instrument was also intended to assess the nature of 

research activity in which FWS employees have been engaged recently. 

The results of the survey indicated that the majority of the survey respondents (76%) are involved in some 

sort of research activity. Additionally, a large percentage of the respondents reported that the majority of their jobs 

(75%) involve research. Most of the research in question is applied versus basic in nature; in fact, two of the 

research activities that respondents reported engaging in most frequently were (1) using data to evaluate 

management actions, and (2) using data to inform decision-makers. The survey results indicated that FWS 

employees tend to report the results of their research most frequently at scientific symposia or in publications of the 

FWS or other government agencies; however, at least 17% of the survey respondents said that they publish in peerreviewed scientific journals either frequently or always. The responses of the survey participants suggested that 

FWS employees value scientific research, as the majority of the participants reported that they were likely to be 

happier with their jobs at the FWS if there were greater research opportunities and unlikely to be happier with their 

jobs if there were fewer research opportunities. 

The survey instrument included items addressing the perceptions of management support for research at the 

FWS. The respondents generally perceived a lack of management support for research. Their responses to the survey 

items indicated that there is a perception that there is lack of a clear career path leading to advancement through 

conducting research at the FWS. Respondents tended to feel that they cannot obtain the financial resources they 

need to conduct research. Additionally, respondents tended to disagree with the statement that the FWS encourages 

them to publish research. The respondents’ feelings were more neutral on the perception that their supervisors 

encourage them to publish research and the perception that the FWS encourages them to get involved in research. 

39
 
The survey instrument included items addressing satisfaction with working at the FWS in regards to 

research opportunities and obstacles, as well as respondents’ general satisfaction with their current positions at the 

FWS. The respondents’ overall level of satisfaction with their current positions was high with 79% answering that 

they were somewhat or completely satisfied with their current positions at the FWS. The survey participants tend to 

be dissatisfied with the level of financial support they receive for research and with the amount of research time they 

have, free from other commitments. Participants concern over financial support for research appears to be a 

reoccurring theme from the survey data. 

The data from the survey were used to assess whether known researchers are more likely to engage in 

“basic” science research activities when compared to survey participants who were not predetermined to be 

researchers. Testing hypotheses, designing research methods, writing research project proposals, and writing reports 

of research results were considered basic science activities for the purpose of this study. For all of these basic 

science activities, the percentage of respondents who reported engaging in the research activities was larger for the 

group of participants who were known researchers than for participants who were not predetermined to be known 

researchers. 

The findings from the survey indicate that known researchers were more likely to report that a larger 

percentage of their jobs involve research than the group of participants who were not predetermined to be 

researchers. Additionally, the data suggest that all but one of the research activities listed on the survey (See Table 

1), were associated with reporting that a large percentage of one’s job involves research. The only activity that this 

relationship did not hold true for was supervising or coordinating the efforts of other FWS employees who are 

engaged in research activity. Finally, the findings drawn from the survey indicate that respondents who felt 

encouraged to conduct research, by either their supervisors or by the FWS, were more satisfied with their jobs and 

with various aspects of their jobs related to research. 

40
 
Chapter 5 

Conclusions 

It is vitally important for FWS employees to be known as experts in the fields of fish and wildlife 

conservation. It is also important for the FWS to have ready access to research-based information that can help 

inform decision-making. Although the FWS can and does contract out for a great many studies, promoting an 

internal culture to support and encourage in-house research activities remains an important consideration. In 

commissioning this research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency 

to more fully understand its own research capacity. 

To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of management support available for 

conducting research within the FWS, we completed investigations to: 

1.	 identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their 

unit mission; 

2.	 identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 

and 

3.	 assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific 

research existing within the FWS. 

We conclude that the FWS does possess some capacity to conduct research, and that the agency has been 

measurably successful in doing so as part of its own programs and with its own employees. Although most of the 

research work done in the FWS does not directly involve testing formal, explicitly stated hypotheses, the agency is 

engaged in the formal gathering and systematic analysis of data. 

As evidence for this finding we point to the 1,355 articles published by 496 different employees who were 

employed by the FWS in professional series positions over the period 1995–2004. These employees represent 275 

units located across the country that were involved in a wide variety of scientific activities. Given the obstacles to 

conducting research that were reported by FWS employees, it is impressive that 1 out of 9 (11%) of professional 

series employees had published during the nine-year span we investigated. A high proportion of this publication 

activity can be accounted for in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries (34%). 

However, the public face of the FWS does not reflect the intensity or diversity of this research activity. Our 

review of public documents suggests that because the agency does not consistently underscore its science 

commitment, it is difficult to develop a sense that science is an important part of the FWS’s management 

philosophy. An inescapable fact is that a person reviewing web pages or fact sheets would have a very different 

impression of the research capacity of the FWS, depending on which of these documents was examined. This might 

be described as an inconsistency in how the FWS portrays itself, perhaps due to the lack of a formal policy regarding 

presentation of research activities. 

That inconsistency was evident in our discussions with regional personnel managers. Many of them 

expressed surprise to learn that any positions in their region were classified as function code 11 (meaning involved 

in research). When we pressed the personnel officers to verify the accuracy of these classifications they judged the 

majority of these classifications to be inaccurate in every FWS region. One thing the personnel officers agreed about 

is that there is no policy about using the Research Grade Evaluation Guide (RGEG) to classify FWS personnel. 

In fact, the personnel officers were skeptical that researchers could be identified through either review of 

position descriptions or the examination of the official personnel databases. Although 62% of respondents to our 

survey thought their individual position descriptions were accurate, the personnel officers were basically correct 

about issues of standardization and accuracy of position descriptions. The manner in which the research 

characteristics of position descriptions are written varies considerably across regions. 

When we looked simply at the presence/absence, frequency, or sum of keywords related to research and 

compared position descriptions to publication status, we could identify some keywords that distinguish between 

people who have published from those who have not published. However, this was only true for some regions. 

41
 
Moreover, the keywords that distinguish between publishers and non-publishers differ from region to region. On one 

hand, evaluation of the surface level content of the position descriptions (i.e., keywords) is likely to be an unreliable 

method for identifying positions involved in conducting research. On the other hand, a catalog of keywords suitable 

for use in preparing research-oriented position descriptions might be helpful in closing this gap. 

We know from the data on number of publications, number of organizational units conducting research, 

number of people who have published, and ratio of publishers to non-publishers, that FWS employees are capable of 

conducting research. When we examined position descriptions beyond mere keywords we found that the most 

frequent categories of capability were knowledge, skill, and ability for research methods and data analysis; the next 

most frequently mentioned category was application of research information to management actions. These two 

categories were followed by additional research-related categories such as designing studies and collecting data, 

which suggests that the FWS may wish to focus on enhancing employee skills to either perform these tasks or work 

effectively with those who do. It is encouraging to note that the majority of position descriptions containing research 

language were concentrated at GS grades 11, 12, and 13. Because of the importance of encouraging a science culture 

in the FWS, it might be quite advantageous to rework position descriptions systematically across the agency so that 

the research component is directly evident. 

If the FWS looks a bit inconsistent about its research capacity as seen through the eyes of its public 

documents and personnel records, how does it appear to its own employees? If we were to judge from the answers 

given to the open-ended questions on our survey instrument, the answer is that many employees are concerned about 

the FWS’s reputation for science and want to see that reputation enhanced. Fifty-two percent of those who answered 

the final open-ended question addressed this general issue. It is certainly evident from those responses that there is a 

group of employees who are somewhat cynical in their attitudes about whether or not the FWS can become the 

strong research-based organization they wish it were. 

We designed the survey to answer several questions: (1) What is the nature of current research assignments 

in the FWS? (2) What resources are available for research studies? (3) How are research results reported? (4) How 

are research products used by managers? and (5) what are the obstacles and opportunities for conducting research? 

First, we examined the nature of the research and found that employees report participating in a wide range of 

research-related activities. The majority of this sample of FWS employees reported that they engage in some sort of 

research activity. Almost 54% said they analyze data, more than half (52%) collect and use data to inform managers 

or decision-makers, and a majority (51%) collect and use data to evaluate particular management actions. It is 

interesting to note that 38% of respondents said that at least three-quarters of their job involve conducting research. 

The research in which employees are involved includes almost half working in fish and wildlife ecology, habitat or 

behavior, 19% in monitoring, and about 9% in contaminants. In short, there is a sizeable group within the agency 

that understands itself to be part of a research community, research assignments appear to be rather practical in 

nature, and studies focus on issues of direct practical concern to the FWS. 

Second, what resources are available for research studies? Overall, the results indicate that the majority of 

survey respondents disagreed that there is adequate management support for research at the FWS. Feelings of lack 

of support were expressed most strongly on measures of career opportunities (“There is a clear career path leading to 

advancement for me through conducting research’ [mean = 2.12]) and obtaining “financial resources that are 

necessary to conduct research from FWS funds” (mean = 2.21). Survey respondents were nearly neutral about 

management support in the form of supervisory (mean = 2.97) and agency encouragement (mean = 3.05) to be 

involved in research. 

Third, how are research results reported? We found more than 1,300 publications from FWS employees, 

and respondents reported that they publish only infrequently in the peer reviewed literature. The most frequent 

methods for reporting research results were through symposia or conferences, or in the publications of other 

government agencies. These types of publications would not have been discoverable through a search of the Web of 

Science. 

Fourth, how are research products used by managers? Managers who answered our survey instrument 

indicated that almost 85% (n = 312) use the results of others’ research studies in the course of their work (Neilson 

and others, 2005). In a question that asked respondents to prioritize their sources of information, an average of 25% 

(n = 235) reported that they relied on scientific journals. A similar average percentage relied on “colleagues within 

the FWS” (23%; n = 270). Conferences (13%; n = 208), the Internet (18%; n = 204), personal contacts (16%; n = 

216), colleagues in other agencies (18%; n = 257) and reports of other agencies (16%; n = 211) made up other items 

on the priority list. Open media sources such as newspapers and TV received the lowest average ranking at 7% (n = 

119) (Neilson and others, 2005). 

42
 
Fifth, what are the obstacles and opportunities for conducting research? Respondents rated finances and 

availability of time as important limits on their ability to conduct research. To learn more about the impediments to 

research, we asked the question: “Is there any other information you would like to provide regarding the support, 

lack of support, obstacles, inducements, or resources at the FWS with regard to research?” A total of 415 

respondents answered this question, which was available only to those who classified themselves as involved in 

research. We condensed the open-ended answers, resulting in 74% (n = 308) who remarked upon obstacles to 

conducting research. Of these 30% (n = 123) mentioned time availability. 

Finally, we examined the value of science to FWS employees and employee satisfaction. Few told us they 

were planning to leave the FWS. Rather, employees indicated a high value for science. By and large, they came into 

the FWS expecting to do some research and would feel more satisfied if their current positions included more 

research and science-based activities. Overall, respondents tend to be somewhat satisfied with their current positions 

in the FWS, nearly neutral about the level of encouragement to do research they receive from supervisors, and 

neutral about the weight given to research as part of their individual performance evaluations. Respondents 

expressed far less satisfaction with the level of financial support they receive for research and with the amount of 

time they have to do research. 

Acknowledgments 

We are thankful for the assistance of Brian S. Cade, Cynthia Melcher, Kimberly J. Morgan, M. Earlene 

Swann, Jonathan G. Taylor, and Katherine D. Wundrock in the completion of this report. The findings and 

conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or Department of the Interior. 

References Cited 

Busch, C., De Maret, P.S., Flynn, T., Kellum, R., Meyers, S.L.B., Saunders, M., White, R., and Palmquist, M., 2005, Content analysis. 

Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University Department of English. Retrieved [May 4, 2005] from 

http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/content/. 

Cohn, J.P., 2005, After the divorce: Improving science at federal wildlife agencies: Bioscience, v. 55, no. 1, p. 1–14. 
 

Dillman, D.A., 2000, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, (2nd ed.): New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
 

Hays, W.L. (1988). Statistics, (4th ed.): Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth, Texas. 
 

Lamb, B.L., Burkardt, N., Gillette S.C., and Taylor, J., 2001, Briefing on the case study analysis of the North Umpqua hydropower 
 

relicensing negotiations: report to the United States Forest Service: Administrative Report, Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. 

Geological Survey (available from the authors). 

Murphy, K.R., and Myors, B., 1998, Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis 

tests: Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Neilson, J.R., Lamb, B.L., Swann, E.M., Ratz, J., Ponds, P.D., and Liverca, J., 2005, Attitudinal survey component of the study 

quantity, quality, and support for research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An organizational assessment: Report of 

methods and frequencies: Administrative Report. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey (available from the 

authors). 

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., and Fico, F.G., 1998, Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research: Mahwah, New 

Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Robinson, S.L., 1995, Violation of psychological contracts: Impact on employee attitudes, in Tetrick, L. E. and Barling, J. eds., 

Changing employment relations: Behavioral and social perspectives. Washington, D.C; American Psychological 

Association, p. 91–108. 

Weber, R.P., 1990, Basic content analysis, (2nd ed.) Sage Publications: Newbury Park, California. 

43 
Appendix 2A. Organizational Units that Conduct Research 


Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

9 3 Aquatic Animal Drug Appr. 

Partnership 

9 2 Division of Bird Habitat 

Initiatives 

9 2 Division of Environmental 

Quality 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 

9 2 Management and Habitat 

Restoration 

Research Links point to 

9 26 Division of Migratory Bird 

Management http://migratorybirds.fws.gov Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center's web page and 

"monitoring efforts" 

9 4 Division of Natural Resources 

9 1 Division of the National Fish 

Hatchery System 

9 1 Division of Environmental 

Quality 

9 1 ECON 

9 4 National Conservation Training 

Center 

9 4 National Forensic Laboratory 

9 1 National Wetlands Inventory 

Center 

Wetlands Mapper - Meta data 

(in cooperation with the 

National Map and USGS) 

9 1 National Wildlife Refuges 

9 2 Office of Conservation and 

Classification 

9 1 Patuxent Analytical Control 

Facility 

14 55 55 

In the 1980 establishing act 

forming the Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge, the 

U.S. Congress mandated that 

this refuge conduct national 

and international scientific 

research on marine resources -

We use information from 

7 5 Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/akma 

r/index.htm 

inventorying and monitoring 

to pose questions such as 

"what is causing an observed 

change?" Thus, we can direct 

our research and special 

studies to learn more about 

marine and island ecosystem 

processes, the interaction 

among species, and the 

ecology of little-known 

species that are found only 

here (endemics). 

44

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

7 1 Alaska Migratory Bird CoManagement 

Partial bibliography of 

7 4 Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/arctic 

/index.htm 

scientific research conducted 

on the Refuge by U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

biologists and others 

various projects representing 

7 5 Conservation Genetics Lab "first steps" toward genetic 

identification 

From "science" web page: 

"Science is the foundation for 

the work of the Service, In our 

7 4 Division of Fisheries and 

Habitat Conservation 

commitment to quality 

science, we strive to ask the 

right questions, base our work 

on accepted scientific 

principles, and seek 

independent peer review, and 

publish our results. 

7 6 Division of Marine Mammals 

Management "research" publication listing 

identify "monitor," "determine 

7 8 Division of Migratory Birds 

Management 

effects," "obtain information 

from subsistence harvesting 

by Alaska Natives" 

7 2 Division of Natural Resources 

7 1 Division of Visitor Services 

and Communications 

The scientific activities we 

conduct are diverse, ranging 

from basic inventories of fish 

7 4 Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

Anchorage, AK 

and wildlife species on remote 

National Wildlife Refuge 

lands, to population 

monitoring of select wildlife 

species, to applied research to 

help us make management 

decisions. 

7 1 Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

Fairbanks, AK 

Radio telemetry is one 

example of research methods 

that yield new information 

about species that will be used 

for more effective 

management of the population 

and its habitats. 

7 4 Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

Fairbanks, AK 

7 2 Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

Juneau, AK 

Refuge purpose: (iv) to 

7 2 Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/kenai 

/index.htm 

provide opportunities for 

research, interpretations, 

environmental education, and 

land management training; 

45

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

The Refuge also sponsors and 

7 1 Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/kodia 

k/index.htm 

conducts basic and applied 

research projects, develop 

monitoring methods, and 

evaluate management 

strategies. 

7 1 Koyukuk/ Nowitna National 

Wildlife Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/koyu 

kuk/index.htm 

7 5 Non-game Migratory Bird 

Management 

Science is the backbone of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

7 1 Office of the Regional Director 

Quality scientific projects are 

the underpinning of good 

management and decisionmaking. Fish and Wildlife 

Service employees in the 

various programs and field 

offices in Alaska are engaged 

in a wide variety of scientific 

projects to meet our 

stewardship and conservation 

missions. 

7 1 Selawik National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/selaw 

ik/index.htm Biological projects 

7 1 Tetlin National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/tetlin/ 

index.htm Biological projects 

7 4 Yukon Delta National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/yuko 

ndelta/index.htm 

22 63 64 8 

The Center maintains 

6 1 Bozeman Fish Health Center 

http://bozemanfishhealth.fws.g 

ov/ or 

http://fisheries.fws.gov/FTC/FT 

Cbzmn.htm 

expertise in several laboratory 

disciplines: virology, 

bacteriology, parasitology, 

histology, epidemiology, 

pathology, and molecular 

biology. 

"The Center maintains 

6 1 Bozeman Fish Technology 

Center 

http://bozemanfishtech. 

fws.gov/ 

expertise in several laboratory 

disciplines: virology, 

bacteriology, parasitology, 

histology, epidemiology, 

pathology, and molecular 

biology." 

6 1 C M Russel National Wildlife 

Refuge http://cmr.fws.gov/ 

6 2 Colorado Fish and Wildlife 

Management Assistance Office 

http://www.r6.fws.gov/fisheries 

/co/colorado_fwmao.htm 

6 3 Colorado River Fishery Project 

Grand Junction, CO 

http://grandjunctionfishandwild 

life.fws.gov/) 

46

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

Project activities include 

basin-wide monitoring 

programs for the endangered 

fishes and their habitats, 

6 2 Colorado River Fishery Project 

Vernal, UT 

http://vernalfishandwildlife.fws 

.gov/ 

management-oriented research 

activities, instream flow 

assessments and 

recommendations, database 

management and data 

analyses, and experimental 

population augmentation and 

restoration programs 

http://mountain6 2 Des Lacs National Wildlife 

Refuge 

prairie.fws.gov/dslcomplex/desl 

acs.htm OR 

http://deslacs.fws.gov/dsl.htm 

6 1 Division of Bird Habitat 

Conservation Initiatives 

6 1 Division of Federal Aid 

6 4 Division of Migratory Birds 

6 5 Ecological Services Field 

Office Cheyenne, WY 

6 1 Ecological Services Field 

Office Grand Junction, CO 

6 5 Ecological Services Field 

Office Helena, MT http://montanafieldoffice.fws.gov/ 

6 2 Ecological Services Field 

Office Pierre, SD 

6 2 Ecological Services Field 

Office Salt Lake City, UT 

6 1 Ennis National Fish Hatchery http://ennis.fws.gov/ 

6 1 Ft. Niobrara National Wildlife 

Refuge http://fortniobrara.fws.gov/ 

6 1 Gavins Point National Fish 

Hatchery http://gavinspoint.fws.gov/ 

Conducting research and 

6 1 Great Plains Fish and Wildlife 

Management Assistance Office 

http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/greatplains/resp 

onsibilities.html 

management activities leading 

to the recovery of Federally 

listed threatened and 

endangered species such as 

pallid sturgeon. 

http://mountain6 2 Grizzly Bear Recovery Office prairie.fws.gov/species/mamma 

ls/grizzly/ 

6 4 Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team, Bismarck 

6 1 J. Clark Salyer National 

Wildlife Refuge http://jclarksalyer.fws.gov/ 

6 4 Kansas Field Office 

6 1 Kulm Waterfowl Management 

District http://kulmwetlands.fws.gov/ 

6 1 Lostwood National Wildlife 

Refuge http://lostwood.fws.gov/ 

6 1 Medicine Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge http://medicinelake.fws.gov/ White Pelican research 

47

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

6 1 Missouri River Coordinator 

Office 

6 1 

Missouri River Fish and 

Wildlife Management 

Assistance Office 

http://missouririverfishandwildl 

ife.fws.gov/ 

We conduct detailed 

investigations of fish 

entrainment in the Saint Mary 

Canal. These studies are 

aimed at estimating the 

density, species composition, 

and timing (diel and seasonal) 

of fish entrained in the canal 

and determining the efficacy 

of an electric fish barrier 

installed at the canal 

6 1 Montana FWMAO headgates. Entrainment nets 

installed on the headgates are 

operated periodically during 

the irrigation season (AprilSeptember). At the end of the 

season, after the canal 

headgates are closed and the 

canal is drained, netting 

surveys are also conducted in 

isolated canal pools. Native 

fish that are encountered are 

released back into the St. 

Mary River. 

6 1 Montana Native Fish 

Coordinator 

6 1 National Black-Footed Ferret 

Conservation Center 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fw 

s.gov/FERRET.HTM 

http://nationalelkrefuge.fws.g 

6 1 National Elk Refuge http://nationalelkrefuge.fws.gov ov/NERResearch&Science.ht 

ml 

6 1 Ouray National Fish Hatchery http://ourayhatchery.fws.gov/ 

6 1 Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District 

6 1 RO National Wildlife Refuge 

Systems 

Beginning this spring, 

6 1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal 

National Wildlife Refuge http://rockymountainarsenal.fws.gov 

biologists at RMA will be 

trapping and darting Mule and 

White-tailed Deer as part of 

an on-going study to 

determine why the deer herds 

are producing fewer fawns. 

Roosevelt Fish and Wildlife 

6 1 Management Assistance 

Office, UT 

6 1 South Dakota Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife 

48

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

In 1979, the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service's Colorado 

6 2 

Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program 

http://coloradoriverrecovery.fws.gov 

River Fisheries Project began 

coordinating research on 

endangered fish. These early 

research projects provided 

background information 

necessary to guide current 

research studies. 

(http://coloradoriverrecovery.f 

ws.gov/Crrpres.) 

6 1 Valley City National Fish 

Hatchery http://valleycity.fws.gov/ 

40 66 64 24 

5 2 ARD Ecological Services http://northeast.fws.gov/ecologi 

calservices/ 

5 3 ARD Fisheries 

5 1 Canaan Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge 

5 4 Chesapeake Bay Field Office http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay 

5 2 Division of Federal Aid http://www.fws.gov/r5fedaid/ 

5 1 Division of Migratory Birds 

5 1 Eastern Shore of Virginia 

National Wildlife Refuge 

5 1 Gulf of Maine Project 

5 1 Connecticut River Coord. 

Assists in the development of 

management strategies 

5 8 FR Lamar Fish Tech Center http://northeast.fws.gov/fishery 

center/ 

through assessment and 

applied research to support the 

protection of wild stocks and 

recovery of threatened and 

endangered species. 

5 1 FR Lower Great Lakes Fishery 

Resource Office 

5 1 Great Dismal Swamp National 

Wildlife Refuge 

5 1 Gulf of Maine Coastal Program 

5 3 Lake Champlain Fish and 

Wildlife Resource Office 

5 1 Long Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

The LGLFRO coordinates the 

5 2 Lower Great Lakes Fishery 

Resource Office 

Northeast Region ANS 

Program, which includes four 

components: monitoring, 

research, education, and 

technical assistance and 

coordination. 

5 2 Maine Ecological Services 

Field Office 

5 1 Maine Fisheries Program 

Complex 

5 2 Maryland Fishery Resource 

Office 

49

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

5 4 New England Field Office 

5 2 New Jersey Field Office 

5 2 New York Field Office 

5 1 Ohio River Islands National 

Wildlife Refuge 

5 1 Pennsylvania Field Office 

5 1 Pittsford National Fish 

Hatchery 

5 1 Potomac River National 

Wildlife Refuge 

5 3 Prime Hook National Wildlife 

Refuge 

5 1 R. Cronin National Salmon 

Station 

5 1 Regional Biologist-North 

5 1 RO - ES 

5 1 Blackwater National Wildlife 

Refuge 

5 1 Susquehanna River 

Coordinator 

5 2 Virginia Field Office 

5 1 Virginia Fisheries Coordinator 

Office 

34 61 

4 2 Alligator River National 

Wildlife Refuge http://alligatorriver.fws.gov/ 

The Refuge encourages 

outside entities to propose 

wildlife research projects on 

Refuge lands. Selected 

projects must benefit the 

Refuge, as well as provide 

needed information on 

wildlife populations or 

habitats. 

4 1 ARD Ecological Services http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/ 

4 1 Bear's Bluff National Fish 

Hatchery 

4 1 Cat Island National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/c 

atisland/index.html 

4 1 Division of Migratory Birds 

4 1 Ecological Services Ashville, 

NC 

4 3 Ecological Services Boqueron, 

PR 

4 2 Ecological Services Charlston, 

SC 

4 1 Ecological Services Clemson, 

SC 

4 1 Ecological Services Conway, 

AR 

4 2 Ecological Services Daphne, 

AL 

4 1 Ecological Services Field 

Office Athens, GA 

4 4 Ecological Services Field 

Office Panama City, FL 

50

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

4 1 Ecological Services Frankfort, 

KY 

4 4 Ecological Services Jackson, 

MS 

4 2 Ecological Services 

Jacksonville, FL 

4 1 Ecological Services Lafayette, 

LA 

4 2 Ecological Services Raleigh, 

NC 

4 2 Ecological Services Vero 

Beach, FL 

Research is a major activity 

4 1 Florida Panther National 

Wildlife Refuge 

http://floridapanther.fws.gov/in 

dex.html 

on the refuge and most of this 

work focuses on prescribed 

fire and its impacts to refuge 

resources. 

4 1 FWE_PAPR 

4 1 Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge http://lacassine.fws.gov/index.htm 

4 1 Lower Mississippi River 

Fisheries Coordination Office 

4 1 Lower Suwannee River 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Research: Scientific research, 

investigations and monitoring 

4 1 Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://loxahatchee.fws.gov/hom 

e/default.asp 

projects on the refuge help us 

to answer the what and why 

questions about the 

Everglades-both the wildlife 

and their habitats. Projects 

such as alligator surveys help 

us understand how many 

alligators there are, how 

productive they are and how 

they relate to the world around 

them. Studies on tree islands 

help us to learn their 

importance to wildlife and 

how changes in water 

management may affect them. 

4 1 Mississippi Sandhill Crane 

National Wildlife Refuge 

http://mississippisandhillcrane.f 

ws.gov/ 

Management tool: Deer 

management as an endangered 

species, including medical and 

rehabilitation, habitat 

4 2 National Key Deer National 

Wildlife Refuge 

http://nationalkeydeer.fws.gov// 

index.html 

restoration and enhancement, 

routine herd health monitoring 

and population checks, and 

research on population 

density, behavior and 

migration patterns. 

4 2 National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

51

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

4 1 North Louisiana Refuges 

Complex 

http://northlouisiana.fws.gov/in 

dex.html 

4 4 Noxubee National Wildlife 

Refuge http://noxubee.fws.gov/ 

4 1 Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge http://www.fws.gov/okefenokee/ 

4 5 Panama City Fishery Resource 

Office, FL 

4 1 Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge http://www.fws.gov/sabine/index.html 

4 1 Mississippi Sandhill Crane 

National Wildlife Refuge 

http://mississippisandhillcrane.f 

ws.gov/ 

in cooperation with USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center 

4 2 Savannah Coastal Refuges 

4 1 SE Louisiana Refuges http://www.fws.gov/southeastlo 

uisiana/ 

4 1 St. Marks National Wildlife 

Refuge http://www.fws.gov/saintmarks/ 

4 1 Tennessee National Wildlife 

Refuge http://www.fws.gov/tennesseerefuge/ 

4 2 Warm Springs Fish Health 

Center 

4 1 Warm Springs Fish 

Technology Center 

4 1 Wildlife Habitat and 

Management Office Auburn 

http://fisheries.fws.gov/FTC/FT 

Cwarms.htm 

41 66 

3 2 Agassiz National Wildlife 

Refuge http://midwest.fws.gov/agassiz/ Refuge Objective #6 "Conduct Research" 

3 1 Alpena Fishery Resources 

Office http://midwest.fws.gov/alpena/ 

3 2 ARD Ecological Services 

3 1 Ashland Fishery Resources 

Office 

http://midwest.fws.gov/ashland/ 

Mission.html 

Ball State professor Dr. 

Kamal Islaam and graduate 

student Kirk Roth and the 

3 1 Big Oaks National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://midwest.fws.gov/bigoaks 

/bonwrintro.htmR 

refuge staff are conducting a 

2-year study on habitat 

selection and reproductive 

success of cerulean warblers 

at Big Oaks National Wildlife 

Refuge 

3 1 Carterville Fishery Resources 

Office http://midwest.fws.gov/Carterville/ 

3 1 Division of Bird Habitat 

Initiatives 

3 1 Driftless Area National 

Wildlife Refuge http://midwest.fws.gov/Driftless/ 

Develop biotic indicators and 

3 3 Ecological Services Field 

Office Bloomington, IN 

http://midwest.fws.gov/Bloomi 

ngton/ 

status of coastal wetlands 

within the entire Great Lakes 

system 

52

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

Apply problem-solving 

3 3 Ecological Services Field 

Office East Lansing, MI http://midwest.fws.gov/EastLansing/ 

attitude to natural resource 

issues of federal interest in 

Michigan and the Great Lakes 

ecosystem 

3 2 Ecological Services Field 

Office Green Bay, WI http://midwest.fws.gov/GreenBay 

3 2 Ecological Services Field 

Office Rock Island, IL http://midwest.fws.gov/RockIsland/ 

RIFO compiled an annotated 

bibliography of threatened and 

endangered species for the 

Corps of Engineers 

Navigation expansion study. -

RIFO led the development of 

habitat based evaluations 

using Habitat Evaluation 

Procedure for site specific 

habitat assessment studies at 

locks and dams. 

3 1 Ecological Services 

Reynoldsburg, OH 

Investigate, prevent and 

3 1 Ecological Services Twin 

Cities, MN http://midwest.fws.gov/TwinCities/ 

remediate effects of toxic 

pollution to maximize quality 

habitat for Service trust 

species 

Investigate and remediate 

effects on environment 

3 1 ES - Columbia, MO http://midwest.fws.gov/ColumbiaES/ contaminants on fish and 

wildlife and coordinate 

restoration of trust resources 

3 1 Genoa National Fish Hatchery http://midwest.fws.gov/Genoa/ 

3 3 Green Bay Fishery Resources 

Office 

http://midwest.fws.gov/GreenB 

ayFisheries/ 

3 1 La Crosse District 

Research projects on 

3 1 LaCrosse Fish Health Center http://midwest.fws.gov/LaCross 

eFishHealthCenter 

parasitological, viral and 

bacteriological fish disease 

agents 

3 3 LaCrosse Fishery Resources 

Office 

http://midwest.fws.gov/LaCross 

eFisheries/ 

Activity Highlights: Develop 

3 3 Ludington Biostation http://midwest.fws.gov/Ludington/ and implement enhanced 

lamprey control techniques 

3 1 Mark Twain National Wildlife 

Refuge http://midwest.fws.gov/marktwain/ 

3 16 Marquette Biological Station http://midwest.fws.gov/Marquette/ 

3 1 Migratory Birds and State 

Programs http://www.r1.fws.gov/mbsp/ 

3 1 Pendills Creek National Fish 

Hatchery 

http://midwest.fws.gov/Pendills 

Creek/ 

3 1 Regional Director Region 3 

53

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

Services the Fish Health 

Center provides include fish 

disease diagnostics, inspection 

and certification of disease 

presence in production 

facilities, confirmation of 

3 1 Regional Office-Fisheries http://midwest.fws.gov/Fisheries/ specific fish pathogens from 

other health labs, applied 

research, technical 

information exchange and fish 

health management training 

for the people who work 

directly with fish production. 

3 1 Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge http://midwest.fws.gov/seney/ 

3 1 Tamarac National Wildlife 

Refuge http://midwest.fws.gov/Tamarac/ 

3 1 

Upper Mississippi River 

National Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://midwest.fws.gov/Upper 

MississippiRiver/ 

30 59 55 

2 1 ARD Ecological Services http://ifw2es.fws.gov/ 

2 4 Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office http://arizonaes.fws.gov/ 

2 2 Arizona Fishery Resource 

Office Flagstaff, AZ 

2 1 Bosque Del Apache National 

Wildlife Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ 

refuges/newmex/bosque/index. 

html 

2 1 Deep Fork National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ 

refuges/oklahoma/deep%20fork 

/index.html 

2 1 Dexter National Fish Hatchery 

and Technology Center 

http://fisheries.fws.gov/FTC/FT 

Cdexter.htm 

2 3 Division of Migratory Birds 

2 1 Ecological Services Austin, TX http://ifw2es.fws.gov/TexasOffi 

ces.cfm 

2 1 Ecological Services Field 

Office Arlington http://www.fws.gov/arlingtontexas/ 

2 2 Ecological Services Field 

Office Corpus Christi, TX 

http://ifw2es.fws.gov/CorpusCh 

ristiTexas/ 

2 1 Ecological Services Field 

Office Houston, TX 

2 1 Fishery Resource Office 

Parker, AZ 

2 2 Laguna Atascosa National 

Wildlife Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ 

refuges/texas/laguna.html 

2 2 Lower Rio Grande Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ 

refuges/texas/lrgv.html 

2 1 McFaddin National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refu 

ges/texas/mcfaddin/index.html 

2 1 Mescalero National Fish 

Hatchery 

2 2 Mora National Fish Hatchery http://fisheries.fws.gov/FTC/FT 

Cdexter.htm 

54

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

2 3 New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office 

2 2 New Mexico Fishery 

Resources Office 

2 4 Oklahoma Ecological Services 

Field Office http://ifw2es.fws.gov/Oklahoma/ 

2 1 Ozark Plateau National 

Wildlife Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refu 

ges/oklahoma/ozark/index.html 

2 1 San Bernardino/Leslie Canyon 

National Wildlife Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ 

refuges/arizona/sanb.html 

Conduct research on life 

2 3 

San Marcos National Fish 

Hatchery and Technology 

Center 

http://fisheries.fws.gov/FTC/FT 

Csanmrs.htm 

history, ecological 

requirements, genetics, and 

culture - Conduct research on 

restocking refugium species 

2 1 Service Aviation Manager 

Sevilleta NWR is managed 

2 1 Sevilleta National Wildlife 

Refuge 

primarily as a research area, 

and is closed to most 

recreational uses. 

2 1 Willow Beach National Fish 

Hatchery 

27 44 43 

1 6 Abernathy Salmon Fish 

Technology Center http://pacific.fws.gov/aftc 

The major emphases of the 

Center is applied research 

(Conduct applied research 

studies at National Fish 

Hatcheries to examine effects 

of natural rearing practices.) 

1 2 Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office http://arcata.fws.gov/ 

1 2 Big Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/pacifici 

slands/wnwr/bignwrindex.html 

1 4 CA/NV Fish Health Center 

1 2 CA/NV Operations Office 

1 9 Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/ 

1 1 Coleman National Fish 

Hatchery 

The CRFPO also provides for 

science-based management of 

aquatic resources on federal 

and tribal lands in the area 

from the Columbia River 

1 6 Columbia River Fisheries 

Program Office http://columbiariver.fws.gov/ 

mouth upstream - conducts 

interagency research - The 

CAT-Team may also provide 

guidance on experimental 

design, modeling and analysis 

for FWS research and 

monitoring projects 

(http://columbiariver.fws.gov/ 

programs.htm) 

1 1 Colusa National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacra 

mentovalleyrefuges/colusa.htm 

1 1 Division of Engineering 

55

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

1 1 Division of Migratory Bird 

Management 

1 2 Division of Migratory Birds 

and Habitat Programs 

1 6 Ecological Services Field 

Office Pacific Islands 

1 2 Environmental Contaminants 

The Monument supports a 

variety of approved research, 

survey and inventory projects. 

Current research subjects 

1 1 

Hanford Reach National 

Monument/Saddle Mountain 

NWR 

http://hanfordreach.fws.gov/ 

include burrowing owls, 

butterflies, migratory and 

resident songbirds, 

amphibians and reptiles, 

invasive species, microbiotic 

crust, migratory waterfowl, 

salmonid and riverine species, 

and shrub-steppe restoration. 

1 1 Humboldt Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge http://pacific.fws.gov/humboldtbay/ 

The Idaho Fish Health Center 

(IFHC) is co-located with 

Dworshak National Fish 

1 1 Idaho Fish Health Center http://idfishhealth.fws.gov/ Hatchery 

(http://idfishhealth.fws.gov/re 

search.htm - Skin 

Reflectance) 

1 4 Idaho Fishery Resource Office http://idahofro.fws.gov/ 

1 1 Kauai National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/pac 

ificislands/wnwr/kauainwrinde 

x.html 

1 1 Klamath Basin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex http://klamathbasinrefuges.fws.gov/ 

1 1 Klamath Falls Fish and 

Wildlife Office 

1 1 Kooskia National Fish 

Hatchery 

1 1 Kootenai National Wildlife 

Refuge 

1 1 Lahontan National Fish 

Hatchery 

1 1 Leavenworth National Fish 

Hatchery Complex 

http://leavenworth.fws.gov/proj 

ects.htm 

1 2 Little White Salmon/ Willard 

National Fish Health Center 

1 1 Malheur National Wildlife 

Refuge http://malheur.fws.gov/ 

1 1 Nevada Fish and Wildlife 

Office 

1 2 Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex http://nisqually.fws.gov/ 

1 1 Oahu National Wildlife Refuge http://www.fws.gov/pacific/pacifici 

slands/wnwr/oahunwrindex.html 

1 1 Olympia Fish Hatchery Center http://olympiafishhealth.fws.gov/ Provides technical services 

56

Region Published 

Authors Org Unit Website Notes 

1 1 Oregon Coast National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ore 

goncoast/ 

1 3 Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office http://oregonfwo.fws.gov/ 

1 3 Pacific Islands National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/pac 

ificislands/ 

1 1 Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife 

Office 

1 1 Ruby Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge 

http://pacific.fws.gov/refuges/fi 

eld/NV_rubylk.htm 

1 9 Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office 

Research is encouraged, and 

staff is involved with 

initiating and conducting 

studies that have direct 

1 2 Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacra 

mentovalleyrefuges/index.htm 

applications to management. 

Recent examples include 

studies on the effects of 

mosquito abatement activities 

on refuge biota, giant garter 

snake ecology, and causes of 

avian cholera outbreaks. 

1 1 San Diego National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/san 

diegorefuges/south_bay.htm 

1 1 San Francisco Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex 

1 2 SE Idaho National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

http://pacific.fws.gov/refuges/fi 

eld/ID_seid.htm 

1 2 Sheldon Hart National Wildlife 

Refuge http://sheldon-hartmtn.fws.gov/ 

1 2 Snake River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Office 

1 1 Stillwater National Wildlife 

Refuge 

1 1 Stockton Fish and Wildlife 

Office http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/usfws/ 

1 5 Upper Columbia Fish and 

Wildlife Office Provides technical services 

1 1 Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office 

1 1 Washington Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex 

1 6 Western Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Office 

1 1 Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex http://willapa.fws.gov/ 

1 1 Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office 

50 112 

57

Appendix 3A. Regional Appendices 

All FWS 

Latent Content Analysis Results 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for FWS = 244 


Number of PDs from published individuals = 125 


Number of PDs from non published individuals = 119 


Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 


Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. Significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for the following categories:

 (1-2) Research planning – Design research study/data collection method 

χ

2

 = 9.60 

phi = .20. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

 Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 1-2 present in PD? No 84 64 148 

Yes 35 61 96 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 49% of them had category 1-2 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 1-2 content in their PDs, 64% of them had published. 

(3-1) Research analyses – Analyze data using qualitative or quantitative methods. 

χ

2 = 8.86 

phi = .19. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 3-1 present in PD? No 84 65 149 

Yes 35 60 95 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 48% of them had category 3-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 3-1 content in their PDs, 63% of them had published. 

58

(4-1) Research dissemination – Write reports from data 

χ

2 = 5.57 

phi = .15. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a weak relationship. 

 Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 4-1 present in PD? No 99 88 187 

Yes 20 37 57 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 30% of them had category 4-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 4-1 content in their PDs, 65% of them had published. 

(5-1) Research application – Use research-based information to evaluate or inform management actions. 

χ

2 = 7.04 

phi = .17. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a weak relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 5-1 present in PD? No 79 62 141 

Yes 40 63 103 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 50% of them had category 5-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 5-1 content in their PDs, 61% of them had published. 

(6-1) Research collaboration – Collaborate with non-FWS personnel on research projects. 

χ

2 = 10.94 

phi = .21. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 6-1 present in PD? No 93 73 166 

Yes 26 52 78 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 42% of them had category 6-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 6-1 content in their PDs, 67% of them had published. 

(7-1) Knowledge/Skill/Ability Required– Statistical data analysis 

χ

2

 = 9.22 

phi = .19. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-1 present in PD? No 80 60 140 

Yes 39 65 104 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 52% of them had category 7-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-1 content in their PDs, 63% of them had published. 

59

(7-2) Knowledge/Skill/Ability Required– Research methods 

χ

2

 = 14.91 

phi = .25. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-2 present in PD? No 77 50 127 

Yes 42 75 117 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 60% of them had category 7-2 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-2 content in their PDs, 64% of them had published. 

(7-3) Knowledge/Skill/Ability Required– Statistical software 

χ

2

 = 4.45 

phi = .14. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a weak relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-3 present in PD? No 111 106 217 

Yes 8 19 27 

Total 119 125 244 

Of the people who had published, 15% of them had category 7-3 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-3 content in their PDs, 70% of them had published. 

GS Level 

Due to small sample sizes at GS 7, 9 and 15, the analyses were limited to GS levels in the range from 11 to 14. However, 

frequencies for the entire range of GS levels are provided. Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square to determine if 

the category related to the GS level of the PD. Significant (at p < .05) results were found for the following categories: 

(1-2) Research planning – Design research study/data collection method 

χ

2

 = 18.39 

Cramer’s V =.29. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

 GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 1-2 No 1 4 24 42 51 18 8 148 

present in PD? Yes 0 6 31 36 21 2 0 96 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

60% of GS-9, 56% of GS-11, 46% of GS-12, 29% of GS-13, and 10% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 1-2 content. 


Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 1-2 content in their PDs, 34% were GS-11, 40% were GS-12, 23% were GS-13, and 2% were GS-14. 


60

(2-1) Research execution – Collect data 

χ

2

 = 23.58 

Cramer’s V = .32. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 2-1 No 0 3 23 44 55 18 8 151 

present in PD? Yes 1 7 32 34 17 2 0 93 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

100% of GS-7, 70% of GS-9, 58% of GS-11, 44% of GS-12, 24% of GS-13, and 10% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 2-1 content. 

Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 2-1 content in their PDs, 38% were GS-11, 40% were GS-12, 20% were GS-13, and 2% were GS-14. 

(2-5) Research execution – Conduct Inventories/Field studies 

χ

2

 = 21.75 

Cramer’s V = .31. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 2-5 No 1 3 27 46 60 17 8 162 

present in PD? Yes 0 7 28 32 12 3 0 82 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

70% of GS-9, 51% of GS-11, 41% of GS-12, 17% of GS-13, and 15% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 2-5 content. 

Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 2-5 content in their PDs, 37% were GS-11, 43% were GS-12, 16% were GS-13, and 4% were GS-14. 

(2-6) Research execution – Conduct monitoring 

χ

2

 = 9.34 

Cramer’s V = .20. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 2-6 No 1 4 43 58 65 19 8 198 

present in PD? Yes 0 6 12 20 7 1 0 46 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

60% of GS-9, 26% of GS-11, 43% of GS-12, 15% of GS-13, and 5% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 2-6 content. 

Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 2-6 content in their PDs, 30% were GS-11, 50% were GS-12, 18% were GS-13, and 3% were GS-14. 

(3-1) Research analyses – Analyze data using qualitative or quantitative methods. 


χ

2

 = 15.96 


Cramer’s V = .27. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 


GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 3-1 No 1 3 28 39 53 17 8 149 

present in PD? Yes 0 7 27 39 19 3 0 95 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

70% of GS-9, 49% of GS-11, 50% of GS-12, 26% of GS-13 and 15% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 3-1 content. 


Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 3-1 content in their PDs, 31% were GS-11, 44% were GS-12, 22% were GS-13, and 3% were GS-14. 


61

(4-1) Research dissemination – Write reports from data. 

χ

2

 = 17.63 

Cramer’s V = .28. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 4-1 No 1 7 37 51 64 19 8 187 

present in PD? Yes 0 3 18 27 8 1 0 57 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

30% of GS-9, 33% of GS-11, 35% of GS-12, 11% of GS-13 and 5% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 4-1 content. 

Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 4-1 content in their PDs, 33% were GS-11, 50% were GS-12, 15% were GS-13, and 2% were GS-14. 

(4-2) Research dissemination – Publication 

χ

2

 = 9.76 

Cramer’s V = .21. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 4-2 No 1 9 47 63 68 20 8 216 

present in PD? Yes 0 1 8 15 4 0 0 28 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

10% of GS-9, 15% of GS-11, 19% of GS-12, and 6% of GS-13 position descriptions had category 4-2 content. 

Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 4-2 content in their PDs, 30% were GS-11, 56% were GS-12, and 15% were GS-13. 

(7-1) Knowledge/Skill/Ability Required – Statistical data analysis 

χ

2

 = 15.88 

Cramer’s V = .27. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 7-1 No 1 3 25 37 49 17 8 140 

present in PD? Yes 0 7 30 41 23 3 0 104 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

70% of GS-9, 55% of GS-11, 53% of GS-12, 32% of GS-13, and 15% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 7-1 content. 

Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 7-1 content in their PDs, 31% were GS-11, 42% were GS-12, 24% were GS-13, and 3% were GS-14. 

 (7-4) Knowledge/Skill/Ability Required – Document preparation 

χ

2

 = 7.96 

Cramer’s V = .19. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 7-4 No 1 5 38 55 61 18 8 186 

present in PD? Yes 0 5 17 23 11 2 0 58 

Total 1 10 55 78 72 20 8 244 

50% of GS-9, 31% of GS-11, 29% of GS-12, 15% of GS-13, and 10% of GS-14 position descriptions had category 7-4 content. 


Of the GS 11-14 people who had category 7-4 content in their PDs, 32% were GS-11, 43% were GS-12, 21% were GS-13, and 4% were GS-14. 


62

Occupational Classification 

Due to small sample sizes for some occupational classifications, the analyses were limited to the 

occupational classifications of 401,480, 482, 485, and 486. However, frequencies for the entire range of 

occupational classifications are provided. Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square to determine if the 

category related to the occupational classification of the PD. Significant (at p < .05) results were found for the 

following categories: 

(1-2) Research planning – Design research study/data collection method 

χ

2

 = 21.80 

Cramer’s V = .31. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Occupational classification 

Category 1-2 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 0 1 46 0 0 1 15 36 17 29 0 1 1 148 

Yes 0 1 0 25 1 1 0 0 26 3 35 1 1 2 96 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

100% of 193 (Archaeology), 35% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 408 (Ecology), 100% of 430 (Botany), 42% of 482 (Fishery 

Biology), 15% of 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management), 55% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), 100% of 701 (Veterinary Medical Science), 50% of 1320 

(Chemistry), and 67% of 1530 (Statistician) position descriptions had category 1-2 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 1-2 content in their PDs, 28% were 401, 29% were 482, 3% were 485, and 39% 

were 486 classifications. 

(2-1) Research execution – Collect data 

χ

2

 = 18.81 

Cramer’s V = .29. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Occupational classification 

Category 2-1 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 0 1 37 1 0 0 15 34 17 43 0 1 1 151 

Yes 0 1 0 34 0 1 1 0 28 3 21 1 1 2 93 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

100% of 193 (Archaeology), 48% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 430 (Botany), 100% of 454 (Rangeland Management), 45% of 

482 (Fishery Biology), 15% of 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management), 33% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), 100% of 701 (Veterinary Medical Science), 

50% of 1320 (Chemistry), and 67% of 1530 (Statistician) position descriptions had category 2-1 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 2-1 content in their PDs, 40% were 401, 33% were 482, 3% were 485, and 24% 

were 486 classifications. 

(2-5) Research execution – Conduct Inventories/Field Studies 

χ

2

 = 32.79 

Cramer’s V = .38. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Occupational classification 

Category 2-5 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 0 1 49 1 0 1 15 48 15 25 1 2 3 162 

Yes 0 1 0 22 0 1 0 0 14 5 39 0 0 0 82 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

100% of 193 (Archaeology), 31% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 430 (Botany), 23% of 482 (Fishery Biology), 25% of 485 

(Wildlife Refuge Management), and 61% of 486 (Wildlife Biology) position descriptions had category 2-5 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 2-5 content in their PDs, 28% were 401, 18% were 482, 6% were 485, and 49% 

were 486 classifications. 

63

(2-6) Research execution – Conduct Monitoring 

χ

2

 = 21.06 

Cramer’s V = .30. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Occupational classification 

Category 2-6 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 1 1 65 0 0 0 15 54 16 42 0 1 2 198 

Yes 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 0 8 4 22 1 1 1 46 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

8% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 408 (Ecology), 100% of 430 (Botany), 100% of 454 (Rangeland Management), 13% of 482 

(Fishery Biology), 20% of 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management), 34% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), 100% of 701 (Veterinary Medical Science), 50% 

of 1320 (Chemistry), and 33% of 1530 (Statistician) position descriptions had category 2-6 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 2-6 content in their PDs, 15% were 401, 20% were 482, 10% were 485, and 55% 

were 486 classifications. 

(3-1) Research analyses – Analyzing data using qualitative of quantitative methods. 


χ

2

 = 19.10 


Cramer’s V = .29. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 


Occupational classification 

Category 3-1 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 1 1 45 0 0 1 14 34 18 31 1 1 1 149 

Yes 0 0 0 26 1 1 0 1 28 2 33 0 1 2 95 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

37% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 408 (Ecology), 100% of 430 (Botany), 7% of 480 (Fish and Wildlife Administration), 45% of 

482 (Fishery Biology), 10% of 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management), 52% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), 50% of 1320 (Chemistry), and 67% of 1530 

(Statistician) position descriptions had category 3-1 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 3-1 content in their PDs, 29% were 401, 1% were 480, 31% were 482, 2% were 

485, and 37% were 486 classifications. 

(4-1) Research dissemination – Write reports from data 

χ

2

 = 13.84 

Cramer’s V = .24. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Occupational classification 

Category 4-1 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 1 1 49 1 0 1 15 48 20 46 1 2 1 187 

Yes 0 0 0 22 0 1 0 0 14 0 18 0 0 2 57 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

31% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 430 (Botany), 23% of 482 (Fishery Biology), 28% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), and 67% of 

1530 (Statistician) position descriptions had category 4-1 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 4-1 content in their PDs, 41% were 401, 26% were 482, and 33% were 486 

classifications. 

64

(4-2) Research dissemination – Write articles for publication from research data 

χ

2

 = 22.84 

Cramer’s V = .31. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

 Occupational classification 

Category 4-2 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 1 1 70 0 0 1 15 55 20 49 1 1 1 216 

Yes 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 7 0 15 0 1 2 28 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

1% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 408 (Ecology), 100% of 430 (Botany), 11% of 482 (Fishery Biology), 23% of 486 (Wildlife 

Biology), 50% of 1320 (Chemistry) and 67% of 1530 (Statistician) position descriptions had category 4-2 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 4-2 content in their PDs, 4% were 401, 30% were 482, and 65% were 486 

classifications. 

(5-4) Research application – Develop new techniques/technologies/methods for research or analysis. 


χ

2

 = 22.72 


Cramer’s V = .31. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 


Occupational classification 

Category 5-4 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 1 1 69 1 1 1 15 59 20 50 1 2 1 223 

Yes 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 14 0 0 2 21 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

3% of 401 (General Biological Science), 5% of 482 (Fishery Biology), 22% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), and 67% of 1530 (Statistician) position 

descriptions had category 5-4 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 5-4 content in their PDs, 11% were 401, 16% were 482, and 73% were 486 

classifications. 

(6-1) Research collaboration – Collaborate with non-FWS personnel on research projects 

χ

2

 = 11.75 

Cramer’s V = .23. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Occupational classification 

Category 6-1 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 0 0 1 56 0 0 1 13 44 10 38 0 1 2 166 

Yes 1 1 0 15 1 1 0 2 18 10 26 1 1 1 78 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

100% of 170 (History), 100% of 193 (Archaeology), 21% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 430 (Botany), 13% of 480 (Fish and 

Wildlife Administration), 29% of 482 (Fishery Biology), 50% of 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management), 41% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), 100% of 

701 (Veterinary Medical Science), 50% of 1320 (Chemistry), and 33% of 1530 (Statistician) position descriptions had category 6-1 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 6-1 content in their PDs, 21% were 401, 3% were 480, 25% were 482, 14% were 

485, and 37% were 486 classifications. 

65

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required – Statistical data analysis 

χ

2

 = 44.16 

Cramer’s V = .44. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a strong relationship. 

 Occupational classification 

Category 7-1 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 1 1 1 43 1 1 0 14 44 17 17 0 0 0 140 

Yes 0 0 0 28 0 0 1 1 18 3 47 1 2 3 104 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

39% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 454 (Rangeland Management), 7% of 480 (Fish and Wildlife Administration), 29% of 482 

(Fishery Biology), 15% of 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management), 73% of 486 (Wildlife Biology), 100% of 701 (Veterinary Medical Science), 

100% of 1320 (Chemistry), and 100% of 1530 (Statistician) position descriptions had category 7-1 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 7-1 content in their PDs, 29% were 401, 1% were 480, 19% were 482, 3% were 

485, and 48% were 486 classifications. 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required – Research methods 

χ

2

 = 42.16 

Cramer’s V = .43. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a strong relationship. 

Occupational classification 

Category 7-2 170 193 301 401 408 430 454 480 482 485 486 701 1320 1530 Total 

present in PD? No 0 1 1 32 0 0 0 14 39 19 19 0 1 1 127 

Yes 1 0 0 39 1 1 1 1 23 1 45 1 1 2 117 

Total 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 15 62 20 64 1 2 3 244 

100% of 170 (History), 55% of 401 (General Biological Science), 100% of 408 (Ecology), 100% of 430 (Botany), 100% of 454 (Rangeland 

Management), 7% of 480 (Fish and Wildlife Administration), 37% of 482 (Fishery Biology), 5% of 485 (Wildlife Refuge Management), 70% of 

486 (Wildlife Biology), 100% of 701 (Veterinary Medical Science), 50% of 1320 (Chemistry), and 67% of 1530 (Statistician) position 

descriptions had category 7-2 content. 

Of the 401, 480, 482, 485, and 486 positions that had category 7-2 content in their PDs, 36% were 401, 1% were 480, 21% were 482, 1% were 

485, and 41% were 486 classifications 

66

Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 244 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

4 (2)a

96 (39) 

12 (5) 

49 (20) 

93 (38) 

29 (12) 

2 (1) 

11 (5) 

82 (34) 

46 (19) 

11 (5) 

95 (39) 

57 (23) 

28 (12) 

21 (9) 

103 (42) 

9 (4) 

7 (3) 

21 (9) 

78 (32) 

59 (24) 

3 (1) 

6 (3) 

104 (43) 

117 (48) 

27 (11) 

58 (24) 

Not present in PD 

 240 (98)a 

148 (61) 

232 (95) 

195 (80) 

151 (62) 

215 (88) 

242 (99) 

233 (96) 

162 (66) 

198 (81) 

233 (96) 

149 (61) 

187 (77) 

216 (89) 

223 (91) 

141 (58) 

235 (96) 

237 (97) 

223 (91) 

166 (68) 

185 (76) 

241 (99) 

238 (98) 

140 (57) 

127 (52) 

217 (89) 

186 (76) 

67

Region 1 

Intercoder Agreement 

Original data Consensus data 

% agreement = 89% % agreement = 91% 

Variable Kappa Significance Kappa Significance b b

(1-1) Planning - Research question - -

(1-2) Planning - Design .81a

 .00 .81 a .00 b b

(1-3) Planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Planning - Develop program 

(2-1) Execution - Data collection 

(2-2) Execution - Manage data 

- -

.38 a

 .00 .38 a .00 

.56 a

 .00 .61 a .00 

.45 a

 .00 .45 a .00 b b

(2-3) Execution - Survey 

(2-4) Execution - Study 

(2-5) Execution - Inventory 

(2-6) Execution - Monitoring 

(2-7) Execution - Literature review 

- -

.13 .38 .22 .14 

.72 a

 .00 .82 a .00 

.56 a

 .00 .61 a .00 

.38 a

 .00 .48 a .00 

(3) Analyses 

(4-1) Dissemination - Reports 

(4-2) Dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Application - Management 

(5-2) Application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Application - Decision documents 

.70 a

 .00 .76 a .00 

.57 a

 .00 .67 a .00 

.72 a

 .00 .72 a .00 

.85 a

 .00 .85 a .00 

.39 a

 .01 .81 a .00 

.30 a

 .01 .38 a .00 

-.03 .82 -.02 .88 

(5-4) Application - New approaches 

(6-1) Collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Collaboration - Supervision 

.31 a

 .01 .38 a .00 

.52 a

 .00 .66 a .00 

.24 .10 .34 a

 .01 b b (6-3) Collaboration - Funding - - b b

(6-4) Collaboration - Grants - -

(7-1) KSA - Data analysis .91 a

 .00 .91 a .00 

(7-2) KSA - Methods .86 a

(7-3) KSA - Software .90 a

(7-4) KSA - Document .38 a

 .00 .86 a .00 

.00 .90 a

 .00 

.00 .62 a

 .00 

a 

Significant at p < .05 

b 

Kappa is not computed when at least one variable in the 2-way table is a constant. 

68 
Region 1 

Latent Content Analysis 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for Region 1 = 43 

Number of PDs from published individuals = 22 

Number of PDs from non published individuals = 21 

Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 

Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. Significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for the following categories: 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

χ2

 = 5.22 

phi = .35. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-2 present in PD? No 14 7 21 

Yes 7 15 22 

Total 21 22 43 

Of the people who had published, 68% of them had category 7-2 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-2 content in their PDs, 68% of them had published. 

69

GS Level 

Even when using only the GS levels with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too much sparseness 

in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content categories. 

GS level 

9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

Category 5-3 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes

No 

Yes

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

11 

6 

5 

11 

9 

2 

7 

4 

9 

2 

11 

10 

1 

6 

5 

8 

3 

11 

6 

5 

7 

4 

9 

2 

9 

2 

6 

5 

11 

11 

20 

13 

7 

20 

17 

3 

16 

4 

17 

3 

20 

19 

1 

16 

4 

15 

5 

19 

1 

14 

6 

17 

3 

18 

2 

18 

2 

11 

9 

19 

1 

19 

1 

7 

5 

2 

7 

6 

1 

4 

3 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

43 

0 

28 

15 

43 

0 

36 

7 

31 

12 

37 

6 

43 

0 

40 

3 

33 

10 

34 

9 

42 

1 

31 

12 

35 

8 

39 

4 

39 

4 

27 

16 

42 

1 

42 

1 

70

GS level 

9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

10 

1 

20 7 2 2 42 

1 

7 

4 

14 

6 

6 

1 2 

2 29 

14 

9 

2 

15 

5 

6 

1 2 

2 33 

10 

11 20 7 2 2 43 

0 

11 20 7 2 2 43 

0 

3 

8 

8 

12 

7 1 

1 

2 21 

22 

4 

7 

10 

10 

5 

2 2 

2 21 

22 

9 

2 

18 

2 

7 2 2 38 

5 

8 

3 

11 

16 

4 

20 

7 

7 

2 

2 

2 

2 

36 

7 

43 

Category 5-4 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 6-2 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-3 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 7-2 No 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 7-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 7-4 No 1 

present in PD? Yes

Total in GS Level 1 

71

Occupational Classification 

Even when using only the occupational classifications with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too 

much sparseness in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content 

categories. 

Occupational classification 

401 408 480 482 485 486 701 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

14 

14 

14 

14 

10 

4 

12 

2 

14 

14 

13 

1 

13 

1 

13 

1 

11 

3 

12 

2 

14 

14 

12 

2 

14 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

10 

5 

5 

10 

8 

2 

5 

5 

9 

1 

10 

8 

2 

10 

10 

10 

8 

2 

7 

3 

9 

1 

9 

1 

5 

5 

10 

8 

7 

1 

8 

6 

2 

8 

8 

8 

8 

6 

2 

7 

1 

8 

7 

1 

8 

8 

8 

6 

2 

7 

1 

7 

7 

7 

4 

3 

5 

2 

5 

2 

7 

6 

1 

7 

2 

5 

7 

2 

5 

4 

3 

5 

2 

5 

2 

2 

5 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

43 

0 

28 

15 

43 

0 

36 

7 

31 

12 

37 

6 

43 

0 

40 

3 

33 

10 

34 

9 

42 

1 

31 

12 

35 

8 

39 

4 

39 

4 

27 

16 

42 

1 

72

Occupational classification 

401 408 480 482 485 486 701 Total 

13 1 2 10 8 7 1 42 

1 1 

14 1 2 10 8 6 1 42 

1 1 

14 2 5 4 4 29 

1 5 4 3 1 14 

11 1 2 7 8 3 1 33 

3 3 4 10 

14 1 2 10 8 7 1 43 

0 

14 1 2 10 8 7 1 43 

0 

7 1 2 6 5 21 

7 4 3 7 1 22 

7 2 4 7 1 21 

7 1 6 1 6 1 22 

13 1 2 9 8 4 1 38 

1 1 3 5 

12 2 9 8 4 1 36 

2 1 1 3 7 

14 1 2 10 8 7 1 43 

Category 5-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 5-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-2 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-2 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Total in Occ. 

Class 

73

Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 43 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

15 (35)a

7 (16) 

12 (28) 

6 (14) 

3 (7) 

10 (23) 

9 (21) 

1 (2) 

12 (28) 

8 (19) 

4 (9) 

4 (9) 

16 (37) 

1 (2) 

1 (2) 

1 (2) 

14 (33) 

10 (23) 

22 (51) 

22 (51) 

5 (12) 

7 (16) 

Not present in PD 

43 (100)a 

 28 (65) 

43 (100) 

36 (84) 

31 (72) 

37 (86) 

43 (100) 

40 (93) 

33 (77) 

34 (79) 

42 (98) 

31 (72) 

35 (81) 

39 (91) 

39 (91) 

27 (63) 

42 (98) 

42 (98) 

42 (98) 

29 (67) 

33 (77) 

43 (100) 

43 (100) 

21 (49) 

21 (49) 

38 (88) 

36 (84) 

74

Region 2 

Intercoder Agreement 

Original data Consensus data 

% agreement = 85% % agreement = 90% 

Variable Kappa Significance Kappa Significance a (1-1) Planning - Research question a

 - - b b (1-2) Planning - Design .42 .02 .60 .00 a (1-3) Planning - Write proposal a

 - - b b (1-4) Planning - Develop program .76 .00 .84 .00 

b

(2-1) Execution - Data collection .29 .11 .48 .01 b b (2-2) Execution - Manage data .43 .02 .69 .00 a (2-3) Execution - Survey a

 - - b

(2-4) Execution - Study .25 .12 .39 .02 b b (2-5) Execution - Inventory .49 .01 .62 .00 b b

(2-6) Execution - Monitoring .40 .02 .74 .00 b b

(2-7) Execution - Literature review .61 .00 .71 .00 b b

(3) Analyses .56 .00 .75 .00 b b

(4-1) Dissemination - Reports .37 .04 .67 .00 b b

(4-2) Dissemination - Publication .71 .00 1.0 .00 b b

(4-3) Dissemination - Presentation .89 .00 1.0 .00 b b

(5-1) Application - Management 


(5-2) Application - Policy makers 


(5-3) Application - Decision documents 


.59 .00 .79 .00 

-.08 .63 -.05 .74 a

 - .48b .00 

b

(5-4) Application - New approaches .26 .15 .35 .05 b b

(6-1) Collaboration - Non-FWS .54 .00 .74 .00 

b

(6-2) Collaboration - Supervision .32 .07 .61 .00 a

(6-3) Collaboration - Funding a - - b b

(6-4) Collaboration - Grants .67 .00 .80 .00 b b (7-1) KSA - Data analysis .92 .00 .92 .00 

b b

(7-2) KSA - Methods .54 .00 .74 .00 b b (7-3) KSA - Software .43 .01 .62 .00 b b

(7-4) KSA - Document .67 .00 .76 .00 a 

Significant at p < .05 

b 

Kappa is not computed when at least one variable in the 2-way table is a constant. 

75 
Region 2 

Latent Content Analysis Results 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for Region 2 = 31 

Number of PDs from published individuals = 15 

Number of PDs from non published individuals = 16 

Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 

Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. Significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for the following categories: 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Present research in professional forums (conference, meetings, symposia, etc 

χ2

 = 5.59 

phi = -.43. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship in a negative direction. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 4-3 present in PD? No 11 15 26 

Yes 5 0 5 

Total 16 15 31 

Of the people who had published, none of them had category 4-3 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 4-3 content in their PDs, none of them had published. 

(5-1) Research application - Use research-based information to evaluate or inform management actions 

χ2

 = 4.29 

phi = .37. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 5-1 present in PD? No 9 3 12 

Yes 7 12 19 

Total 16 15 31 

Of the people who had published, 80% of them had category 5-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 5-1 content in their PDs, 63% of them had published. 

76

GS Level 

Even when using only the GS levels with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too much sparseness 

in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content categories. 

 GS level 

9 11 12 13 14 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

7 

2 

5 

7 

5 

2 

1 

6 

3 

4 

7 

5 

2 

3 

4 

5 

2 

5 

2 

1 

6 

4 

3 

5 

2 

5 

2 

2 

5 

6 

1 

9 

3 

6 

9 

6 

3 

2 

7 

7 

2 

9 

6 

3 

4 

5 

5 

4 

8 

1 

3 

6 

6 

3 

7 

2 

8 

1 

3 

6 

8 

1 

10 

7 

3 

10 

6 

4 

8 

2 

9 

1 

10 

8 

2 

8 

2 

9 

1 

9 

1 

8 

2 

10 

10 

8 

2 

6 

4 

9 

1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

31 

0 

13 

18 

31 

0 

21 

10 

13 

18 

23 

8 

31 

0 

24 

7 

16 

15 

22 

9 

27 

4 

13 

18 

24 

7 

27 

4 

26 

5 

12 

19 

28 

3 

77

 GS level 

9 11 12 13 14 Total 

10 3 30 

1 

10 3 28 

3 

5 16 

5 3 15 

7 17 

3 3 14 

10 3 31 

0 

6 3 26 

4 5 

8 2 21 

2 1 10 

4 2 14 

6 1 17 

10 3 28 

3 

8 3 23 

2 8 

10 3 31 

Category 5-3 No 2 7 8 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 5-4 No 2 5 8 

present in PD? Yes 2 1 

Category 6-1 No 2 4 5 

present in PD? Yes 3 4 

Category 6-2 No 2 3 5 

present in PD? Yes 4 4 

Category 6-3 No 2 7 9 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 2 7 8 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 7-1 No 1 5 5 

present in PD? Yes 1 2 4 

Category 7-2 No 1 3 4 

present in PD? Yes 1 4 5 

Category 7-3 No 2 6 7 

present in PD? Yes 1 2 

Category 7-4 No 1 5 6 

present in PD? Yes 1 2 3 

Total in GS Level 2 7 9 

78

Occupational Classification 

Even when using only the occupational classifications with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too 

much sparseness in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content 

categories. 

Occupational classification 

401 430 480 482 485 486 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

12 

6 

6 

12 

11 

1 

4 

8 

10 

2 

12 

11 

1 

9 

3 

10 

2 

12 

6 

6 

10 

2 

11 

1 

10 

2 

3 

9 

11 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

7 

8 

5 

3 

3 

5 

5 

3 

8 

4 

4 

2 

6 

5 

3 

8 

2 

6 

6 

2 

7 

1 

7 

1 

3 

5 

7 

1 

4 

3 

1 

4 

4 

3 

1 

3 

1 

4 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

3 

1 

4 

4 

4 

3 

1 

4 

5 

2 

3 

5 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

5 

5 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

1 

4 

3 

2 

4 

1 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

31 

0 

13 

18 

31 

0 

21 

10 

13 

18 

23 

8 

31 

0 

24 

7 

16 

15 

22 

9 

27 

4 

13 

18 

24 

7 

27 

4 

26 

5 

12 

19 

28 

3 

79

Occupational classification 

401 430 480 482 485 486 Total 

12 1 1 8 4 4 30 

1 1 

11 1 1 7 4 4 28 

1 1 1 3 

8 5 3 16 

4 1 1 3 4 2 15 

7 4 3 3 17 

5 1 1 4 1 2 14 

12 1 1 8 4 5 31 

0 

9 1 1 7 4 4 26 

3 1 1 5 

9 1 5 4 2 21 

3 1 3 3 10 

4 5 4 1 14 

8 1 1 3 4 17 

11 1 1 8 4 3 28 

1 2 3 

8 1 6 3 5 23 

4 1 2 1 8 

12 1 1 8 4 5 31 

Category 5-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 5-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-2 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-2 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Total in Occ. 

Class 

80

Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 31 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

18 (58)a

10 (32) 

18 (58) 

8 (26) 

7 (23) 

15 (48) 

9 (29) 

4 (13) 

18 (58) 

7 (23) 

4 (13) 

5 (16) 

19 (61) 

3 (10) 

1 (3) 

3 (10) 

15 (48) 

14 (45) 

5 (16) 

10 (32) 

17 (55) 

3 (10) 

8 (26) 

Not present in PD 

31 (100)a 

 13 (42) 

31 (100) 

21(68) 

13 (42) 

23 (74) 

31 (100) 

24 (77) 

16 (52) 

22 (71) 

27 (87) 

13 (42) 

24 (77) 

27 (87) 

26 (84) 

12 (39) 

28 (90) 

30 (97) 

28 (90) 

16 (52) 

17 (55) 

31 (100) 

26 (84) 

21 (68) 

14 (45) 

28 (90) 

23 (74) 

81

Region 3 

Intercoder Agreement 

Original data Consensus data 

% agreement = 91% % agreement = 96% 

Variable Kappa Significance Kappa Significance b b (1-1) Planning - Research question - -

(1-2) Planning - Design .90a .00 .90a .00 b b

(1-3) Planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Planning - Develop program 

(2-1) Execution - Data collection 

- -

.29a

 .03 .37a .01 

.37a

 .05 .49a .01 b b

(2-2) Execution - Manage data - -

(2-3) Execution - Survey 1.0a

 .00 1.0a .00 b b

(2-4) Execution - Study 

(2-5) Execution - Inventory .63a

(2-6) Execution - Monitoring .37a

 - -

.00 .63a .00 

.01 .78a

 .00 b b

(2-7) Execution - Literature review - -

(3) Analyses 

(4-1) Dissemination - Reports 

(4-2) Dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Application - Management 

.85a .00 .93a .00 

.41a

 .01 .47a .00 

.61a

 .00 .61a .00 

.65a .00 .65a .00 

.43a

 .02 .52a .01 b b

(5-2) Application - Policy makers - - b b

(5-3) Application - Decision documents - - b

(5-4) Application - New approaches 

(6-1) Collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Collaboration - Supervision 

-.04 .85 -

.28 .14 .44a

 .02 

.08 .55 .78a .00 b b

(6-3) Collaboration - Funding - - b b

(6-4) Collaboration - Grants 

(7-1) KSA - Data analysis .84a

(7-2) KSA - Methods .54a

(7-3) KSA - Software .83a

(7-4) KSA - Document .81a

 - -

.00 1.0a .00 

.00 .54a

 .00 

.00 .83a

 .00 

.00 .81a .00 

a 

Significant at p < .05 

b 

Kappa is not computed when at least one variable in the 2-way table is a constant. 

82 
Region 3 

Latent Content Analysis Results 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for Region 3 = 29 

Number of PDs from published individuals = 17 

Number of PDs from non published individuals = 12 

Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 

Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. Significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for the following categories: 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyzing data using qualitative or quantitative methods. 


χ2

 = 6.20 


phi = .46. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 


Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 3-1 present in PD? No 11 8 19 

Yes 1 9 10 

Total 12 17 29 

Of the people who had published, 53% of them had category 3-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 3-1 content in their PDs, 90% of them had published. 

83

GS Level 

Even when using only the GS levels with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too much sparseness 

in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content categories. 

 GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

Category 5-3 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

4 

1 

3 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

1 

4 

4 

1 

3 

4 

4 

6 

3 

3 

6 

5 

1 

2 

4 

6 

5 

1 

6 

5 

1 

4 

2 

6 

3 

3 

6 

4 

2 

5 

1 

3 

3 

6 

6 

10 

9 

1 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

8 

2 

9 

1 

9 

1 

10 

5 

5 

10 

10 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

29 

0 

22 

7 

29 

0 

28 

1 

20 

9 

29 

0 

28 

1 

29 

0 

27 

2 

27 

2 

29 

0 

19 

10 

26 

3 

26 

3 

28 

1 

15 

14 

29 

0 

29 

0 

84

 GS level 

7 9 11 12 13 14 15 Total 

3 4 6 9 

1 

3 2 28 

1 

3 4 4 

2 

7 

3 

3 2 24 

5 

3 2 

2 

6 9 

1 

3 2 26 

3 

3 4 6 10 3 2 29 

0 

3 4 6 10 3 2 29 

0 

2 

1 

2 

2 

5 

1 

10 3 2 25 

4 

2 

1 

2 

2 

5 

1 

8 

2 

3 2 23 

6 

3 2 

2 

6 10 3 1 26 

1 3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

3 

4 

5 

1 

6 

8 

2 

10 

3 2 21 

8 

3 2 29 

Category 5-4 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-1 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-2 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-3 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-2 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-3 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-4 No 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Total in GS 1 

Level 

85

Occupational Classification 

Even when using only the occupational classifications with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too 

much sparseness in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content 

categories. 

Occupational classification 

401 480 482 485 486 1320 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

5 

4 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

2 

5 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

3 

16 

13 

3 

16 

16 

10 

6 

16 

16 

16 

15 

1 

15 

1 

16 

8 

8 

13 

3 

14 

2 

16 

9 

7 

16 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

2 

1 

3 

2 

1 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

29 

0 

22 

7 

29 

0 

28 

1 

20 

9 

29 

0 

28 

1 

29 

0 

27 

2 

27 

2 

29 

0 

19 

10 

26 

3 

26 

3 

28 

1 

15 

14 

29 

0 

86

Occupational classification 

401 480 482 485 

5 3 16 3 

486 

1 

1320 

1 

Total 

29 

0 

5 3 15 

1 

3 1 1 28 

1 

3 

2 

3 14 

2 

3 1 

1 

24 

5 

4 

1 

3 14 

2 

3 1 1 26 

3 

5 3 16 3 1 1 29 

0 

5 3 16 3 1 1 29 

0 

5 3 13 

3 

3 1 

1 

25 

4 

3 

2 

3 13 

3 

3 1 

1 

23 

6 

5 2 

1 

14 

2 

3 1 1 26 

3 

3 

2 

3 13 

3 

2 

1 1 1 

21 

8 

5 3 16 3 1 1 29 

Category 5-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 5-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-2 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-2 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-3 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-4 No 

present in PD? Yes 

Total in Occ. 

Class 

87

Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 29 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

7 (24)a

1 (3) 

9 (31) 

1 (3) 

2 (7) 

2 (7) 

10 (35) 

3 (10) 

3 (10) 

1 (3) 

14 (48) 

1 (3) 

5 (17) 

3 (10) 

4 (14) 

6 (21) 

3 (10) 

8 (28) 

Not present in PD 

29 (100)a 

 22 (76) 

29 (100) 

28 (97) 

20 (69) 

29 (100) 

28 (97) 

29 (100) 

27 (93) 

27 (93) 

29 (100) 

19 (66) 

26 (90) 

26 (90) 

28 (97) 

15 (52) 

29 (100) 

29 (100) 

28 (97) 

24 (83) 

26 (90) 

29 (100) 

29 (100) 

25 (86) 

23 (79) 

26 (90) 

21 (72) 

88

Region 5 

Intercoder Agreement 

Variable 

(1-1) Planning - Research question 

(1-2) Planning - Design 

(1-3) Planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Planning - Develop program 

(2-1) Execution - Data collection 

(2-2) Execution - Manage data 

(2-3) Execution - Survey 

(2-4) Execution - Study 

(2-5) Execution - Inventory 

(2-6) Execution - Monitoring 

(2-7) Execution - Literature review 

(3) Analyses 

(4-1) Dissemination - Reports 

(4-2) Dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Application - Management 

(5-2) Application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Application - New approaches 

(6-1) Collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Collaboration - Funding 

(6-4) Collaboration - Grants 

(7-1) KSA - Data analysis 

(7-2) KSA - Methods 

(7-3) KSA - Software 

(7-4) KSA - Document 

Original data Consensus data 

% agreement = 90% No consensus needed 

Kappa Significance bKappa Significance 

-

.62a .00 

.84a

 .00 

.62a

 .00 

.62a

 .00 

.53a

 .00 b

 -

.65a

 .00 

.33 .06 

-.05 .70 

.84a

 .00 

.94a .00 

.66a

 .00 b

 -

.65a .00 

.45a

 .01 

1.00a

 .00 b

 -

b

 -

.37a

 .04 

.61a .00 

1.00a

 .00 b

 -

.87a .00 

.69a

 .00 

.78a

 .00 

.75a

 .00 

a 

Significant at p < .05 

b 

Kappa is not computed when at least one variable in the 2-way table is a constant. 

89 
Region 5 

Latent Content Analysis Results 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for Region 5 = 32 

Number of PDs from published individuals = 12 

Number of PDs from non published individuals = 20 

Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 

Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. Significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for the following categories: 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyzing data using qualitative or quantitative methods 

χ2

 = 4.80 

phi = .39. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 3-1 present in PD? No 13 3 16 

Yes 7 9 16 

Total 20 12 32 

Of the people who had published, 75% of them had category 3-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 3-1 content in their PDs, 56% of them had published. 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Collaborate with non-FWS personnel on research projects 

χ2

 = 4.10 

phi = .36. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 6-1 present in PD? No 14 4 18 

Yes 6 8 14 

Total 20 12 32 

Of the people who had published, 67% of them had category 6-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 6-1 content in their PDs, 57% of them had published. 

90

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervise or coordinate other FWS employees on research projects 

χ2

 = 5.40 

phi = .41. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 6-2 present in PD? No 15 4 19 

Yes 5 8 13 

Total 20 12 32 

Of the people who had published, 67% of them had category 6-2 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 6-2 content in their PDs, 62% of them had published. 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical data analysis 

χ2

 = 4.10 

phi = .36. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-1 present in PD? No 14 4 18 

Yes 6 8 14 

Total 20 12 32 

Of the people who had published, 67% of them had category 7-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-1 content in their PDs, 57% of them had published. 

91

GS Level 

Even when using only the GS levels with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too much sparseness 

in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content categories. 

GS level 

11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

Category 5-3 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

10 

1 

3 

8 

9 

2 

8 

3 

4 

7 

10 

1 

11 

10 

1 

6 

5 

9 

2 

9 

2 

6 

5 

6 

5 

11 

10 

1 

8 

3 

11 

11 

6 

4 

2 

5 

1 

3 

3 

2 

4 

6 

6 

6 

3 

3 

5 

1 

5 

1 

2 

4 

2 

4 

6 

6 

3 

3 

6 

6 

11 

7 

4 

11 

5 

6 

7 

4 

7 

4 

11 

11 

9 

2 

10 

1 

11 

5 

6 

9 

2 

11 

11 

7 

4 

10 

1 

11 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

31 

1 

18 

14 

29 

3 

17 

15 

17 

15 

27 

5 

32 

0 

31 

1 

22 

10 

28 

4 

29 

3 

16 

16 

21 

11 

32 

0 

31 

1 

22 

10 

31 

1 

32 

0 

92

GS level 

11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 5-4 No 11 6 11 3 1 32 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 6-1 No 4 4 7 3 18 

present in PD? Yes 7 2 4 1 14 

Category 6-2 No 9 2 7 1 19 

present in PD? Yes 2 4 4 2 1 13 

Category 6-3 No 11 6 10 3 1 31 

present in PD? Yes 1 1 

Category 6-4 No 11 6 11 3 1 32 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 7-1 No 6 2 6 3 1 18 

present in PD? Yes 5 4 5 14 

Category 7-2 No 4 1 8 3 1 17 

present in PD? Yes 7 5 3 15 

Category 7-3 No 10 6 10 3 1 30 

present in PD? Yes 1 1 2 

Category 7-4 No 5 3 7 3 1 19 

present in PD? Yes 6 3 4 13 

Total in GS Level 11 6 11 3 1 32 

93 
Occupational Classification 

Even when using only the occupational classifications with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too 

much sparseness in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content 

categories. 

 Occupational classification 

401 480 482 485 486 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

13 

1 

5 

9 

11 

3 

7 

7 

5 

9 

13 

1 

14 

13 

1 

8 

6 

11 

3 

11 

3 

6 

8 

6 

8 

14 

13 

1 

8 

6 

14 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

11 

8 

3 

11 

8 

3 

6 

5 

7 

4 

11 

11 

8 

3 

11 

11 

6 

5 

8 

3 

11 

11 

10 

1 

11 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

31 

1 

18 

14 

29 

3 

17 

15 

17 

15 

27 

5 

32 

0 

31 

1 

22 

10 

28 

4 

29 

3 

16 

16 

21 

11 

32 

0 

31 

1 

22 

10 

31 

1 

94

 Occupational classification 

401 480 482 485 486 Total 

Category 5-3 No 14 3 11 1 3 32 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 5-4 No 14 3 11 1 3 32 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 6-1 No 8 2 6 1 1 18 

present in PD? Yes 6 1 5 2 14 

Category 6-2 No 9 1 7 1 1 19 

present in PD? Yes 5 2 4 2 13 

Category 6-3 No 14 3 10 1 3 31 

present in PD? Yes 1 1 

Category 6-4 No 14 3 11 1 3 32 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 7-1 No 6 3 8 1 18 

present in PD? Yes 8 3 3 14 

Category 7-2 No 5 3 8 1 17 

present in PD? Yes 9 3 3 15 

Category 7-3 No 14 3 10 1 2 30 

present in PD? Yes 1 1 2 

Category 7-4 No 5 3 9 2 19 

present in PD? Yes 9 2 1 1 13 

Total in Occ. Class 14 3 11 1 3 32 

95
Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 32 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

1 (3)a

14 (44) 

3 (9) 

15 (47) 

15 (47) 

5 (16) 

1 (3) 

10 (31) 

4 (13) 

3 (9) 

16 (50) 

11 (34) 

1 (3) 

10 (31) 

1 (3) 

14 (44) 

13 (41) 

1 (3) 

14 (44) 

15 (47) 

2 (6) 

13 (41) 

Not present in PD 

 31 (97)a 

18 (56) 

29 (91) 

17 (53) 

17 (53) 

27 (84) 

32 (100) 

31 (97) 

22 (69) 

28 (88) 

29 (91) 

16 (50) 

21 (66) 

32 (100) 

31 (97) 

22 (69) 

31 (97) 

32 (100) 

32 (100) 

18 (56) 

19 (59) 

31 (97) 

32 (100) 

18 (56) 

17 (53) 

30 (94) 

19 (59) 

96

Region 6 

Intercoder Agreement 

Original data Consensus data 

% agreement = 92% % agreement = 92% 

Variable Kappa Significance Kappa Significance 

(1-1) Planning - Research question 

(1-2) Planning - Design 

(1-3) Planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Planning - Develop program 

(2-1) Execution - Data collection 

(2-2) Execution - Manage data 

.66a

 .00 1.0a .00 

.66a

 .00 .66a .00 

.72a

 .00 .80a .00 

.83a

 .00 .91a .00 

.84a

 .00 .84a .00 

.87a

 .00 .87a .00 b b (2-3) Execution - Survey - - b b

(2-4) Execution - Study 

(2-5) Execution - Inventory 

(2-6) Execution - Monitoring 

(2-7) Execution - Literature review 

- -

.94a .00 .94a .00 

.75a

 .00 .80a .00 

.48a

 .00 .48a .00 

(3) Analyses 

(4-1) Dissemination - Reports 

(4-2) Dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Application - Management 

.76a .00 .76a .00 

.59a

 .00 .67a .00 

.87a

 .00 .87a .00 

1.0a .00 1.0a .00 

.28 .08 .35a

 .03 b b

(5-2) Application - Policy makers - - b b

(5-3) Application - Decision documents - - b b

(5-4) Application - New approaches 

(6-1) Collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Collaboration - Funding 

(6-4) Collaboration - Grants 

(7-1) KSA - Data analysis 

(7-2) KSA - Methods 

(7-3) KSA - Software 

(7-4) KSA - Document 

- -

.27 .07 .27 .07 

.55a

 .00 .55a .00 

.66a

 .00 .66a .00 

1.0a

 .00 1.0a .00 

.84a .00 .89a .00 

.74a

 .00 .79a .00 

1.0a

 .00 1.0a .00 

.59a

 .00 .66a .00 

a 

Significant at p < .05 

b 

Kappa is not computed when at least one variable in the 2-way table is a constant. 

97 
Region 6 

Latent Content Analysis Results 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for Region 6 = 38 

Number of PDs from published individuals = 20 

Number of PDs from non published individuals = 18 

Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 

Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. No significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for any categories. 

GS Level 

Even when using only the GS levels with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too much sparseness 

in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content categories. 

GS level 

9 11 12 13 14 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

10 

8 

2 

8 

2 

7 

3 

4 

6 

8 

2 

10 

10 

6 

4 

9 

1 

9 

1 

11 

2 

5 

8 

9 

4 

11 

2 

7 

6 

12 

1 

13 

13 

6 

7 

8 

5 

13 

8 

6 

2 

7 

1 

7 

1 

7 

1 

7 

1 

8 

8 

8 

7 

1 

8 

4 

4 

4 

3 

1 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

36 

2 

24 

14 

31 

7 

31 

7 

23 

15 

33 

5 

38 

0 

38 

0 

25 

13 

28 

10 

37 

1 

98

9 

GS level 

11 12 13 14 Total 

Category 3-1 No 1 8 

present in PD? Yes 2 2 

Category 4-1 No 2 8 

present in PD? Yes 1 2 

Category 4-2 No 3 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 4-3 No 3 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 5-1 No 8 

present in PD? Yes 3 2 

Category 5-2 No 3 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 5-3 No 3 8 

present in PD? Yes 2 

Category 5-4 No 3 10 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-1 No 3 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 6-2 No 2 8 

present in PD? Yes 1 2 

Category 6-3 No 3 10 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 3 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 7-1 No 5 

present in PD? Yes 3 5 

Category 7-2 No 1 6 

present in PD? Yes 2 4 

Category 7-3 No 3 10 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-4 No 2 7 

present in PD? Yes 1 3 

Total in GS Level 3 10 

5 

8 

7 

6 

9 

4 

10 

3 

8 

5 

13 

13 

11 

2 

9 

4 

10 

3 

12 

1 

13 

6 

7 

3 

10 

11 

2 

9 

4 

13 

7 

1 

7 

1 

8 

7 

1 

6 

2 

8 

8 

7 

1 

7 

1 

8 

7 

1 

8 

5 

3 

4 

4 

8 

8 

8 

4 

4 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

1 

4 

4 

4 

3 

1 

4 

2 

2 

4 

25 

13 

28 

10 

33 

5 

33 

5 

24 

14 

37 

1 

36 

2 

35 

3 

32 

6 

31 

7 

36 

2 

37 

1 

20 

18 

17 

21 

36 

2 

28 

10 

38 

99 
Occupational Classification 

Even when using only the occupational classifications with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too 

much sparseness in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content 

categories. 

Occupational classification 

401 454 480 482 486 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

10 

9 

1 

9 

1 

8 

2 

5 

5 

9 

1 

10 

10 

5 

5 

10 

9 

1 

7 

3 

7 

3 

10 

10 

7 

3 

9 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

3 

8 

2 

5 

5 

7 

3 

10 

5 

5 

9 

1 

10 

10 

8 

2 

6 

4 

10 

7 

3 

8 

2 

7 

3 

7 

3 

6 

4 

10 

14 

6 

8 

11 

3 

9 

5 

10 

4 

11 

3 

14 

14 

8 

6 

9 

5 

14 

7 

7 

9 

5 

12 

2 

12 

2 

9 

5 

14 

36 

2 

24 

14 

31 

7 

31 

7 

23 

15 

33 

5 

38 

0 

38 

0 

25 

13 

28 

10 

37 

1 

25 

13 

28 

10 

33 

5 

33 

5 

24 

14 

37 

1 

100

Occupational classification 

401 454 480 482 486 Total 

3 10 13 36 

1 2 

3 9 12 35 

1 2 3 

3 8 11 32 

2 3 6 

3 7 12 31 

3 2 7 

3 10 12 36 

2 2 

3 10 13 37 

1 1 

3 6 5 20 

4 9 18 

3 5 4 17 

5 10 21 

3 8 14 36 

2 2 

2 8 10 28 

1 2 4 10 

3 10 14 38 

Category 5-3 No 9 1 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 5-4 No 10 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-1 No 9 1 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 6-2 No 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 1 

Category 6-3 No 10 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 10 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 6 

present in PD? Yes 4 1 

Category 7-2 No 5 

present in PD? Yes 5 1 

Category 7-3 No 10 1 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-4 No 7 1 

present in PD? Yes 3 

Total in Occ. Class 10 1 

101

Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 38 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

2 (5)a

14 (37) 

7 (18) 

7 (18) 

15 (40) 

5 (13) 

13 (34) 

10 (26) 

1 (3) 

13 (34) 

10 (26) 

5 (13) 

5 (13) 

14 (37) 

1 (3) 

2 (5) 

3 (8) 

6 (16) 

7 (18) 

2 (5) 

7 (18) 

18 (47) 

21 (55) 

2 (5) 

10 (26) 

Not present in PD 

 36 (95)a 

24 (63) 

31 (82) 

31 (82) 

23 (61) 

33 (87) 

38 (100) 

38 (100) 

25 (66) 

28 (74) 

37 (97) 

25 (66) 

28 (74) 

33 (87) 

33 (87) 

24 (63) 

37 (97) 

36 (95) 

35 (92) 

32 (84) 

31 (82) 

36 (95) 

31 (82) 

20 (53) 

17 (45) 

36 (95) 

28 (74) 

102

Region 7 

Intercoder Agreement 

Original data Consensus data 

% agreement = 86% % agreement = 93% 

Variable Kappa Significance Kappa Significance b (1-1) Planning - Research question 

(1-2) Planning - Design 

(1-3) Planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Planning - Develop program 

(2-1) Execution - Data collection 

(2-2) Execution - Manage data 

- 1.00a .00 

.65a

 .00 .77a .00 

.47a

 .01 .47a .01 

.54a

 .00 .68a .00 

.33a

 .05 .66a .00 

.11 .50 .53 .00 

b b

(2-3) Execution - Survey - - b b

(2-4) Execution - Study 

(2-5) Execution - Inventory 

(2-6) Execution - Monitoring 

(2-7) Execution - Literature review 

- -

.61a .00 .66a .00 

.43a

 .00 .71a .00 

.48a

 .00 .65a .00 

(3) Analyses 

(4-1) Dissemination - Reports 

(4-2) Dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Application - Management 

.78a .00 .94a .00 

.56a

 .00 .78a .00 

.81a

 .00 .88a .00 

.72a .00 .87a .00 

.08 .64 .57a

 .00 b b

(5-2) Application - Policy makers - - b b

(5-3) Application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Application - New approaches 

(6-1) Collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Collaboration - Supervision 

- -

.12 .13 .21a

 .04 

.38a

 .02 .83a .00 

.62a .00 .77a .00 b b

(6-3) Collaboration - Funding - - b b

(6-4) Collaboration - Grants 

(7-1) KSA - Data analysis .94a

(7-2) KSA - Methods .94a

(7-3) KSA - Software .35a

(7-4) KSA - Document .68a

 - -

.00 .94a .00 

.00 .94a

 .00 

.01 .70a

 .00 

.00 .88a .00 

a 

Significant at p < .05 

b 

Kappa is not computed when at least one variable in the 2-way table is a constant. 

103 
Region 7 

Latent Content Analysis Results 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for Region 7 = 36 

Number of PDs from published individuals = 23 

Number of PDs from non published individuals = 13 

Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 

Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. Significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for the following categories: 

(1-2) Research planning - Design research study/data collection method 

χ2

 = 7.88 

phi = .47. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 1-2 present in PD? No 9 5 14 

Yes 4 18 22 

Total 13 23 36 

Of the people who had published, 78% of them had category 1-2 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 1-2 content in their PDs, 82% of them had published. 

 (7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

χ2 = 6.36 

phi = .42. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-2 present in PD? No 9 6 15 

Yes 4 17 21 

Total 13 23 36 

Of the people who had published, 74% of them had category 7-2 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-2 content in their PDs, 81% of them had published. 

104

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

χ2

 = 8.95 

phi = .50. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-4 present in PD? No 13 12 25 

Yes 0 11 11 

Total 13 23 36 

Of the people who had published, 48% of them had category 7-4 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-4 content in their PDs, 100% of them had published. 

105

GS Level 

Even when using only the GS levels with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too much sparseness 

in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content categories. 

 GS level 

9 11 12 13 15 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

10 

2 

8 

9 

1 

7 

3 

4 

6 

9 

1 

10 

10 

1 

9 

6 

4 

10 

5 

5 

7 

3 

7 

3 

10 

3 

7 

10 

17 

1 

9 

9 

18 

14 

4 

10 

8 

17 

1 

18 

18 

6 

12 

15 

3 

17 

1 

7 

11 

7 

11 

13 

5 

14 

4 

9 

9 

16 

2 

6 

2 

4 

5 

1 

6 

3 

3 

5 

1 

6 

6 

3 

3 

6 

6 

3 

3 

4 

2 

4 

2 

5 

1 

2 

4 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

35 

1 

14 

22 

34 

2 

29 

7 

19 

17 

32 

4 

36 

0 

36 

0 

11 

25 

29 

7 

35 

1 

16 

20 

20 

16 

25 

11 

31 

5 

16 

20 

34 

2 

106

 GS level 

9 11 12 13 15 Total 

16 6 1 33 

2 3 

15 3 1 29 

3 3 7 

10 1 1 17 

8 5 19 

15 3 1 27 

3 3 9 

18 6 1 36 

0 

18 6 1 36 

0 

5 2 1 11 

13 4 25 

6 2 1 15 

12 4 21 

12 3 1 25 

6 3 11 

10 4 1 25 

8 2 11 

18 6 1 36 

Category 5-3 No 1 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 5-4 No 1 9 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Category 6-1 No 5 

present in PD? Yes 1 5 

Category 6-2 No 8 

present in PD? Yes 1 2 

Category 6-3 No 1 10 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 1 10 

present in PD? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 3 

present in PD? Yes 1 7 

Category 7-2 No 6 

present in PD? Yes 1 4 

Category 7-3 No 1 8 

present in PD? Yes 2 

Category 7-4 No 10 

present in PD? Yes 1 

Total in GS Level 1 10 

107

Occupational Classification 

Even when using only the occupational classifications with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too 

much sparseness in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content 

categories. 

Occupational classification 

193 401 480 482 485 486 1530 Total 

Category 1-1 

present? 

Category 1-2 

present? 

Category 1-3 

present? 

Category 1-4 

present? 

Category 2-1 

present? 

Category 2-2 

present? 

Category 2-3 

present? 

Category 2-4 

present? 

Category 2-5 

present? 

Category 2-6 

present? 

Category 2-7 

present? 

Category 3-1 

present? 

Category 4-1 

present? 

Category 4-2 

present? 

Category 4-3 

present? 

Category 5-1 

present? 

Category 5-2 

present? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

10 

2 

8 

10 

9 

1 

2 

8 

10 

10 

10 

3 

7 

10 

9 

1 

4 

6 

3 

7 

10 

8 

2 

3 

7 

10 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

18 

1 

9 

10 

18 

1 

13 

6 

13 

6 

16 

3 

19 

19 

4 

15 

12 

7 

19 

8 

11 

11 

8 

9 

10 

17 

2 

9 

10 

17 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

35 

1 

14 

22 

34 

2 

29 

7 

19 

17 

32 

4 

36 

0 

36 

0 

11 

25 

29 

7 

35 

1 

16 

20 

20 

16 

25 

11 

31 

5 

16 

20 

34 

2 

108

Occupational classification 

193 401 480 482 

2 

485 

2 

486 1530 Total 

17 1 33 

2 3 

2 2 14 29 

5 1 7 

2 

2 

6 17 

13 1 19 

1 

1 

1 

1 

13 27 

6 1 9 

2 2 19 1 36 

0 

2 2 19 1 36 

0 

1 

1 

2 2 11 

17 1 25 

2 2 7 15 

12 1 21 

2 2 12 1 25 

7 11 

2 

2 

2 

2 

12 1 25 

7 11 

19 1 36 

Category 5-3 No 1 9 1 

present? Yes 1 

Category 5-4 No 1 9 1 

present? Yes 1 

Category 6-1 No 8 1 

present? Yes 1 2 

Category 6-2 No 1 10 1 

present? Yes 

Category 6-3 No 1 10 1 

present? Yes 

Category 6-4 No 1 10 1 

present? Yes 

Category 7-1 No 1 4 1 

present? Yes 6 

Category 7-2 No 1 2 1 

present? Yes 8 

Category 7-3 No 1 6 1 

present? Yes 4 

Category 7-4 No 1 6 1 

present? Yes 4 

Total in Occ. 1 10 1 

Class 

109

Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 36 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

1 (3)a

22 (61) 

2 (6) 

7 (19) 

17 (47) 

4 (11) 

25 (69) 

7 (19) 

1 (3) 

20 (56) 

16 (44) 

11 (31) 

5 (14) 

20 (56) 

2 (6) 

3 (8) 

7 (19) 

19 (53) 

9 (25) 

25 (69) 

21 (58) 

11 (31) 

11 (31) 

Not present in PD 

 35 (97)a 

14 (39) 

34 (94) 

29 (81) 

19 (53) 

32 (89) 

36 (100) 

36 (100) 

11 (31) 

29 (81) 

35 (97) 

16 (44) 

20 (56) 

25 (69) 

31 (86) 

16 (44) 

34 (94) 

33 (92) 

29 (81) 

17 (47) 

27 (75) 

36 (100) 

36 (100) 

11 (31) 

15 (42) 

25 (69) 

25 (69) 

110

Region 9 

Intercoder Agreement 

Original data Consensus data 

% agreement = 94 No consensus needed 

Kappa Significance b Variable Kappa Significance

(1-1) Planning - Research question 

(1-2) Planning - Design 

(1-3) Planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Planning - Develop program 

(2-1) Execution - Data collection 

(2-2) Execution - Manage data 

(2-3) Execution - Survey 

(2-4) Execution - Study 

(2-5) Execution - Inventory 

(2-6) Execution - Monitoring 

(2-7) Execution - Literature review 

(3) Analyses 

(4-1) Dissemination - Reports 

(4-2) Dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Application - Management 

(5-2) Application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Application - New approaches 

(6-1) Collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Collaboration - Funding 

(6-4) Collaboration - Grants 

(7-1) KSA - Data analysis 

(7-2) KSA - Methods 

(7-3) KSA - Software 

(7-4) KSA - Document 

-

.58 a .00 b

 -

.64 a .00 

.5 a .00 

1.00 a .00 b

 -

b

 -

.84 a .00 

.30 a .01 

-.04 .80 

.47 a .00 

.39 a .04 

.-.03 .86 b

 -

.40 a .02 

-.03 .86 b

 -

.68 a .00 

.59 a .00 

.72 a .00 b

 -

b

 -

.93 a .00 

.82 a .00 

.48 a .00 

1.00 a .00 

a 

Significant at p <. 05 

b 

Kappa is not computed when at least one variable in the 2-way table is a constant. 

111 
Region 9 

Latent Content Analysis Results 

Total number of position descriptions (PDs) coded for Region 9 = 35 

Number of PDs from published individuals = 16 

Number of PDs from non published individuals = 19 

Percentages are rounded and may not total 100. 

Publication Status 

Each coding category was analyzed using a Chi-square, Fisher’s exact test when necessary due to 

sparseness, to determine if the category related to whether or not a person had published. Significant (at p < .05) 

results were found for the following categories: 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories/field studies 

χ2

 = 5.64 

phi = .40. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 2-5 present in PD? No 18 10 28 

Yes 1 6 7 

Total 19 16 35 

Of the people who had published, 38% of them had category 2-5 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 2-5 content in their PDs, 86% of them had published. 

(5-1) Research application – Use research-based information to evaluate or inform management actions 

χ2 = 11.06 

phi = .56. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 5-1 present in PD? No 18 7 25 

Yes 1 9 10 

Total 19 16 35 

Of the people who had published, 56% of them had category 5-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 5-1 content in their PDs, 90% of them had published. 

112

(6-1) Research collaboration – Collaborate with non-FWS personnel on research projects 

χ2

 = 6.93 

phi = .45. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderately strong relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 6-1 present in PD? No 19 11 30 

Yes 0 5 5 

Total 19 16 35 

Of the people who had published, 31% of them had category 6-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 6-1 content in their PDs, 100% of them had published. 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical data analysis 

χ2

 = 4.72 

phi = .37. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-1 present in PD? No 16 8 24 

Yes 3 8 11 

Total 19 16 35 

Of the people who had published, 50% of them had category 7-1 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-1 content in their PDs, 73% of them had published. 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

χ2 = 4.64 

phi = .36. This measure of the strength of the association indicates a moderate relationship. 

Publication status 

No Yes Total 

Category 7-2 present in PD? No 14 6 20 

Yes 5 10 15 

Total 19 16 35 

Of the people who had published, 63% of them had category 7-2 content in their PDs. 

Of the people who had category 7-2 content in their PDs, 67% of them had published. 

113

GS Level 

Even when using only the GS levels with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too much sparseness 

in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content categories. 

GS level 

11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 1-1 

present in PD? 

Category 1-2 

present in PD? 

Category 1-3 

present in PD? 

Category 1-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-1 

present in PD? 

Category 2-2 

present in PD? 

Category 2-3 

present in PD? 

Category 2-4 

present in PD? 

Category 2-5 

present in PD? 

Category 2-6 

present in PD? 

Category 2-7 

present in PD? 

Category 3-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-1 

present in PD? 

Category 4-2 

present in PD? 

Category 4-3 

present in PD? 

Category 5-1 

present in PD? 

Category 5-2 

present in PD? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

6 

5 

1 

6 

6 

5 

1 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

5 

1 

6 

6 

6 

5 

1 

6 

20 

15 

5 

20 

18 

2 

16 

4 

19 

1 

19 

1 

20 

15 

5 

16 

4 

19 

1 

15 

5 

18 

2 

19 

1 

20 

14 

6 

19 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

1 

5 

5 

5 

4 

1 

4 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

35 

0 

29 

6 

35 

0 

33 

2 

28 

7 

34 

1 

34 

1 

35 

0 

28 

7 

30 

5 

34 

1 

29 

6 

33 

2 

34 

1 

35 

0 

25 

10 

34 

1 

114

GS level 

11 12 13 14 15 Total 

Category 5-3 No 2 6 20 5 2 35 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 5-4 No 2 6 15 4 2 29 

present in PD? Yes 5 1 6 

Category 6-1 No 2 6 15 5 2 30 

present in PD? Yes 5 5 

Category 6-2 No 2 6 18 4 2 32 

present in PD? Yes 2 1 3 

Category 6-3 No 2 6 20 5 2 35 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 6-4 No 2 6 20 5 2 35 

present in PD? Yes 0 

Category 7-1 No 1 6 11 4 2 24 

present in PD? Yes 1 9 1 11 

Category 7-2 No 1 4 10 3 2 20 

present in PD? Yes 1 2 10 2 15 

Category 7-3 No 2 6 19 5 2 34 

present in PD? Yes 1 1 

Category 7-4 No 2 6 19 5 2 34 

present in PD? Yes 1 1 

Total in GS Level 2 6 20 5 2 35 

115 
Occupational Classification 

Even when using only the occupational classifications with the highest numbers of PDs, there was still too 

much sparseness in the data to allow for analyses at the regional level. The frequencies are provided for all content 

categories. 

Occupational classification 

170 301 401 480 482 485 486 1320 1530 Total 

Category 1-1 

present? 

Category 1-2 

present? 

Category 1-3 

present? 

Category 1-4 

present? 

Category 2-1 

present? 

Category 2-2 

present? 

Category 2-3 

present? 

Category 2-4 

present? 

Category 2-5 

present? 

Category 2-6 

present? 

Category 2-7 

present? 

Category 3-1 

present? 

Category 4-1 

present? 

Category 4-2 

present? 

Category 4-3 

present? 

Category 5-1 

present? 

Category 5-2 

present? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

6 

5 

1 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

5 

4 

1 

5 

5 

4 

1 

4 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

2 

4 

1 

5 

5 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

15 

11 

4 

15 

15 

10 

5 

15 

14 

1 

15 

8 

7 

11 

4 

15 

12 

3 

15 

15 

15 

8 

7 

14 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

35 

0 

29 

6 

35 

0 

33 

2 

28 

7 

34 

1 

34 

1 

35 

0 

28 

7 

30 

5 

34 

1 

29 

6 

33 

2 

34 

1 

35 

0 

25 

10 

34 

1 

116

Occupational classification 

170 301 

1 

401 

6 

480 

2 

482 

5 

485 

2 

486 

15 

1320 1530 Total 

1 2 35 

0 

1 6 2 5 2 10 

5 

1 1 

1 

29 

6 

1 6 2 4 

1 

2 12 

3 

1 2 30 

5 

1 6 2 5 2 12 

3 

1 2 32 

3 

1 6 2 5 2 15 1 2 35 

0 

1 6 2 5 2 15 1 2 35 

0 

1 6 2 5 2 7 

8 1 2 

24 

11 

1 6 2 2 

3 

2 5 

10 

1 1 

1 

20 

15 

1 6 2 5 2 15 1 1 

1 

34 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

2 

2 

4 

1 

5 

2 

2 

15 

15 

1 

1 

2 

2 

34 

1 

35 

Category 5-3 

present? 

No 

Yes 

1 

Category 5-4 

present? 

No 

Yes 

1 

Category 6-1 

present? 

No 

Yes 1 

Category 6-2 

present? 

No 

Yes 

1 

Category 6-3 

present? 

No 

Yes 

1 

Category 6-4 

present? 

No 

Yes 

1 

Category 7-1 

present? 

No 

Yes 

1 

Category 7-2 

present? 

No 

Yes 1 

Category 7-3 

present? 

No 

Yes 

1 

Category 7-4 

present? 

Total in Occ. Class 

No 

Yes 

1 

1 

117

Frequencies 

Number of position descriptions coded = 35 

Coding category 

(1-1) Research planning - Develop question 

(1-2) Research planning - Design study 

(1-3) Research planning - Write proposal 

(1-4) Research planning - Develop research program 

(2-1) Research execution - Collect data 

(2-2) Research execution - Database management 

(2-3) Research execution - Conduct surveys 

(2-4) Research execution - Conduct studies/experiments 

(2-5) Research execution - Conduct inventories 

(2-6) Research execution - Conduct monitoring 

(2-7) Research execution - Conduct literature review 

(3-1) Research analyses - Analyze data 

(4-1) Research dissemination - Write reports 

(4-2) Research dissemination - Publication 

(4-3) Research dissemination - Presentation 

(5-1) Research application - Management actions 

(5-2) Research application - Policy makers 

(5-3) Research application - Decision documents 

(5-4) Research application - New techniques 

(6-1) Research collaboration - Non-FWS 

(6-2) Research collaboration - Supervision 

(6-3) Research collaboration - Identify funding 

(6-4) Research collaboration - Write funding proposal 

(7-1) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Data analysis 

(7-2) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Research methods 

(7-3) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Statistical software 

(7-4) Knowledge/skill/ability required - Document preparation 

a 

Percentages in parentheses. 

Present in PD 

6 (17)a

2 (6) 

7 (20) 

1 (3) 

1 (3) 

7 (20) 

5 (14) 

1 (3) 

6 (17) 

2 (6) 

1 (3) 

10 (29) 

1 (3) 

6 (17) 

5 (14) 

3 (9) 

11 (31) 

15 (43) 

1 (3) 

1 (3) 

Not present in PD 

35 (100)a 

 29 (83) 

35 (100) 

33 (94) 

28 (80) 

34 (97) 

34 (97) 

35 (100) 

28 (80) 

30 (86) 

34 (97) 

29 (83) 

33 (94) 

34 (97) 

35 (100) 

25 (71) 

34 (97) 

35 (100) 

29 (83) 

30 (86) 

32 (91) 

35 (100) 

35 (100) 

24 (69) 

20 (57) 

34 (97) 

34 (97) 

118

Appendix 3B. Manifest Content Analysis Results 

Question 1: Is there a relationship between the presence (or absence) of each keyword in a PD and publication status? 

Answer: 

All FWS Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 9 

Keyword: Npub = 408 

only 

Npub = 112 

only 

Npub = 34 

only 

Npub = 35 

only 

Npub = 50 

only 

Npub = 67 

only 

Npub = 60 

only 

Npub = 50 

Nnon = 353 Nnon = 105 Nnon = 34 Nnon = 26 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 55 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 43 

Analysis Yes 

χ2 = 6.69 

No No No No No No No 

Φ = .09 

φ2 = .01 

Evaluating No No No No No No No No 

Evaluation No No No Yes No No No No 

χ2 = 6.15 

φ = .32 

φ2 = .10 

Methods No No No No No No No No 

Monitoring Yes No No No No No No No 

χ2 = 4.32 

φ = .08 

φ2 = .01 

National No No No No No No No No 

(excluding 

proper names) 

Problems No No No No No No No No 

Research Yes No No Yes No Yes No No 

χ2 = 9.97 χ2 = 3.99 χ2 = 7.33 

φ = .11 φ = .26 φ = .25 

φ2 = .01 φ2 = .07 φ2 = .06 

Scientific Yes No No No No No No No 

χ2 = 4.68 

φ = .08 

φ2 = .01 

Studies No No No Yes No No No No 

χ2 = 4.21 

φ = .26 

φ2 = .07 

Notes. χ2 = Chi Square measure of association. φ = Phi, a correlation between two dichotomous variables. φ2 = an index of the strength of the 

relationship between two dichotomous variables, can be interpreted as % of variance. All reported statistics are significant at p < .05; values have 

been rounded to two decimal places. 

119

Question 2: Is there a relationship between the sum of each keyword appearing at least once in a PD (total number of different 

keywords appearing in a PD, range = 0-10) and publication status? 

All FWS Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 9 

only only only only only only only 

Npub = 408 Npub = 112 Npub = 34 Npub = 35 Npub = 50 Npub = 67 Npub = 60 Npub = 50 

Nnon = 353 Nnon = 105 Nnon = 34 Nnon = 26 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 55 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 43 

Answer: Yes No No Yes No No No No 

t = 2.65a t = 3.23b 

Mean- 7.06 7.11 

pub 

Mean- 6.70 5.92 

non 

Notes. t = t-test. All reported statistics are significant at p < .05 values have been rounded to two decimal places. 

a 

The 95% confidence interval for the sum of the keywords in PDs of published individuals ranges from 6.88 to 7.23; the 95% confidence interval 

for non-published individuals ranges from 6.50 to 6.90. There is a small amount of overlap between the two confidence intervals. 

b 

The 95% confidence interval for the sum of the keywords in PDs of R3 published individual’s ranges from 6.67 to 7.55; the 95% confidence 

interval for non-published individuals ranges from 5.28 to 6.56. There is no overlap between the two confidence intervals indicating that these 

two groups differ. 

120

c 

Question 3: Is there a relationship between the frequency of each keyword in a PD and publication status? 

Answer: 

All FWS Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 9 

Keyword: Npub = 408 

only 

Npub = 112 

only 

Npub = 34 

only 

Npub = 35 

only 

Npub = 50 

only 

Npub = 67 

only 

Npub = 60 

only 

Npub = 50 

Nnon = 353 Nnon = 105 Nnon = 34 Nnon = 26 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 55 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 43 

Analysis Yes 

t = 11.77a No No No Yes t = 5.44b No Yes F = 5.58 b No 

Evaluating No No No No No No No No 

Evaluation No No No Yes No No No No 

F = 4.00b 

Methods No No No No No No No No 

Monitoring Yes 

t = 3.99b No No No No No No No 

National No No No No Yes No No No 

(excluding t = 5.41b 

proper names) 

Problems No No No No No No No No 

Research Yes Yes No No No Yes No No 

t = 22.74c t = 5.21b t = 12.08e 

Scientific Yes No No No No Yes Yes No 

t = 11.70d t = 5.57b F = 4.37 b 

Studies Yes No No No No No No No 

t = 7.19b 

Notes. t = Welch’s t- test for unequal variances. All reported statistics are significant at p < .05; values have been rounded to two decimal places. 

a .

The 95% confidence interval for the frequency of “analysis” in the PDs of known publishers ranges from 1.64 to 2.02; the 95% confidence 

interval for the non-publishers ranges from 1.23 to 1.55. There is no overlap in these two confidence intervals indicating that the average 

frequency with which “analysis” appears in the PDs of the two groups is different. 

b 

There is overlap in the 95% confidence intervals for the frequency of this keyword in the PDs of published and non-published individuals. The 

two groups may not differ on this variable. 

The 95% confidence interval for the frequency of “research” in the PDs of known publishers ranges from 2.78 to 3.58; the 95% confidence 

interval for the non-publishers ranges from 1.69 to 2.27. There is no overlap in these two confidence intervals indicating that the average 

frequency with which “research” appears in the PDs of the two groups is different. 

d 

The 95% confidence interval for the frequency of “scientific” in the PDs of known publishers ranges from 2.45 to 3.11; the 95% confidence 

interval for the non-publishers ranges from 1.80 to 2.31. There is no overlap in these two confidence intervals indicating that the average 

frequency with which “scientific” appears in the PDs of the two groups is different. 

e 

The 95% confidence interval for the frequency of “research” in the PDs of R6 known publishers ranges from 3.73 to 6.33; the 95% confidence 

interval for the non-publishers ranges from 1.48 to 3.18. There is no overlap in these two confidence intervals indicating that the average 

frequency with which “research” appears in the PDs of the two groups is different. 

121

Question 4: Is there a relationship between the sum of the frequencies of all keywords in a PD (all keyword frequencies summed 

together) and publication status? 

All FWS Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 9 

only only only only only only only 

Npub = 408 Npub = 112 Npub = 34 Npub = 35 Npub = 50 Npub = 67 Npub = 60 Npub = 50 

Nnon = 353 Nnon = 105 Nnon = 34 Nnon = 26 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 55 Nnon = 45 Nnon = 43 

Answer: Yes No No No Yes Yes No No 

t = 14.51a F = 4.80b F = 4.45 b 

Means: Mpub = Mpub = Mpub = Mpub = Mpu b= Mpub = Mpub = Mpub = 

25.03 22.98 27.15 22.69 25.5 29.43 31.08 16.18 

Mnon = Mnon = Mnon = Mnon = Mnon = Mnon = Mnon = Mnon = 

21.45 20.59 23.68 19.88 19.87 23.35 27.07 16.12 

Ranges: All All All All All All All All 

(1-128) (4-78) (9-98) (7-43) (5-62) (3-128) (4-63) (1-32) 

Pub Pub Pub Pub Pub Pub Pub Pub 

(1-128) (5-78) (12-98) (7-43) (6-62) (4-128) (6-58) (1-32) 

Non Non Non Non Non Non Non Non 

(1-69) (4-49) (9-69) (7-37) (5-55) (3-63) (4-63) (1-30) 

Notes. All reported statistics are significant at p < .05, values have been rounded to two decimal places. 

a 

The 95% confidence interval for the frequency of keywords in the PDs of known publishers ranges from 23.61 to 26.45; the 95% confidence 

interval for the non-publishers ranges from 20.29 to 22.61. There is no overlap in these two confidence intervals indicating that the average 

frequency with which keywords appear in the PDs of the two groups is different. 

b 

There is overlap in the 95% confidence intervals for the frequency of keywords in the PDs of published and non-published individuals. The two 

groups may not differ on this variable. 

122

Appendix 3C. Latent Content Analysis Results 

Category Sub category Definition 

(1) Research planning (1) Develop research question/ Creating a specific question to be 

formulate hypotheses* addressed by a specific project. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 4 of 244 (2%) - - -

1 0 of 43 (0%) - - -

2 0 of 31 (0%) - - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 1 of 32 (3%) No - -

6 2 of 38 (5%) No - -

7 1 of 36 (3%) No - -

9 0 of 35 (0%) - - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(1) Research planning (2) Design research study/data Designing the format of a study or the 

collection method* process by which a study will be 

conducted. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 96 of 244 (39%) Yes Yes Yes 

1 15 of 43 (35%) No - -

2 18 of 31 (58%) No - -

3 7 of 29 (24%) No - -

5 14 of 32 (44%) No - -

6 14 of 38 (37%) No - -

7 22 of 36 (61%) Yes - -

9 6 of 35 (17%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 9.60, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .20, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 61 (49%) had this content in their 

position description; 35 (29%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

GS level: χ2

 = 18.39, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .29, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. More than half of the individuals in GS level 11 (31/55 = 56%) had content fitting this sub 

category in their position descriptions. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 30.84, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .36, p < .05, indicating a moderately strong relationship. A substantial proportion (75% or greater) of the 

individuals in occupational classifications 193-Archaeology (1/1 = 100%), 408-Ecology (1/1 = 100%), 430-Botany 

123

(1/1 = 100%), and 701-Veterinary Medical Science (1/1 = 100%) had content fitting this sub category in their 

position descriptions. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion were classified as 486-

Wildlife Biology (35/96 = 36%). 

Region 7: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 7.88, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .47, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 23 individuals in this sample who had published, 18 (78%) had this content in 

their position description; 4 (31%) of the 13 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(1) Research planning (3) Write research project proposal* Writing a research project proposal. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 12 of 244 (5%) No - -

1 0 of 43 (0%) - - -

2 0 of 31 (0%) - - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 3 of 32 (9%) No - -

6 7 of 38 (18%) No - -

7 2 of 36 (6%) No - -

9 0 of 35 (0%) - - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(1) Research planning (4) Develop research program/set Identifying information needs, or 

research agenda research projects to be pursued; this may 

include determining which projects will 

be funded. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 49 of 244 (20%) No No No 

1 7 of 43 (16%) No - -

2 10 of 31 (32%) No - -

3 1 of 29 (3%) No - -

5 15 of 32 (47%) No - -

6 7 of 38 (18%) No - -

7 7 of 36 (19%) No - -

9 2 of 35 (6%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

124 
Category Sub category Definition 

(2) Research execution (1) Collect data Participating in data collection for a 

research project. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 93 of 244 (38%) No Yes Yes 

1 12 of 43 (28%) No - -

2 18 of 31 (58%) No - -

3 9 of 29 (31%) No - -

5 15 of 32 (47%) No - -

6 15 of 38 (40%) No - -

7 17 of 36 (47%) No - -

9 7 of 35 (20%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

GS level: χ2

 = 23.58, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .32, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Greater than half of the individuals in GS level 11 (32/55 = 58%) had content fitting 

this sub category in their position descriptions. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 18.81, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .29, p < .05, indicating a moderately strong relationship. None of the occupation classifications analyzed had 

more than 50% of PD with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of them 

were classified as 401-General Biological Science (34/86 = 40%). 

Category Sub category Definition 

(2) Research execution (2) Organize and manage data/database Compiling data into a database. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 29 of 244 (12%) No No No 

1 6 of 43 (14%) No - -

2 8 of 31 (26%) No - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 5 of 32 (16%) No - -

6 5 of 38 (13%) No - -

7 4 of 36 (11%) No - -

9 1 of 35 (3%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

125 
Category Sub category Definition 

(2) Research execution (3) Conduct surveys Participating in conducting a survey type 

research project (i.e., public use, 

attitudes, surveying people). 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 2 of 244 (1%) - - -

1 0 of 43 (0%) - - -

2 0 of 31 (0%) - - -

3 1 of 29 (3%) No - -

5 0 of 32 (0%) - - -

6 0 of 38 (0%) - - -

7 0 of 36 (0%) - - -

9 1 of 35 (3%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Category 	Sub category Definition 

(2) Research execution (4) Conduct studies/experiments Participating in conducting a research 

study (i.e., a non-survey study; a study in 

which some type of intervention is 

applied). 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 11 of 244 (5%) No - -

1 3 of 43 (7%) No - -

2 7 of 31 (23%) No - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 1 of 32 (3%) No - -

6 0 of 38 (0%) - - -

7 0 of 36 (0%) - - -

9 0 of 35 (0%) - - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Category 	Sub category Definition 

(2) Research execution (5) Conduct inventories/field studies Participating in a count of the current 

status of a plant or animal. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 82 of 244 (34%) No Yes Yes 

1 10 of 43 (23%) No - -

2 15 of 31 (48%) No - -

3 2 of 29 (7%) No - -

5 10 of 32 (31%) No - -

6 13 of 38 (34%) No - -

7 25 of 36 (69%) No - -

9 7 of 35 (20%) Yes - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

126 
All FWS: 

GS Level: χ2

 = 21.75, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .31, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. More than half of the individuals in GS level 11 (28/55 = 51%) had content fitting 

this sub category in their position descriptions. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 32.79, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .37, p < .05, indicating a moderately strong relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had 

more than 50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of 

them were classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (39/80 = 49%). 

Region 9: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 5.64, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .40, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 16 individuals in this sample who had published, 6 (38%) had this content in 

their position description; 1 (5%) of the 19 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category 	Definition 

(2) Research execution (6) Conduct monitoring Participating in a measure of the 

performance of some indicator against a 

standard; this category may apply to 

projects addressing a specific 

characteristic that more likely than not 

will require comparison to a standard. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 46 of 244 (19%) No Yes Yes 

1 9 of 43 (21%) No - -

2 9 of 31 (29%) No - -

3 2 of 29 (7%) No - -

5 4 of 32 (13%) No - -

6 10 of 38 (26%) No - -

7 7 of 36 (19%) No - -

9 5 of 35 (14%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

GS Level: χ2

 = 9.34, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .20, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. There were no GS levels in which more than half of the individuals had content fitting this 

sub category in their position descriptions. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 21.06, p<.05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .30, p < .05, indicating a moderately strong relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had 

more than 50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of 

them were classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (22/40 = 55%). 

127

Category 	Sub category Definition 

(2) Research execution (7) Conduct literature review Conducting a literature review. 

Relationship with 

occupational Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 11 of 244 (5%) No - -

1 1 of 43 (2%) No -	 -

2 4 of 31 (13%) No - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 3 of 32 (9%) No - -

6 1 of 38 (3%) No - -

7 1 of 36 (3%) No - -

9 1 of 35 (3%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Category 	Sub category Definition 

(3) Research analyses (1) Analyze data* Analyzing data using qualitative or 

quantitative methods. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 95 of 244 (39%) Yes Yes Yes 

1 12 of 43 (28%) No - -

2 18 of 31 (58%) No - -

3 10 of 29 (35%) Yes - -

5 16 of 32 (50%) Yes - -

6 13 of 38 (34%) No - -

7 20 of 36 (56%) No - -

9 6 of 35 (17%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 8.86, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .19, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 60 (48%) had this content in their 

position description; 35 (29%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

GS level: χ2

 = 15.96, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .27, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Half of the individuals in GS level 12 (39/78 = 50%) had content fitting this sub 

category in their position descriptions. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 19.10, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .29, p < .05, indicating a moderately strong relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had 

more than 50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of 

them were classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (33/90 = 37%). 

Region 3: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 6.20, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .46, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 17 individuals in this sample who had published, 9 (53%) had this content in 

their position description; 1 (8%) of the 12 non-publishers had this content. 

128

Region 5: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 4.80, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .39, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 12 individuals in this sample who had published, 9 (75%) had this content in 

their position description; 7 (35%) of the 20 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(4) Research dissemination (1) Write reports from data* Writing up results of a data set into a 

report. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 57 of 244 (23%) Yes Yes Yes 

1 8 of 43 (19%) No - -

2 7 of 31 (23%) No - -

3 3 of 29 (10%) No - -

5 11 of 32 (34%) No - -

6 10 of 38 (26%) No - -

7 16 of 36 (44%) No - -

9 2 of 35 (6%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 5.57, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .15, p < .05, indicating a 

weak relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 37 (30%) had this content in their 

position description; 20 (17%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

GS level: χ2

 = 17.63, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .28, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. No GS level had a proportion greater than 50% of position descriptions with this 

content. Of the position descriptions that did have this content, the largest proportion (27/54 = 50%) were GS-12. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 13.84, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .24, p < .05, indicating a moderate relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had more than 

50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of them were 

classified as 401-General Biological Science (22/54 = 41%). 

129

Category Sub category Definition 

(4) Research dissemination (2) Write articles for publication from Writing research based articles for 

research data. publication in (professional or scientific) 

journals. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 28 of 244 (12%) No Yes Yes 

1 4 of 43 (9%) No - -

2 4 of 31 (13%) No - -

3 3 of 29 (10%) No - -

5 0 of 32 (0%) - - -

6 5 of 38 (13%) No - -

7 11 of 36 (31%) No - -

9 1 of 35 (3%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

GS level: χ2

 = 9.76, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .21, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. No GS level had a proportion greater than 50% of position descriptions with this content. Of 

the position descriptions that did have this content, the largest proportion (15/27 = 56%) were GS-12. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 22.84, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .31, p < .05, indicating a strong relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had more than 

50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of them were 

classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (15/23 = 65%). 

Category Sub category Definition 

(4) Research dissemination (3) Present research in professional Presenting research in professional 

forums (conferences, meetings, forums (conferences, meetings, 

symposia, etc.) symposia, etc.) 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 21 of 244 (9%) No No -

1 4 of 43 (9%) No - -

2 5 of 31 (16%) Yes - -

3 1 of 29 (3%) No - -

5 1 of 32 (3%) No - -

6 5 of 38 (13%) No - -

7 5 of 36 (14%) No - -

9 0 of 35 (0%) - - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Region 2: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 5.59, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = -.43, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship in a negative direction. Of the 15 individuals in this sample who had published, none 

had this content in their position description; 5 (31%) of the 16 non-publishers had this content. 

130

Category Sub category Definition 

(5) Research application (1) Use research-based information to Use research-based information to 

Note: Research application can be evaluate or inform management evaluate or inform management actions. 

used in situations in which a person actions* 

did not personally collect the data or is 

otherwise not using original data. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 103 of 244 (42%) Yes No No 

1 16 of 43 (37%) No - -

2 19 of 31 (61%) Yes - -

3 14 of 29 (48%) No - -

5 10 of 32 (31%) No - -

6 14 of 38 (37%) No - -

7 20 of 36 (56%) No - -

9 10 of 35 (29%) Yes - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 7.04, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .17, p < .05, indicating a 

weak relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 63 (50%) had this content in their 

position description; 40 (34%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

Region 2: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 4.29, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .37, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 15 individuals in this sample who had published, 12 (80%) had content fitting 

this sub category in their position description; 7 (44%) of the 16 non-publishers had this content. 

Region 9: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 11.06, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .56, p < .05, indicating a 

strong relationship. Of the 16 individuals in this sample who had published, 9 (56%) had content fitting this sub 

category in their position description; 1 (5%) of the 19 non-publishers had this content. 

131

Category Sub category Definition 

(5) Research application (2) Use research-based information to Use research-based information to 

Note: Research application can be inform policy makers* inform policy makers. The document 

used in situations in which a person must indicate a specific recipient of the 

did not personally collect the data or is information. 

otherwise not using original data. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 9 of 244 (4%) - - -

1 1 of 43 (2%) No - -

2 3 of 31 (10%) No - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 1 of 32 (3%) No - -

6 1 of 38 (3%) No - -

7 2 of 36 (6%) No - -

9 1 of 35 (3%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(5) Research application (3) Use research-based information to Use research-based information to 

Note: Research application can be formulate decision documents* formulate Environmental Impact 

used in situations in which a person Statements, Environmental Assessments, 

did not personally collect the data or is or other decision documents. 

otherwise not using original data. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 7 of 244 (3%) - - -

1 1 of 43 (2%) No - -

2 1 of 31 (3%) No - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 0 of 32 (0%) - - -

6 2 of 38 (5%) No - -

7 3 of 36 (8%) No - -

9 0 of 35 (0%) - - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

132 
Category Sub category Definition 

(5) Research application (4) Develop new techniques/ Create a new approach to data collection, 

Note: Research application can be technologies/methods for research or or research design. 

used in situations in which a person analysis. 

did not personally collect the data or is 

otherwise not using original data. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 21 of 244 (9%) No No Yes 

1 1 of 43 (2%) No - -

2 3 of 31 (10%) No - -

3 1 of 29 (3%) No - -

5 0 of 32 (0%) - - -

6 3 of 38 (8%) No - -

7 7 of 36 (19%) No - -

9 6 of 35 (17%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 22.72, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .31, p < .05, indicating a moderately strong relationship. No occupational classification had a substantial 

proportion of position descriptions with content fitting this sub category. Of the position descriptions with this 

content, the largest proportion of them were classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (14/19 = 73%). 

Category Sub category Definition 

(6) Research collaboration (1) Collaborate with non-FWS Working with any one outside of the 

personnel on research projects* FWS on a research project in any 

capacity. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 78 of 244 (32%) Yes No Yes 

1 14 of 43 (33%) No - -

2 15 of 31 (48%) No - -

3 5 of 29 (17%) No - -

5 14 of 32 (44%) Yes - -

6 6 of 38 (16%) No - -

7 19 of 36 (53%) No - -

9 5 of 35 (14%) Yes - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 10.94, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .21, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 52 (42%) had this content in their 

position description; 26 (22%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 11.75, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .23, p < .05, indicating a moderate relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had more than 

133

50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of them were 

classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (26/71 = 37%). 

Region 5: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 4.10, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .36, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate strong relationship. Of the 12 individuals in this sample who had published, 8 (67%) had this content in 

their position description; 6 (30%) of the 20 non-publishers had this content. 

Region 9: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 6.93, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .45, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 16 individuals in this sample who had published, 5 (31%) had content fitting 

this sub category in their position description; none of the 19 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(6) Research collaboration (2) Supervise or coordinate other FWS Supervising or coordinating among other 

employees on research projects* FWS employees in any aspect of the 

research process. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 59 of 244 (24%) No No No 

1 10 of 43 (23%) No - -

2 14 of 31 (45%) No - -

3 3 of 29 (10%) No - -

5 13 of 32 (41%) Yes - -

6 7 of 38 (18%) No - -

7 9 of 36 (25%) No - -

9 3 of 35 (9%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Region 5: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 5.40, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .39, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 12 individuals in this sample who had published, 8 (67%) had this content in 

their position description; 5 (25%) of the 20 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(6) Research collaboration (3) Identify sources of funding for Identifying sources of funding for 

research research. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 3 of 244 (1%) - - -

1 0 of 43 (0%) - - -

2 0 of 31 (0%) - - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 1 of 32 (3%) No - -

6 2 of 38 (5%) No - -

7 0 of 36 (0%) - - -

9 0 of 35 (0%) - - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

134 
Category Sub category Definition 

(6) Research collaboration (4) Write research funding proposals Writing research grant or other funding 

proposals. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 6 of 244 (3%) - - -

1 0 of 43 (0%) - - -

2 5 of 31 (16%) No - -

3 0 of 29 (0%) - - -

5 0 of 32 (0%) - - -

6 1 of 38 (3%) No - -

7 0 of 36 (0%) - - -

9 0 of 35 (0%) - - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(7) Knowledge/skill/ability required (1) Knowledge/skill/ability - statistical This position requires 

data analysis knowledge/skill/ability in data analysis 

techniques and methods. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 104 of 244 (43%) Yes Yes Yes 

1 22 of 43 (51%) No - -

2 10 of 31 (32%) No - -

3 4 of 29 (14%) No - -

5 14 of 32 (44%) Yes - -

6 18 of 38 (47%) No - -

7 25 of 36 (69%) No - -

9 11 of 35 (31%) Yes - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

2

Publication status: χ = 9.22, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .19, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 65 (52%) had this content in their 

position description; 39 (33%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

2 GS level: χ = 15.88, p<.05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .27, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. More than half of the individuals in GS levels 11 (30/55=55%), and 12 (41/78 = 

53%) had content fitting this sub category in their position descriptions. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 44.16, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .44, p < .05, indicating a strong relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had more than 

50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of them were 

classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (47/97 = 48%). 

135

Region 5: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 4.10, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .36, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 12 individuals in this sample who had published, 8 (67%) had this content in 

their position description; 6 (30%) of the 20 non-publishers had this content. 

Region 9: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 4.72, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .37, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. Of the 16 individuals in this sample who had published, 8 (50%) had content fitting this sub 

category in their position description; 3 (16%) of the 19 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(7) Knowledge/skill/ability required (2) Knowledge/skill/ability – research This position requires 

methods knowledge/skill/ability in research 

methods, including data collection 

techniques and study design. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 117 of 244 (48%) Yes No Yes 

1 22 of 43 (51%) Yes - -

2 17 of 31 (55%) No - -

3 6 of 29 (21%) No - -

5 15 of 32 (47%) No - -

6 21 of 38 (55%) No - -

7 21 of 36 (58%) Yes - -

9 15 of 35 (43%) Yes - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 14.91, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .25, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 75 (60%) had this content in their 

position description; 42 (35%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

Occupational classification: χ2

 = 42.16, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship 

between this sub category and occupational classification. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s 

V = .43, p < .05, indicating a strong relationship. None of the occupational classifications analyzed had more than 

50% of PDs with this content. Of the position descriptions with this content, the largest proportion of them were 

classified as 486-Wildlife Biology (45/109 =41%). 

Region 1: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 5.22, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .35, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 22 individuals in this sample who had published, 15 (68%) had content fitting 

this sub category in their position description; 7 (33%) of the 21 non-publishers had this content. 

Region 7: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 6.36, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .42, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 23 individuals in this sample who had published, 17 (74%) had this content in 

their position description; 4 (31%) of the 13 non-publishers had this content. 

136

Region 9: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 4.64, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .36, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. Of the 16 individuals in this sample who had published, 10 (63%) had content fitting this sub 

category in their position description; 5 (26%) of the 19 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(7) Knowledge/skill/ability required (3) Knowledge/skill/ability – statistical This position requires 

software knowledge/skill/ability in use of 

statistical software packages. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 27 of 244 (11%) Yes No No 

1 5 of 43 (12%) No - -

2 3 of 31 (10%) No - -

3 3 of 29 (10%) No - -

5 2 of 32 (6%) No - -

6 2 of 38 (5%) No - -

7 11 of 36 (31%) No - -

9 1 of 35 (3%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 4.45, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .14, p < .05, indicating a 

weak relationship. Of the 125 individuals in this sample who had published, 19 (15%) had this content in their 

position description; 8 (7%) of the 119 non-publishers had this content. 

Category Sub category Definition 

(7) Knowledge/skill/ability required (4) Knowledge/skill/ability – document This position requires 

preparation knowledge/skill/ability to write reports, 

papers, manuscripts based on research 

for dissemination or publication. 

Relationship with 

Region PDs coded with this Relationship with Relationship with GS 

occupational 

classification 

sub category publication status level (limited range) (limited range) 

All FWS 58 of 244 (24%) No Yes No 

1 7 of 43 (16%) No - -

2 8 of 31 (26%) No - -

3 8 of 29 (28%) No - -

5 13 of 32 (41%) No - -

6 10 of 38 (26%) No - -

7 11 of 36 (31%) Yes - -

9 1 of 35 (3%) No - -

Notes. – indicates that the data were too sparse to permit testing of a relationship between the variables. 

All FWS: 

GS level: χ2

 = 7.96, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between this sub 

category and GS Level. The measure of the strength of the relationship, Cramer’s V = .19, p < .05, indicating a 

moderate relationship. None of the GS levels had more than half of the PDs with content fitting this sub category. Of 

the position descriptions that did have this content, the largest proportion (23/53 = 43%) were GS-12. 

137

Region 7: 

Publication status: χ2

 = 8.95, p < .05. Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between 

this content and publication status. The measure of the strength of the relationship, phi = .50, p < .05, indicating a 

moderately strong relationship. Of the 23 individuals in this sample who had published, 11 (48%) had this content in 

their position description; 0 of the 13 non-publishers had this content. 

138

Appendix 4A. Responses to Open-ended Question Asking All 

Respondents for Other Comments 

Below are the responses to the final question on the FWS survey: “Please tell us if you have any other comments, 

suggestions, or information.” 

Two-hundred respondents to the survey took the opportunity to answer this open ended question. The responses 

were sorted into categories and when appropriate, sub-categories. Each of the numbered comments is the complete 

response provided by an individual. Often, the content of a response fell into more than one category. In these cases, 

the response appears in multiple categories in its entirety so that no single comment can be taken out of context. All 

percentages are rounded to whole numbers. 

The categories of content are as follows: 

Primary category: Comments regarding the survey 

Sub-category: General positive comments 

Sub-category: General negative comments 

Sub-category: Survey questions not applicable to respondent 

Sub-category: Criticism of specific questions or response options 

Primary category: Comments regarding the respondent’s background as it may apply to the survey 

Sub-category: Time in job 

Sub-category: Other agency experience 

Sub-category: Amount of research content in their job 

Sub-category: Type of research content in their job 

Sub-category: Miscellaneous comments regarding respondent’s background 

Primary category: Comments regarding research in the FWS 

Sub-category: Necessity of research in the FWS 

Sub-category: Resources for research in the FWS 

Sub-category: Outside influences on research in the FWS 

Sub-category: Perceptions of FWS as a research agency 

Primary category: Miscellaneous comments 

Primary category: Comments regarding the survey 

25% of respondents’ comments (63a

/250) contained content reflected in this category. 

a 

One comment appears in two subcategories of this primary category, therefore the comments number 63 and not 64. 

139 
General positive comments 


6% of comments from all respondents (16/250) 


25% of respondents commenting regarding the survey (16/63) 


(13) The service has a long tradition of excellent science that continues to the present day. However, the questioning of 

our science due to a political agenda is very disconcerting for all involved. To add to staff’s frustration is the perception 

that BRD should do research which leaves the perception that the service does “hobby science” (see previous comments). 

As a side note, I know that refuges “is” the service, but as a non-refuge employee, it is very disturbing to see the blue 

goose side by side with the service logo as if refuges was an equal partner (as another agency would be) with the service 

instead of a program within the service. Signs/symptoms such as this add to the disillusionment/confusion as to how do 

non-refuge programs fit within the service and reduce camaraderie among programs that used to be within the service. 

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to seeing the results. 

(20) Given above, why not just ask my name? Kidding aside, thank you for being introspective about research and 

biological programs of FWS, I hope you have excellent cooperation in this survey endeavor and I look forward to the 

results. 

(23) Thank you for focusing on this important topic. 

(34) Thanks for your interest. 

(48) Thank you for asking from a long-term, seasonal employee. Desire is the project and not the pay check. Can’t live in 

that unreal world much longer...student loans are not getting chunked out as a gs-7. Might be jumping ship to go work for 

USGS. Would rather stay with this agency and be part of the return of research within the FWS, to complement and 

collaborate with USGS, academia and non-profits. Cheers 

(49) Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the survey. 

(66) Interesting survey. 

(123) Again, not sure whether the results from my questionnaire will be useful. After taking the questionnaire, my answer 

up front maybe should have been that I don’t conduct research although I do analyze data. However, I’m glad that an 

effort has been made to seek more information about FWS research. I was under the impression that after region 8 was 

moved to USGS, the FWS was no longer to conducted research. After reading this questionnaire, looks like I was wrong. 

(149) I hope you get some good information from this survey. 

(182) In addition to needing more time and financial resources to conduct research (who doesn’t?), additional educational 

opportunities to remain current or obtain advanced degrees more aligned with increasing research complexity could be 

beneficial. Thank you for conducting this survey and providing the opportunity to respond. The results will be most 

interesting. 

(190) Would appreciate receiving a copy of survey results. Hopefully these promote some change in the institution. One 

other point: it would be useful if the service could establish a more effective institutional (and funding) framework for 

science support. Prime example of an effective top-down initiative is the national park service’s natural resource 

inventory and monitoring program. 

(199) That this survey is being conducted is a positive sign. Please disseminate the results. 

(205) Just reorganized and was re-assigned branch chief for “applied science” (fewer responsibilities for research in this 

capacity). Other comments: I am a lead in monitoring an endangered species (population trends & habitat modeling) some 

do not consider monitoring as research per se. For the purposes of this survey, I am considering statistically valid 

monitoring as research. From my perspective, the FWS has lost the capacity to do scientifically credible research since it 

lost its research branch. Sure there are a few isolated individuals or groups who are involved with research activities, but 

generally speaking FWS does not do research (i.e. Hypotheses testing). There is shoe string work going on willy-nilly that 

those who are doing thing they are doing research, but in reality they are doing descriptive studies, or their work lacks a 

statistically valid/rigorous design (i.e. Most is not publishable). Lee, you are more than welcome to give me a call if you 

want to discuss the survey further. [name deleted] (p.s. well organized and thoughtful survey!) 

(236) I am responsible for designing courses for the FWS addressing the use of science in decision making and 

conservation planning for endangered species. I am the design team leader and coordinate the efforts of scientifics from 

several agencies & universities. While not actively involved in research myself, I am acutely aware of the scientific skills 

required of FWS staff and encourage increased participation of USGS scientists in assisting/supporting FWS staff in 

practice and in providing training. I am very interested in results of your survey and hope it will be available to FWS staff 

soon. 

140

(237) Good questions, look forward to seeing a summary. 

(245) Institutional lack of support for publishing in peer-reviewed journals. FWS does not value scientists. Thanks for the 

opportunity to comment. 11. Despite job being 90% research, FWS refuses to acknowledge it on paper and keeps my title 

in management services. Hence, there is no career path for me by conducting research. Publication in peer-reviewed 

journals is not rewarded or encouraged by FWS. I appealed my title, but lost. Region 6 – fisheries clearly does not want 

its biologists to be classed as researchers even though in my case, essentially all of my funding comes from the Colorado 

river recovery program rather than FWS base funds. Part of the problem is that administrators at regional level do not 

have a research background and do not understand its importance. Also, many decisions within agency are increasingly 

based on political consideration rather than on sound science, hence, science is under-valued. 

General negative comments 


4% of comments from all respondents (11/250) 


17% of respondents commenting regarding the survey 11/63) 


Sub-theme: Definition of research 


(125) Based upon the questions, I am not sure that this survey was intended to include planning type “research” (i.e. Data 

gathering to write a CCP, EA, EIS). However, it is from the planning viewpoint that this survey was answered. 

(133) Research should be better defined for your survey purposes. 

(188) Because of the inconsistent references to “conduct research” in the survey, I found myself uncertain how to respond 

to some questions. I decided to use the broad definition provided at the beginning of the survey when answering, even 

though some of the questions seemed to imply an association to direct research delivery activities. I would suggest that 

these uncertainties be recognized in the survey report so that the data can be viewed in the broadest context. 

Sub-theme: Technical issues 

(32) You should allow people responding to the survey to be completely anonymous – e.g., do not request any personal 

info. and do not invite people, by name, to take the survey. It’s not an issue for me, because I’m happy with my job and 

with the status of research in my division. But, if I had lots of complaints, I may be hesitant to voice them knowing that 

my name is (at least initially) attached to my responses. 

(47) The survey should allow us to print a hardcopy of our answers. 

(143) I sent lee an email with comments. For some reason this page was not available after I finished section 6. 

(225) The website was slow and not user friendly! Thus, I completed this. [name deleted] 

(230) I didn’t complete this online because I put yes on the first question by mistake and was not able to go back and 

change the answer. 

(234) Well, it’s time to gripe! I tried the on-line version and had quite a few problems, between how incredibly slow it 

was after clicking the continue arrows to getting two error messages, I was pretty frustrated. I wasn’t confident in the 

online program before the second error message shut me down. Well, I decided to do the PDF version and the whole thing 

only took me 15 minutes. On-line surveys seem so frustrating because of how slow they are and error messages or even 

programs locking up. I was asked recently to do another survey and I didn’t because of the hassles and time commitments. 

I almost “blew-off” this one as well, but decided to in the end as it was more directed to /by the service. I, and others, are 

always glad to help out. But, we’d sure like less hassles in these processes!!! 

(246) When offering a web based survey – make sure it works! I was booted off twice, once when I had partially 

completed the survey. Many folks would have not completed the survey after this experience. 

(247) As I supervise field stations who conduct research, I have answered questions for those stations. I have not 

performed research for 20+ years. The service desperately needs a career track for scientists/researchers so we can retain 

their research skills. To get ahead, you must go into management with ABC, RPI and KPMG audits to name a few. We 

spend an increasing amount of management and staff time of administrative and not science or even policymaking that is a 

result of scientific endeavors. After looking at this, it is set up wrong. If a person checks the last item on page 2, 

“supervise or coordinate the efforts of there FWS employees....” They should go to track 2 and not track 1. The web site 

has been down today (11/24/04). I reported it. 

141

Miscellaneous: 

(25) What is the purpose of this survey: more to USGS or more research back to the FWS? 

Survey questions not applicable to respondent 

9% of comments from all respondents (22/250) 

35% of respondents commenting regarding the survey (22/63) 

(3) My position does not involve conducting research; therefore most of the questions in this survey were left blank. 

(15) Questions were hard to answer as I actually supervise a refuge biologist who conducts what research we do here. 

(43) most questions designed for people who spend most of their time as researchers 

(87) This survey is more applicable for wildlife biologist than refuge managers. In addition, we were told years ago that 

biologist on refuges should not be doing research unless it was in cooperation with USGS or with universities taking the 

lead. Refuge biologists are supposed to collect data only on monitoring type studies that are not considered research. 

Perhaps this policy changed without my knowledge but that is the way I understood it as an employee with FWS. 

(97) I am not comfortable that the survey accurately portrays what I or my counterparts do. We must be experts for our 

lead species, and as such direct research including preparation and review of proposals, review and interpretation of data, 

and scientific judgments. I (we) rarely am afforded the opportunity to conduct field investigations, though we must be on 

top of the literature. Frequently, research is just the beginning. Thereafter, we have to explain it and sell it to our many 

state and non-governmental partners. 

(111) The design of this survey leaves much to be desired. You ask in the first section if the respondent supervises 

someone doing research. If the answer is yes, then you were to continue with the survey which asked questions about 

conducting research, which few supervisors do. If you answered yes to the supervisory question, you should have had the 

option to continue with the survey if you also conduct research or stop if you only supervise researchers. Given the design 

of the survey, the results are suspect. 

(123) Again, not sure whether the results from my questionnaire will be useful. After taking the questionnaire, my answer 

up front maybe should have been that I don’t conduct research although I do analyze data. However, I’m glad that an 

effort has been made to seek more information about FWS research. I was under the impression that after region 8 was 

moved to USGS, the FWS was no longer to conducted research. After reading this questionnaire, looks like I was wrong. 

(124) Actually this entire survey is not a very good fit for me. I submitted on the first page that I am only involved in 

research through the supervision of an individual, which apparently qualified me to answer all the questions asked directly 

of researchers. Since there were few “does not apply” answers including, my survey would only tend to skew the results. 

(141) Most questions do not apply to my position. We are building a better refuge science program, engaged in multirefuge studies and improving our biological data collection and use processes; my work is more of supervisory nature, not 

hands on. 

(161) The questions are a poor fit for those in supervisory roles. 

(163) I probably should not have done this survey, but I supervise a couple of staff who have some involvement in 

research, albeit mostly supporting others, rather than doing it themselves. It would have been more meaningful if there 

were another category for supervisors, who don’t do research themselves. 

(169) I started taking this survey thinking that I could get it to apply to my everyday work, but was unsuccessful. I do not 

conduct research as a part of my current position, but I do commend those that do. 

(174) Much of this survey really doesn’t apply to my dealings with research very well 

(180) I answered yes to the question in section 1 regarding whether I conduct research because you included monitoring, 

writing reports, analyzing data, etc. Those activities are the main components of my job. However, I am mainly involved 

in annual population and productivity surveys that were designed by others, and I have had very little involvement with 

survey design, obtaining funds or partnering with other agencies/NGO. Therefore I feel that many of the questions in this 

survey don’t really apply to me. Also, in the section on publications, I responded that I never presented results in 

“publications of FWS or other agencies.” I assumed you meant true publications, e.g. The technical report series, and not 

unpublished agency reports. (I write many of those). 

(187) Your questionnaire is not really geared to those who coordinate research. 

142 
(200) This questionnaire was hard for I answer as I commented before. I feel that you should not have had the selection of 

supervising as all of the questions deal with research and as a project leader I do not conduct my own research. 

(201) I fall between your track 1 and track 2 – I am collaborating with other agencies and university researchers on a 

project and have collected some data and contributed to the study design and have been involved in the funding process, 

but not to the extent listed. My supervisor is supportive, and is also involved. For future questionnaires online, it would 

be useful for those of us who have the questions “sort of” apply to be able to go back to the initial page of activities to 

change our answers. (Which is why I’m mailing this in, rather than completing it online, as I started to do?) 

(215) My job duties as an oil and gas specialist don’t really require in-depth research on my part. I don’t know if this 

questionnaire pertains to me as much as it would if I had a “typical” wildlife biologist position 

(217) This station remains committed to applied research projects that will improve management and we will do what we 

have do to see this type of work continue – but it is a struggle – you have to want it very much to make it happen. I 

understand why many give up – increasing administrative burdens and restrictions drain your “on the ground efforts” and 

emotions. Section 2: I probably should not have answered this section since I have minimal involvement in actual 

research. But, I have initiated studies, found $, students, partners for research. If I wasn’t involved and committed many 

of these projects and others would not have happened. Section 3.2: 5% actual research, I am a manager who strongly 

supports research. I seek funds, partnerships, students, etc. Refuge biologist and others do actual work. Station biologist, 

ms/PhD students, coop. Research. Investigators do work requested. 

(223) The questions in this survey do not apply to my position. I supervise biologists, fire staff, foresters, and public use 

employees that may be involved in research activities. These questions seemed designed for them. However, no funding 

is available for research and limited staff makes research a very low priority. 

(233) This survey has nothing to do with my job duties and responsibilities. 

(241) Currently, all of my “research” activity is endangered species monitoring as just part of my job. Therefore, some of 

the questions in the survey did not seem very applicable to my situation, mainly in regard to my position. My job is refuge 

management and I do not have a research emphasis. However, if research is needed I feel there is a good atmosphere for 

getting it done. 

Criticism of specific questions or response options 

6% of comments from all respondents (14/250) 

22% of respondents commenting regarding the survey (14/63) 

(19) In section 2 on the question about the source of my research funds I put 100% in the base funded category just so I 

could get out of the box. I don’t do research so I have no funds for that purpose from any source. 

(70) On the question about how we get research funds, one option was base funding, but there are some nuances about our 

definition of “base” which in our case is pitifully small. There are other opportunities within the division of refuges, like 

challenge cost share, whereby non-federal partners contribute at least 50% and the regional office (refuges) contributes the 

remainder. This is different from base funds in my opinion and provides significant opportunities for research that would 

not occur if we had to rely on “base” funds. 

(79) The answer above about adding research responsibilities suggests that I do more research. Actually, I do little, but just 

have more done by others on the refuge (staff and universities). 

(114) This survey was too long and had questions where I had to make up numbers because I couldn’t leave them blank. 

The amount of budget spent on research question is an example. I have no idea how much of the station’s budget is spent 

on research and where it comes from, so you can delete those answers. 

(117) I had a difficult time answering some of the survey questions for multiple reasons. Part of the problem related to 

questions about definitions (types, levels) of research and support. Thus, I did not always feel like I was able to answer 

questions appropriately. 

It would be interesting to see a comparison of survey responses among different levels (national, regional, field) and 

divisions/offices (e.g., refuges, ecosystem services, and migratory birds) of the FWS. Further, it would be interesting to 

see how other groups (outside the FWS) view science in the FWS. 

(120) Several questions of this survey do not include an appropriate response option covering all possibilities. At the very 

least, a NA might be required for some. It also lacks some important questions or appears to assume that only certain 

situations exist within the FWS, so that the results may be incomplete. Some of these likely relate to the situation I 

describe in the comments of the last section. 

143

(129) The funding page of this questionnaire did not include an option that I would have chosen – tribal funding. 

(131) The last question in section 4 was confusing. I was to answer “yes” or “no” to “not applicable" to me. I do not 

publish or present research results.” Since that section was applicable to me and I do those things, I answered “no,” but the 

double negatives were weird. 

(135) In regards to my answer of the preceding question, the added research responsibilities have been self-generated, not 

developed or imposed by my supervisors. As with many such surveys, the template for answering some questions did not 

always suit the questions being asked. For example, some questions do not apply to and/or adequately describe the 

situation being asked about. As a result, it is not clear how to answer those questions. For example, for some questions, a 

“neutral” response could mean that you don’t feel strongly about the issue, the issue doesn’t apply to you at all, or that the 

answers provided do not adequately capture your response to the question. Therefore, a single response type (e.g., 

“neutral”) could actually mean three different things to the survey subjects, but will be treated uniformly by the surveyor 

when he/she summarizes and synthesizes the data. As a result, a lot of potentially useful information is lost to the 

surveyor. Of course, it is difficult to be simultaneously comprehensive and streamlined with this type of effort, so format 

and question limitations are, of necessity, compromises. 

(138) The questions regarding communication of research results was difficult to answer as all of the research that is 

funded under the grant programs I am involved with is published/presented in some format – however, I am never the 

author or speaker – but serve as a reviewer of the study results. 

(153) I believe the survey should have had more focus on the applied aspects of fisheries offices activities. In particular, 

how does the activities we are engaged in help or influence in inter-jurisdictional activities, multi-state or multi-agency 

management activities, and etc. 

(160) The questions asked in previous sections do not seem straight forward. I would rephrase or remove the likely, 


unlikely questions, to something more straight forward and clear. 


(186) This questionnaire should include “non-applicable” (n/a) as a response option. 

(208) Survey would be more useful if there was more focus and inclusion on use of the existing scientific literature to 

answer management questions of interest. This is a very fundamental and basic use of research within the service. Also 

would have been better to focus questions on research completion. In my experience, many projects are good at data 

gathering but often data sits in drawers or files and never gets analyzed, summarized, and used in management. 

Primary category: Comments regarding the respondent’s background as it may apply to the survey 

24% of respondents’ comments (59/250) contained content reflected in this category. 

Time in job 

3% of comments from all respondents (7/250) 

12% of respondents commenting regarding respondent’s background (7/59) 

(9) This questionnaire was difficult for me because I have only been in my present position where I support the field 

(office based) for the last 2 months. I spent the last 14 years in the field. 

(38) I am very new to the FWS and am not sure you should be using me in this survey. 


(108) Have only been with FWS since June 1, came from USGS. Conducted research only at USGS, but was impressed 


by research opportunities with FWS. Was disappointed to find that no budget/personnel were available for research in 


FWS. Not likely to leave this job within 6 months, but may start looking. 


(115) I have only been a biologist for the last year, in that time good research support. 


(136) 25 yrs if you include the NBS/USGS screw-up 


(159) I am new to the FWS. I worked with another federal agency for 20 years. 


(206) I’m quite new to this position, therefore my answers refer to research I expect to conduct in the coming year. In my 


previous position (with USFWS ecological services) opportunities for research were negligible, and led me to seek my 

current position (refuges). 

144

Other agency experience 


4% of comments from all respondents (9/250) 


15% of respondents commenting regarding respondent’s background (9/59) 


(12) Previous experience in conducting research includes eight years as a fisheries biologist specializing in salmonid 

otolith microstructural analyses. Experience obtained in Seattle, Washington working for the ‘national biological service: 

western fisheries research center’ for the first two years and then began working for the ‘skagit system cooperative’ for the 

remaining time. Became a fisheries field biologist in 2001 and was given research responsibilities for the last two years by 

this office. 

(17) I answered the questions from the standpoint of the wildlife biologist position that I served in since 1998. I was 

promoted to RM less than a year ago. 

(21) I accepted my current position with the FWS about 4.5 years ago, after having a similar position with the state of 

Alaska for over 10 years. There are no other positions for me to move to, unless I want to move into a purely management 

position. 

(55) I moved from BLM to my current FWS position in large part because it included more research responsibilities. 

(67) Work included two years with region 8, FWS research prior to its transfer to USGS. Previous work experience at 

state and private facilities. Assistant manager 

(83) I was the chemical contaminants biologist for 16 years. In the past three years I became the coordinator for the 

Florida gulf coastal program. I am retiring in January, 2005 to take a position as executive director of a local coastal 

management program. 

(91) I moved from USGS-BRD to the service 

(99) I came to the service after 17 years doing research and monitoring on the great lakes with us EPA. Would love to see 

more (actually any) career advancement paths for researchers 

(139) I was a research biologist in the fish and wildlife service for the first 25+ years of my 38 years with the service. 

Amount of research content in job 


10% of comments from all respondents (24/250) 


41% of respondents commenting regarding respondent’s background (24/59) 


(11) My current position has more research opportunities than my previous one, but whether that ends up being the case is 

yet to be seen. 

(29) I have fewer research responsibilities due to cuts in funding and other management needs. 

(44) It should be noted that at this time I am working in a capacity where I am more of a data manager than a researcher. 

If it was my desire to perform more research, I would likely need to seek out additional funding sources and request 

research-oriented projects from my supervisor. At this time, I do not choose to do so, since I am enjoying working parttime. 

(45) Only one on site at current station, took the job thinking I would have more opportunity for biology, but it turned out 

not to be the case. In my prior position as a wildlife biologist the encouragement and staff support was more for public use 

and less on biology, unfortunately the thinking was that biology could wait. 

(75) I have just started in a job that has more research potential, so most of the answers received in this survey are from 

two research projects conducted within my first 10 years in FWS. Hopefully opportunities to conduct research will 

increase. Unfortunately base funding is tight and appears to be getting tighter, and partner’s money also seems to be 

disappearing. 

(85) Over the course of my career, my job has evolved from field biologist (undertaking monitoring and research tasks) to 

project manager (defining and overseeing these tasks, utilizing results in mgmt. Decisions). I understand this as a natural 

progression of duties and responsibilities, and while I may “fantasize” about the “good old days” of field work, I do not 

regret the decisions that I have made that have lead to this transition. I value the opportunity I have to apply that which I 

have learned through practical experience to policy and management decisions. I believe that if the need for more direct 

involvement in research returns to me, I could leave FWS for academic pursuits...it’s clear to me that I’m making choices 

that balance conflicting interests by advancing my FWS career. 

145

(104) I have remained in essentially the same job, but my research responsibilities have neither increased nor decreased. 

(106) I don’t do any “research” although we are always looking at ways to improve the results of what we do. 

(121) I have changed jobs but both require about the same amount of research. 

(132) Ok, I probably screwed up your survey. I filled this out from the prospective of my previous job. The one I have 

now has no research or wildlife responsibility at all. I’m misclassified, really, but would love to function as a wildlife 

biologist, with research responsibilities, again some day. 

(135) In regards to my answer of the preceding question, the added research responsibilities have been self-generated, not 

developed or imposed by my supervisors. As with many such surveys, the template for answering some questions did not 

always suit the questions being asked. For example, some questions do not apply to and/or adequately describe the 

situation being asked about. As a result, it is not clear how to answer that question. For example, for some questions, a 

“neutral” response could mean that you don’t feel strongly about the issue, the issue doesn’t apply to you at all, or that the 

answers provided do not adequately capture your response to the question. Therefore, a single response type (e.g., 

“neutral”) could actually mean three different things to the survey subjects, but will be treated uniformly by the surveyor 

when he/she summarizes and synthesizes the data. As a result, a lot of potentially useful information is lost to the 

surveyor. Of course, it is difficult to be simultaneously comprehensive and streamlined with this type of effort, so format 

and question limitations are, of necessity, compromises. 

(145) Within the past five years, I have written 4 biological research proposals to address wildlife management issues but 

have not received funding to conduct the research. 

(146) I have changed jobs and still have no research responsibilities. Most of the “research responsibilities" I may have is 

to assist with monitoring relative to impacts of federal actions. I have recently moved on opportunities for research that 

should assist with recovery implementation and planning. 

(154) Again, I am not in a research type position. 

(164) I am on a detail with more research responsibilities. 

(173) There are no research responsibilities in my job. All of my research is self motivated and very basic. I mainly 

monitor fire effects on a variety of plant communities and insect populations using variations in timing and fire intensity. I 

simply want to further my knowledge of fire effects that are not clearly stated in the literature. 

(198) While most of my responsibilities during the past six years have been to compile and analyze data collected by 

others (production of biological opinions, EIS); I also have participated in research conducted principally by others in this 

office. I now have inherited those responsibilities (due to retirement and other staff departures) with no reduction in my 

other duties. I feel quality research is crucial to the service meeting its management goals and obligations, but staffing and 

monetary constraints limit the production of useful information. Although this may not be specifically pertinent to your 

survey, it has been my experience (especially during recent years) that politics, more than science, drives management 

decisions in the service. For biologists at mid-management levels and below, this is very disheartening. 

(201) I fall between your track 1 and track 2 – I am collaborating with other agencies and university researchers on a 

project and have collected some data and contributed to the study design and have been involved in the funding process, 

but not to the extent listed. My supervisor is supportive, and is also involved. For future questionnaires online, it would 

be useful for those of us who have the questions “sort of” apply to be able to go back to the initial page of activities to 

change our answers. (This is why I’m mailing this in, rather than completing it online, as I started to do.) 

(205) Just reorganized and was re-assigned branch chief for “applied science” (fewer responsibilities for research in this 

capacity). Other comments: I am a lead in monitoring an endangered species (population trends & habitat modeling) some 

do not consider monitoring as research per se. For the purposes of this survey, I am considering statistically valid 

monitoring as research. From my perspective, the FWS has lost the capacity to do scientifically credible research since it 

lost its research branch. Sure there are a few isolated individuals or groups who are involved with research activities, but 

generally speaking FWS does not do research (i.e. Hypotheses testing). There is shoe string work going on willy-nilly that 

those who are doing thing they are doing research, but in reality they are doing descriptive studies, or their work lacks a 

statistically valid/rigorous design (i.e. Most is not publishable). Lee, you are more than welcome to give me a call if you 

want to discuss the survey further. [name deleted] (p.s. Well organized and thoughtful survey!) 

(212) I’ve recently started conducting more research than in the past, and so, anticipate presenting the results. Thus my 

answers in sec. 4. 

146

(217) This station remains committed to applied research projects that will improve management and we will do what we 

have do to see this type of work continue – but it is a struggle – you have to want it very much to make it happen. I 

understand why many give up – increasing a administrate burdens and restrictions drain your “on the ground efforts” and 

emotions. Section 2: I probably should not have answered this section since I have minimal involvement in actual 

research. But, I have initiated studies, found $, students, partners for research. If I wasn’t involved and committed many 

of these projects and others would not have happened. Section 3.2: 5% actual research, I am a manager who strongly 

supports research. I seek funds, partnerships, students, etc. Refuge biologist and others do actual work. Station biologist, 

ms/PhD students, coop. Research. Investigators do work requested. 

(218) Renamed in current job, and continue to seek research opportunities to both improve decision making, and improve 

personal performance. 

(235) I started with USFWS as a seasonal biological technician which included more research responsibilities than my 

current position does as an education specialist. 

(240) The job does not require research but can be done. [name deleted] 

Type of research content in job 


5% of comments from all respondents (13/250) 


22% of respondents commenting regarding respondent’s background (13/59) 


(2) My research was mainly in my last job with the USFS as a fisheries biologist. I have continued coordinating, 

conducting, and summarizing fish data in my present job in coordination with the USFS and other agencies. 

(40) My current position involved primarily reviewing environmental assessments and environmental impact statements 

and other NEPA-related activities. I do not consider my review of these to be research. Even when called to produce a 

product such as a fish and wildlife coordination act report, these projects, with transfer funds, must all depend on research 

done by others, not conducting new research? 

(89) The research that I’m involved is project monitoring for the partners for fish and wildlife program which is gaining in 

emphasis. However, very little research is done by the E.S. In Arizona. 

(97) I am not comfortable that the survey accurately portrays what I or my counterparts do. We must be experts for our 

lead species, and as such direct research including preparation and review of proposals, review and interpretation of data, 

and scientific judgments. I (we) rarely am afforded the opportunity to conduct field investigations, though we must be on 

top of the literature. Frequently, research is just the beginning. Thereafter, we have to explain it and sell it to our many 

state and non-governmental partners. 

(101) My current involvement with ‘research’ does not include field work; thus, my responses about ‘research’ covers not 

only field data-gathering, but data and related problem analysis (for example, computer-based analysis). 

(130) I am including in my definition of research, bird monitoring, synthesis of data from various sources, and 

coordination (by way of technical assistance, granting, and prioritization) of various monitoring and research projects 

within the area in the u.s. And Mexico that my program works. 

(157) The research I am involved in is environmental investigations required by regulatory agencies to comply with 

environmental laws necessary to protect human health and the resource (environment). This research is funded by funds 

requested from DOI, private companies, and the university. There are many chemicals in the environment causing 

negative impacts to the natural resources. Research is needed to provide managers with information to make informed 

decisions. Currently, decisions are made based on information qualified by many uncertainties. 

(168) “Research”-type investigations I participate in are usually done in conjunction with preparing legal cases and 

therefore much of the results of the data gathering, analyses, etc., that are generated can not be readily published until all 

the legal aspects of each case are resolved either through settlement or litigation. 

(183) Most of the “research” I do consists of aerial surveys to assess and monitor populations of waterbirds for 

management activities, such as supporting ES recovery plans, harvest regulations, ENV. Impact statements, permit 

requirements, etc. I also provide aerial survey and piloting expertise to other investigators and agencies. 

(195) The only research I do is obtaining water level readings 

(209) Job has remained the same within the past three years. The results of my research have been used to: compliance 

with federal regulations. 

147

(221) I am an easement enforcement officer so most of my research is for law enforcement cases. 

(241) Currently, all of my “research” activity is endangered species monitoring as just part of my job. Therefore, some of 

the questions in the survey did not seem very applicable to my situation, mainly in regard to my position. My job is refuge 

management and I do not have a research emphasis. However, if research is needed I feel there is a good atmosphere for 

getting it done. 

Miscellaneous statements regarding respondent’s background 


2% of comments from all respondents (6/250) 


10% of respondents commenting regarding respondent’s background (6/59) 


(24) I am not sure if this applies to the survey or not....I am currently a permanent full time employee not in a SCEP 

position and in my second year of graduate school. The managers at my station have not only encouraged but also 

allowed me to change my schedule to go to class and to conduct my thesis research on the refuge. My advisor at the 

university and the refuge have partnered for two grants which support research on the refuge. However, I do have to 

analyze data and write the thesis report on my own time. The refuge will benefit from the research conducted and the 

published articles while I benefit by furthering my education. This refuge has supported another past employee in this 

same manner. The results from that thesis project have changed the way we manage that species on the refuge today and 

are looked at neighboring refuges. If only other biologists were so lucky. 

(54) The situation that I am in is completely different than most of the biologists in similar program responsibilities. 

(62) I hope to complete my PhD within a year. 

(73) My job description does not remotely describe the duties that I routinely perform on the job. I have two 

complementary master’s degrees (4 years of graduate education), but this is counted by OPM as only 2 years of graduate 

education for the purposes of hiring or promotion. I think that this is a flawed practice since my 2 complementary degrees 

make me better qualified to perform my job then if I simply held a PhD in either field. Even this survey has a box titled 

“what is the highest educational degree that you have obtained” which implies that someone with a PhD is more qualified 

then someone with 2 interdisciplinary master’s degrees. 

(126) Some in my position would say I’m overqualified relative to others with similar duties, but I’m quite satisfied and 

feel my duties reflect my position well 

(236) I am responsible for designing courses for the FWS addressing the use of science in decision making and 

conservation planning for endangered species. I am the design team leader and coordinate the efforts of scientists from 

several agencies & universities. While not actively involved in research myself, I am acutely aware of the scientific skills 

required of FWS staff and encourage increased participation of USGS scientists in assisting/supporting FWS staff in 

practice and in providing training. I am very interested in results of your survey and hope it will be available to FWS staff 

soon. 

Primary category: comments regarding research in the FWS 

52% of respondents’ comments (130*/250) contained content reflected in this category. 

*several comments appear in two subcategories of this primary category, therefore the comments number 130 and not 139. 

Necessity of research in the FWS 

21% of comments from all respondents (53/250) 

41% of respondents commenting on research in FWS (53/130) 

Sub-theme: research should be internal to FWS 

(18) Fish and wildlife should be involved in more monitoring activities. USGS-BRD and best divisions are supposed to 

conduct monitoring on our behalf but this does not happen. We need to care for our research needs ourselves and not 

expect others to do them. Also, when we conduct studies, we gain from the experience and can use that work as 

opportunities for training our junior coworkers. 

(39) Would like to see more research opportunities within FWS and prefer having a research branch within FWS. 

(42) The FWS needs to upgrade their research because USGS is a not necessarily that receptive to our needs, and we have 

the capabilities to do the same work. 

148

(48) Thank you for asking from a long-term, seasonal employee. Desire is the project and not the pay check. Can’t live in 

that unreal world much longer...student loans are not getting chunked out as a GS-7. Might be jumping ship to go work 

for USGS. Would rather stay with this agency and be part of the return of research within the FWS, to complement and 

collaborate with USGS, academia and non-profits. Cheers 

(50) I feel it is critical to FWS success as lead agency with mandated fish and wildlife management and regulatory 

responsibilities to have clear vision on research needs specific to our agency mission. USGS and cooperators cannot fill 

role of research needs that require internal coordination and vision w/n FWS (e.g. Endangered species, ANS). A 

scientifically based management agency without a R&D arm is left to accept new and evolving information w/n the 

context of political priorities, budgeting shortfalls, agency ownership issues which is not conducive to ‘good science’ or 

the scientific method. 

(52) Encourage more research without jeopardizing our management responsibilities. 

(57) FWS needs to rebuild it’s research capability within the agency 

(59) Make it mandatory to review the “science” in monitoring programs every three years or so, and provide adequate 

funding for an independent review panel. Get serious about publishing, and provide an incentive – promote staff that 

publishes. Provide opportunities to share “science” expertise between offices. Do something to attract and keep staff with 

good “science” capabilities, and remove those that don’t. I spent 23 with NMFS before I came to FWS. I started my career 

with NMFS as a gs5 and left as a gs13. I advanced within NMFS because I developed and repeatedly demonstrated my 

research capabilities. I don’t see that opportunity in FWS, at least at this office. 

(60) I believe that data gathering through responsible research should be top priority for the FWS. The FWS cannot 

responsibly update the status of species or resources under our jurisdiction without appropriate data. Biologists should be 

directed and encouraged to coordinate, lead, and/or supervise research activities or research possibilities (e.g., 

partnerships, contracts, or grants) that would better assist the FWS in making properly-informed management and 

recovery decisions. Without the necessary tools and support, FWS biologists cannot provide the agency with the best 

available information to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife resources. 

(61) FWS needs to a research career path. 

(75) I have just started in a job that has more research potential, so most of the answers received in this survey are from 

two research projects conducted within my first 10 years in FWS. Hopefully opportunities to conduct research will 

increase. Unfortunately base funding is tight and appears to be getting tighter, and partner’s money also seems to be 

disappearing. 

(77) It would be terrific if the FWS would recognize that ecological services biologists could and should conduct research! 

It would also be terrific if FWS would be able to get the research they needed done through BRD, as it was supposed to 

happen. However, if you are a botanist and need plant genetics research conducted or specific life history research, there is 

almost zero chance of getting BRD to do it, either due to lack of interest or capability. Getting research accomplished on 

plants in the FWS is virtually impossible unless you go to an outside source for funding and investigators. 

(80) The FWS needs to create a research branch again. The research needs of the FWS are not being met in an organized 

and efficient way. 

(90) Move the research function related to USFWS back to USFWS! 

(94) In the service we need to do proper science and base management decisions on data. Additionally, there are a number 

of ways to encourage our workforce to do more &/or better research within the confines of existing positions. 

(98) The FWS desperately needs a recognized research component. Short of bring the coop units and science centers back 

into the FWS, at least develop positions and opportunities to conduct research to address the needs of the FWS. There are 

a number of FWS employees that are capable of conducting high level research but they are frequently told not to do 

research as that is the role of BRD. Unfortunately, very little information needed by the FWS has come from BRD as 

most researchers within BRD are not interested in the type of research needed by the FWS. One suggestion is to develop 

partnerships between the FWS and universities by placing designated FWS researchers at universities to conduct research 

needed by the FWS. 

(99) I came to the service after 17 years doing research and monitoring on the great lakes with us EPA. Would love to see 

more (actually any) career advancement paths for researchers. 

149

(100) The loss of FWS region 8 crippled FWS capabilities to scientifically track, monitor, and manage fish and wildlife 

resources. Only in a very few high profile cases are adequate resources available to do the job in house or through funding 

external groups. There is a widening gap between research and FWS as the proportion of FWS managers and staff with 

research backgrounds and knowledge shrinks. Research capable young people are unlikely to choose FWS careers when 

there is no research/monitoring mission available. Some may end up in FWS for various reasons, but not because of 

research opportunities. The disaster of losing region 8 has torn the heart and soul out of FWS. 

(102) As oversight and review of our work continues to increases under things such as the data quality act, reporting 

requirements under ATAMS, tails and/or other workload tracking systems, and pressures from economic interests of any 

given us administration and/or local politicians, our work and decisions are going to be open to increasing scrutiny and 

challenges. In my opinion, research and management can not be separated without negative consequences. Research is a 

facet of scientific based management that validates a given management scheme, identifies existing inadequacies, or future 

needs. Without this type of oversight, management operates in a vacuum, under a static view of the world. 

(107) Refuges have to find a balance that excludes “hobby research” but includes sound high-priority project that refuge 

biologists participate in (to maintain the refuge focus and to build experience and credibility of the staff). We need to 

partner with BRD and others to provide statistical advice and experts in other disciplines not available in refuges. Once 

priority research is identified, biologists need to see projects through to publication, even if in gray literature and be sure 

appropriate data are stored in a database. Refuges are ideal in many ways to contribute to broader geographic based 

monitoring and should look for opportunities to participate. 

(110) Since creation of the biological research division in USGS, the USFWS has generally experienced a slow but steady 

net reduction in the proportion of programmatic funding dedicated to conducting applied research. This is compared to 

the period when the USFWS maintained a research branch. In lieu of an increased agency commitment to conducting 

research, the agency now does a better job of encouraging partnerships or competing for limited sources of funding 

outside of the agency. My specific program is probably an exception and we have experienced slow growth in 

conducting research programs with direct management applications, in part due to specific congressional appropriation 

language, and in part due to an unfulfilled need to generate answers to biological question of importance to management 

of species, habitat, and/or human activities effecting species or habitat. My sense is that no matter how much effort is 

made in partnering with USGS, the FWS will not achieve a desirable level of support for scientific research until the 

agency recreates or rededicates significant support for research, inventory, and applied studies. My general sense is that 

upper level administrators are focused on areas that directly effect their positions....administration, budget, policy 

development, etc and consequently until a priority is placed on developing research capacity to generate answers to 

pressing resource question, and a concomitant agency commitment to accountability for achieving these ends we will 

continue to overlook biological research. This is sad since these natural resources and an adequate understanding of life 

history, demographics, response to perturbations, etc. Are the underpinnings of our stewardship obligations? They are the 

core of our public trust obligations and they are the reason we receive public revenues. My suggestion would to recreate a 

research function within FWS or program specific research functions. 

(112) Research should of stayed within FWS and not to USGS. 

(142) The service should provide opportunities for career advancement (higher jobs grades, and supervisory 

responsibility) to those who choose to remain in “field” (research)-oriented positions. There is no “career track” for this 

sort of development within the agency. 

(151) In today’s rapidly changing environment, the service, now more than ever, needs in-house scientific investigations 

to help guide decision-makers and fish and wildlife managers. Scientific investigations do not have to be strictly 

“research” type endeavors that can be published in peer-reviewed journals but can be simple investigations that follow the 

scientific method and hold up to peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny. This will obviously require more funds and staff but if 

this nation is serious about conserving and protecting our dwindling fish and wildlife resources, it needs to make this 

commitment. Our stakeholders such as hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers need to be made aware of this. 

(155) Refuges should have their own scientific staff. It is very expensive to contract out scientific work to the USGS. We 

would accomplish very little scientific work at our refuge if we had to depend on hiring other people to do it. It would be 

better to spend money upgrading our existing biological staff through training and new hires than to spend money hiring 

people who are not familiar with the local conditions under which the work is to be carried out. It was a mistake years ago 

to take the biologists out of the refuges and put them in the NBS and now the USGS. It is time that we recognized this 

mistake and returned science to the refuges. 

(166) Need to keep the good people around and give them permanent positions instead of letting them go. Once this 

happens, it takes tons of time and effort to train the next batch of folks that eventually leave because they realize there is 

no future. 

150

(171) I am very encouraged that you are doing this work. I spent the first 16 years of my FWS career doing applied 

fishery research in the fisheries assistance function, all in region 1. I have been out of that division now for 9 years. I 

really can’t expect to do more research than I am now, in the job I have. I saw the service make a positive transition from 

being providers of recreation to being stewards of recovery. During that period, there was always a gap between our 

research branch and fisheries assistance. This was so both before and after the unfortunate transfer of that function to 

USGS. Our local fisheries office seemed to develop its own agenda independent of research. That was tolerable, for as 

long as we had stable base funding and lots of flexibility to take the initiative, we were able to do most of the applied 

research that tribes, states, and watershed councils needed, and the work was immensely satisfying. I think reduced funds 

have limited our applied research capability while much litigation has forced our agency toward a regulatory emphasis. 

Meanwhile, the states, tribes, and NOAA fisheries have stepped in to take over many of our former responsibilities. I don’t 

think we can go back home again, but we still have a culture of creativity, initiative, and follow-through to the finished 

product. With top-down support, my opinion is that research could recover at least part of its former emphasis in our 

agency. 

(175) I wish that FWS was more research oriented in nature, as we were pre-mid 1990s. As it stands now, I feel that we 

are generally just bureaucrats acting as consultants ever since our research branch was stripped from us (what I refer to as 

“Bobbitt’s folly”). I firmly believe that this single action compromised the scientific integrity of our agency and I hope 

against hope that we will some day get our research folks back into FWS. 

(178) I work as a plant ecologist in Alaska, because I love what I do. I think it is important for an ecologist to be 

committed to work in one region as their life’s work. Experience and understanding are essential and are of great benefit 

to the service. However, I see little opportunity to increase in GS level as a practicing plant ecologist. There should be an 

avenue whereby an employee was valued and rewarded at higher GS levels for producing highly-credible scientific 

papers. This does not mean that I would leave the service for more money or become a manager. I love the work I do, but 

it is clear that managers are rewarded from the GS and financial aspect. This is not necessarily true for botanists that 

function as scientists. 

(184) Bring independent science capacity back to the FWS! 

(194) While my position requires almost no research I would hope that as a premier professional organization that the 

FWS would conduct research and publish research results. 

(220) Move research staff from USGS back to FWS. 

(239) My time would be better used on evaluations rather than interagency coordination. But the service does need 

somebody to do the coordination. It was a mistake to take FWS research people away form FWS and put them into 

USGS. 

(247) As I supervise field stations who conduct research, I have answered questions for those stations. I have not 

performed research for 20+ years. The service desperately needs a career track for scientists/researchers so we can retain 

their research skills. To get ahead, you must go into management with ABC, RPI and KPMG audits to name a few. We 

spend an increasing amount of management and staff time of administrative and not science or even policymaking that is a 

result of scientific endeavors. After looking at this, it is set up wrong. If a person checks the last item on page 2, 

“supervise or coordinate the efforts of there FWS employees....” They should go to track 2 and not track 1. The web site 

has been down today (11/24/04). I reported it. 

(248) FWS has had to increase research capability (internal) since our research arm transferred to USGS. USGS can be a 

valuable partner, but they are very slow (some times years) to release and share conclusions. 

Sub-theme: Necessity of research to fulfill mission of FWS 

(10) While it is tempting to focus exclusively on biological research, we also should be paying attention to social science 

research. For example, many management issues appear to be the result of crowding, but in fact are the result of lack of 

common mores regarding behavior in the back country. 

(26) FWS needs more research done 

(46) Lack of appropriate, applied research hurts our public image by forcing us to make and justify decisions based on 

gross generalizations, out-dated or out-of-context studies, or pure professional judgment. Such decisions may then appear 

unscientific. We cannot prevail in protecting public resources or conserving at-risk species without research results to 

back up our policies and decisions with solid data. 

151

(64) Few people who have done research choose to apply that depth of knowledge to decision-making or policy efforts. 

Most scientists shun policy and try to “keep their hands clean” and stick to just the research side. There seems to be a 

large gulf between the creation of the actual scientific product (“scientist”) and the use and understanding of that product 

(“manager”). The scientist-manager gulf is huge! However, the translation of science into policy is a critical linkage for 

the FWS as a predominantly science using agency. The FWS must put some resources and strengthening this linkage. 

Thus, while I don’t do research for the FWS I am actively trying to strengthen the linkage between science and 

policy/decision-making. 

(78) I strongly believe that the FWS needs to make research and monitoring a higher priority. Our understanding of status 

and trends and the underlying causes of these trends, coupled with the need for an ecosystem approach to management 

argues, in my view, the need for increased and continued effort in this area. 

(103) As an agency we need to take our research responsibilities seriously and not just pay lip service to the concept. This 

means taking on a leadership role in the monitoring and adaptive management of regional hips with multiple participating 

jurisdictions if we want them to be successful. While we attempt to do that here in this office, more resources need to be 

made available for plan implementation (and follow up on section 7 consultations) than are available currently. We need 

to be able to dedicate qualified staff to these activities, rather than filing the project away and hoping that it works. 

(109) In general the service would do better science without the artificial dichotomy between “research” and 

“management”. The programs need to be reviewed for relevance. Research should be question driven with actual 

research designs and should be aimed at understanding processes, rather than having a narrow focus. It should, at least in 

r7, be aimed at collecting baseline information and understanding. 

(157) The research I am involved in is environmental investigations required by regulatory agencies to comply with 

environmental laws necessary to protect human health and the resource (environment). This research is funded by funds 

requested from DOI, private companies, and the university. There are many chemicals in the environment causing 

negative impacts to the natural resources. Research is needed to provide managers with information to make informed 

decisions. Currently, decisions are made based on information qualified by many uncertainties. 

(176) I believe that the current system, with BRD separated from FWS and FWS supposed to be getting any science 

knowledge necessary to make management and policy decisions purely by osmosis from a distant source, is quite 

detrimental to the agency’s effectiveness as a science-based management and policy agency. While I personally have no 

need to do a lot of research, I have been (until very recently) regularly discouraged from even attending scientific meetings 

much less undertaking research myself. When I have attended the society for conservation biology or other scientific 

meetings, I find the service very poorly represented, which cuts us off from some of our potentially most useful supporters 

and allies. The most regular staff I see at these meetings tend to be there on their own time and dime. Similarly, journals 

are difficult to access, and must be read on personal time. Thus, whether the result or the cause, the service’s scientific 

knowledge often seems both parochial and outdated and I worry about the effectiveness of management decisions based 

on such. 

(177) Personal considerations maintain me at my current location (husband is a tenured professor in the local university). 

Also, I worked in research positions for years before joining the service. I am looking for new challenges, but would like 

to focus on challenges for restoration of aquatic and coastal habitats through work with others. Academia has many 

researchers to play the publications game, but few that can afford (career-wise) to conduct long-term research and 

monitoring. The public perception is that government researchers are carrying out these longer-term, but lower 

publication yielding tasks. This is not true. The biggest fallacy is that these tasks might be relegated to graduate students– 

definitely not true. Government researchers should be given the time and resources to dedicate to this longer term, albeit 

lower publication yielding and “sexy” research needs. We desperately need this information to understand where the 

resources have been, where they’re going, and why. Pushing government researchers into high publication yielding 

pursuits will simply throw them into the same game as academic researchers. Government research obviously needs sound 

peer review to ensure good science, but should be done separately from the academic scramble. 

(197) I enjoy doing research, but in the position I am in, I find that time is the biggest hurdle with respect to doing 

research. There is a great need to do specific research in stream restoration, and I would be happy to become more 

involved in supporting and supervising students, interns, etc., in research opportunities relating to stream restoration. A 

research fund that supported students and provided allowances for us to add in time and equipment to a project would be 

one idea. 

(202) Although I do not do much research in my position with FWS, I use research to make regulatory decisions. 

Research is very important to my job and there is much information that is still lacking – for example we do not know 

what one of the federally endangered animals that I work with eats. Our own research staff (FWS biomonitors) and USGS 

staff (out of Kearney, Mesa and Carlsbad) have been extremely helpful to me. In particular, research staff was on 

extremely valuable resource when I was working on the western riverside MSHEP In an addition USGS staff has helped 

152

our Carlsbad FWS biomonitors develop digital forms for data collection. This has allowed us to collect data on palm 

pilots and handheld computers, and download data into a database. This saves our biomonitors time and also helps to 

eliminate human error. The one problem that needs desperately to be addressed is that our FWS staff can not remotely 

transfer data to the USGS server. It is my understanding that there is some sort of firewall problem in Colorado. As a 

result, we must ask biologists that are heading in the direction of the USGS office to hand carry the data on CD. It is a 

great tragedy that in this day and age of advanced technology; the department of the interior cannot transfer digital data 

from one agency to another. Please provide USGS san Diego with support that they need to resolve this issue. 

(203) Do not know and have never had research responsibilities. Although I am aware of budget and staffing constraints 

in FWS, it would be very helpful to have staff to do additional vegetation/habitat/wildlife monitoring in conjunction with 

refuge management activities. 

(211) Pulling research from FWS was detrimental – development of NBS/BRD. FWS decisions are being overturned by 

interior bases on politics rather than good science. FWS needs more research to meet our obligation (e.g. SPP. Status 

reviews) – but needs the time specifically. Now we must collaborate with others to get research done, and are subject to 

uncertainties. 

(226) As a grant specialist in federal assistance, I review and recommend approval of grant proposals that include research 

from state fish and wildlife agencies. Although some concern environmental education and its associated research, I also 

review grant proposals to conduct biological research. I rely on both professional conferences and journals and on my 

colleagues who keep up with the new research findings in their respective specialties. Important note: having professional 

federal assistance staff that know the science and keep up with the research is essential to: (1) our (FWS) ability to foster 

and approve the strongest, most effective research for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources across the country and (2) 

maintain our credibility, respect and peer relationship with our state agency and university colleagues. Losing that 

expertise would reduce the effectiveness of these grant programs that the congress has given to FWS to administer and 

would risk a deterioration of our federal-state relationships. Natural resources and citizens deserve the best science that 

we, collectively, can bring to the table. 

(228) FWS does not appear to be able to meet most of its very basic research needs in the endangered species program. 

We look only to short term, small low $ amount research projects. We can’t even properly fund development of species 

survey protocols, never mind, original research. ESA implementation is ham strung because of the lack of information we 

have available and little chance of obtaining it through research. Regions work with chump change and don’t even bother 

pursuing major research projects that are needed to unlock secrets of species that continue to decline. E.g. Indiana bats. 

For that species, declining ~20% every 10 years, we still don’t have even basic population structure of dynamic research. 

We may be just documenting its extinction, but don’t even know it. 

(231) I have many questions I would like answered regarding that habitat that I manage and restore etc. I would like to 

think that I am doing what’s best for the resources that occur in my ecological regions, but often I am guessing at the 

results. More research could improve techniques that use, or completely change the way I do them – which would 

ultimately benefit the resources that I seek to improve. I may be making too many “educated guesses” and may have no 

idea if I’m improving habitat, or having little effect on the habitat I manage and restore. 

(232) I feel more research could be done on refuges by refuge staff. Refuges tend to disregard done by university folks. 

Resources for research in the FWS 


18% of comments from all respondents (46/250) 


35% of respondents commenting on research in FWS (46/130) 


Sub-theme: Funding/staffing issues 


(4) I didn’t feel the questions really applied to me so I wanted to explain my own thoughts about the role of research in the 

FWS. Before I joined FWS I was in a research position. My first supervisor made it clear that my job did not include 

research and he was right and that continues to be the case today. The USGS does a great job of meeting our research 

needs when they have the staff and funding to do so. However, the FWS research needs far outstrip USGS’ ability to do 

all needed studies. Consequently I believe the real research problem in the FWS is that we lack the $ to fund needed 

studies. One could; however, make the case that without the budget to fund studies we should be doing more of them 

ourselves and I believe that is true. However, in ecological services there is too few staff to meet our ESA and 

contaminant responsibilities much less to do the needed studies. Management may feel that research is a low priority 

because they lack the staff to do the required work for which we have funding. Therefore, I don’t believe it’s as much a 

problem with management not giving research a higher priority as it is a problem of congress’ failure to adequately fund 

USGS and FWS. 

153

(16) I think that biological programs on refuges should have a separate funding subactivity that cannot be redistributed to 

other accounts. A set % of the base should automatically be allocated to this subactivity. This would allow better tracking 

of the services commitment to science and remove the discretion of managers to fund biological research and monitoring. 

I also believe that any new projects initiated on the refuge whether they be public use, fire, or habitat management should 

automatically include an assessment charge for monitoring that will be distributed to the biological program subactivity. 

Remaining biological funds should also be rolled over each year to allow for project continuity. 

(41) Your wording in the section on support does not ask the fundamental questions - yes, I have access to refuge tools, 

computers, and all my higher ups say “yes, do research!”, but we need cash and staffing to carry out research and we have 

neither. Can one biologist with no budget (some stations don’t even have one biologist) carry out the necessary research 

for a large refuge complex? No, so we all feel totally burned out. If the service wants to truly promote scientific 

excellence, it needs to put its money where its mouth is! The good science that I do get done is usually in spite of the 

efforts of the service to have me do otherwise. You ask where I can partner to get the financial resources to run my 

program–that’s unrealistic. Yes, I partner like crazy all the time, but that is still not satisfactory–it isn’t working. To be 

effective I need some kind of very basic budget to start with, that I can depend on more than soft money with strings 

attached. Do you ask refuge managers who they partner with to get their operating budget? Of course not, because they 

have to start with some kind of basic budget to function (and then we all can partner later). Our maintenance staff gets a 

very nice well-funded budget, so I often beg from them to try and augment my program, but it requires bending the rules 

so really isn’t right–I feel bad doing it, and shouldn’t have to! 

(53) Research is not important or emphasized by the RO. Participation in professional societies and symposia is not 

encouraged or supported. IDPS are left unsigned/unapproved and in some cases been used as an excuse not to permit 

attendance/participation a professional conferences because they are not signed. It is critical and essential for those of us 

in natural resource management and research to stay in touch with our respective fields and all the information that is 

being generated today. I find the service ultra conservative in its attitude and philosophy towards research and 

professional society participation of its employees. This lack of participation hurts the agency and it hurts the employee as 

well insofar as maintaining career/professional proficiency. Despite the encouragement given in the “town meeting” 

broadcast last may about the desire to have more FWS employees participate in professional societies, it isn’t getting done. 

A recent example of lack of support – a request for one day leave (the conf. Was held over a weekend, Friday through 

Monday, so only one work day was required) to participate in the society for conservation biology conference in New 

York in aug.’04. Rejected. A request for leave/support to rep the service (personal invitation to participate) as a delegate 

to the congress on building capacity for coastal solutions, wash. Dc was rejected. Although we have some 165 NWR in 

the coastal/ocean/estuarine environments, anything with coastal or marine in the title is considered “not job related.” 

People who serve as officers or on the board of directors of professional organizations are not being accorded official 

leave and travel to participate. Of course some others in programs other than refuges are granted time/official leave/travel 

funding. Equity is not equal and managers/supervisors make up their own policies to support their own decisions. 

(56) Research is needed, but we need to get our house in order. Adequate funding needs to be obtained for core activities 

before funding is spent on research activities. If core funding is not obtained how can a non-core activity like research 

even be considered? The research needs to be linked to a core activity so something useful could possibly come out of it. 

If the research doesn’t help anyway with the service’s activities why should we sponsor it and use our limited resources to 

fund it? Mandating research is wrong, good useful research should develop from a need not a desire or whim. 

(72) As an agency we chronically have too few dollars chasing too many projects on nearly 100 million acres of FWS 

lands. I have come to recognize that we also have an identity problem when viewed by the public because our mission has 

long been obscured by poor public relations and a lack of status as a stand alone, land based natural resource management 

agency. Rather than being recognized as a national wildlife refuge system, we are a cog in the wheel of the u.s. fish and 

wildlife service along with a variety of other entities with many related, but different missions. This dilutes the annual 

funding even more. The end result is that the resource, i.e. Refuges, never get enough money to maintain what we already 

have much less advance through research. With fewer branches squabbling over funding perhaps we could develop a 

meaningful research arm. 

(74) We need a uniform policy that supports peer-reviewed publication of research as the norm. At the moment I need to 

get independent funding to support my salary during write-up because “publication is not a priority”. This causes research 

funded to support management to languish in the gray literature and professional credibility to erode. 

(105) Increased base funding would be nice, but I am sure everyone says that! 

(108) have only been with FWS since June 1, came from USGS. Conducted research only at USGS, but was impressed by 

research opportunities with FWS. Was disappointed to find that no budget/personnel were available for research in FWS. 

Not likely to leave this job within 6 months, but may start looking. 

154

(116) Reduction in research responsibilities is in part due to reduction in budgets and staff. It is also impacted because of 

time constraints due to increased information requests, surveys, administrative workload and picking up the slack for 

others. 

(118) I have just started a new position and have not fully explored research possibilities within this position. One thing 

that I found frustrating in my past position was the rush to get a nationwide survey implemented, which lacked field 

sample oriented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) standard operating procedure and, in my opinion, was not 

properly funded/staffed for the amount of intense field work required. As a result, surveys had to be rushed and 

implemented before the protocol was finalized so that protocol timelines could be met; common species, which were 

similar to the target species and would have been expected to be present each year, were not detected each year; there was 

no QA/QC on formulations sent to the field, which may have been of variable strengths due to mixing problems/errors, 

and may be the reason common species were not detected in some years; as well as a variety of other problems causing 

undesirable working conditions. There was also a perception that principle investigators and other decision making 

personnel had preconceived ideas on where the species existed based on certain criteria while other criteria appeared to be 

ignored, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. I believe all of these problems could have been avoided/fixed if the 

surveys would have been delayed until fully developed (I. E., implementation would have had to be delayed by one year), 

principle investigators and other decision makers were more receptive and had better field review/personnel interaction, 

the surveys were properly funded/staffed, and QA/QC procedures commonly used (such as contaminants studies) were 

developed/implemented for field samples collected in association with the surveys. 

(137) I have not had the opportunity to attend FWS seminars providing information about funding sources for research. 

(145) Within the past five years, I have written 4 biological research proposals to address wildlife management issues but 

have not received funding to conduct the research. 

(172) Our biggest obstacles to conducting meaningful research: 

1. Money 

2. Staffing 

3. Perception that research is not for FWS to do 

(182) In addition to needing more time and financial resources to conduct research (who doesn’t?), additional educational 

opportunities to remain current or obtain advanced degrees more aligned with increasing research complexity could be 

beneficial. Thank you for conducting this survey and providing the opportunity to respond. The results will be most 

interesting. 

(223) The questions in this survey do not apply to my position. I supervise biologists, fire staff, foresters, and public use 

employees that may be involved in research activities. These questions seemed designed for them. However, no funding 

is available for research and limited staff makes research a very low priority. 

(228) FWS does not appear to be able to meet most of its very basic research needs in the endangered species program. 

We look only to short term, small low $ amount research projects. We can’t even properly fund development of species 

survey protocols, never mind, original research. ESA implementation is ham strung because of the lack of information we 

have available and little chance of obtaining it through research. Regions work with chump change and don’t even bother 

pursuing major research projects that are needed to unlock secrets of species that continue to decline. E.g. Indiana bats. 

For that species, declining ~20% every 10 years, we still don’t have even basic population structure of dynamic research. 

We may be just documenting its extinction, but don’t even know it. 

(229) As stated: I don’t have an adequate station budget to hire a full staff. Therefore, we don’t conduct research because 

we don’t have staff to do the work. Our current staffing level only allows us enough to complete work that is essential to 

operations. Feed fish, clean ponds, fix equipment. 

Sub-theme: Conflicting responsibilities 

(1) Via our responsibility to protect our trust resources and fulfill our agency mission, quality control of mitigation should 

be an important role for the FWS. As it stands it plays a relatively minor role compared to our other job responsibilities. 

We need to find ways to balance this currently skewed situation. 

(63) We would like a stronger relationship with the researchers at USGS so we can have them as a resource for assistance 

in data analysis. Better training in analysis methods for ourselves. Basic training of supervisors so that they understand 

that they are tasking some of their staff to develop recovery plans/activities, or develop/review monitoring plans for HEPS 

who have little understanding of how to do this. This wastes resources on poorly designed activities. 

155

(69) Lack of manpower on many stations has biologists often doing management work, just to make sure it is done when 

needed. Sort of a mixed blessing and a curse to people interested in management aspects. 

(76) The amount of paperwork has increased dramatically in the six years that I have been a service employee. On most 

refuges, management staff does not have the resources to do their office work. Thus, some of it filters down to biologists. 

If this trend continues, along with inadequate resources to perform the necessary biological work, natural resources on 

refuges will suffer. Although not directly related to research, the FWS needs to get involved in land use planning so 

refuges and similar federal properties will not end up the only reservoirs of biological diversity. Perhaps this should be 

coordinated with other agencies to get the attention of the congress and garner support for consideration of natural 

resources in land use planning. Definitely an uphill battle, but one that should begin now. I have seen this effort pay off 

big dividends in a program I worked for in the Chesapeake Bay area. The benefits of our private lands initiatives will 

disappear as development gulps up land in an uncontrolled manner. Getting involved in land use planning will conserve 

more “trust resources” than we can ever do on our relatively small land base. 

(84) Different supervisors have approached research differently, both fiscally and in terms of job time allocations. My 

opinion of research needs is sometimes very different from my supervisor’s 

(147) If I am too strongly encouraged to conduct scientific research, publish and present papers, instead of focusing on 

improving management and natural resources of our refuge (the two are not mutually inclusive), I will probably look for 

another position inside or out of the FWS. I probably do not possess the necessary skills, and certainly not the time to 

conduct scientific research (I do conduct research, but typically without randomization and without statistical analysis). I 

do not now have the time to read and assimilate applicable research documents and information that would allow a better 

understanding and management of refuge resources. Other research entities do conduct scientific research on the refuge, 

and which aids in management decisions. 

(152) The real problem is too few people and resources to do all the jobs managers dream of. Management needs to learn 

how to prioritize, and to scale project goals to realistic levels so that people can do quality work. The current situation 

places superhuman expectations on the people that actually do the work. Consequently, creative, dedicated people are 

likely to look for a job somewhere else, before their careers are destroyed in a situation where they cannot win. 

The focus needs to be on quality, not quantity. This has never been the case in my experience here. 

(179) Administrative and reporting burden of project leaders and staff have increased greatly in recent years, with resultant 

decline in time available for research, monitoring, and evaluation. Base funding decreases have lead to increased 

vacancies and loss of expertise and research capability. 

(181) Sorry if my answers seemed offensive, it’s the frustration talking. We’re sucking wind out here in the field and 

while administrative and reporting requirements (and surveys such as this!) continue to pile up, we’re losing staff and 

money. The resource will suffer and no one seems to be paying attention. 

(249) Report writing work load is precluding 90% of needed basic and applied research on our refuge resources. Monthly 

activity reports, annual narratives, rear, laps, annual habitat work plans, etc. We are crushed by our paperwork load. We 

can’t even complete fundamental monitoring of endangered species much less design and implement studies to improve 

habitat management. 

Sub-theme: Working with other agencies 

(27) I think there is a significant need to get USGS researchers to work more closely with FWS biologists on applied, 

product oriented questions. There needs to be more support within USGS for those researchers who work closely with 

stakeholders on the application of their research results. This is a form of scientific productivity that doesn’t appear to be 

supported within USGS but is the link that is needed to insure that scientific results are applied. 

(63) We would like a stronger relationship with the researchers at USGS so we can have them as a resource for assistance 

in data analysis. Better training in analysis methods for ourselves. Basic training of supervisors so that they understand 

that they are tasking some of their staff to develop recovery plans/activities, or develop/review monitoring plans for HEPS 

who have little understanding of how to do this. This wastes resources on poorly designed activities. 

(77) It would be terrific if the FWS would recognize that ecological services biologists could and should conduct research! 

It would also be terrific if FWS would be able to get the research they needed done through BRD, as it was supposed to 

happen. However, if you are a botanist and need plant genetics research conducted or specific life history research, there is 

almost zero chance of getting BRD to do it, either due to lack of interest or capability. Getting research accomplished on 

plants in the FWS is virtually impossible unless you go to an outside source for funding and investigators. 

156

(86) I worked with the USGS as a researcher before coming to the FWS, and further back, with the FWS before the 

research wing was split off into the USGS. Currently, I rely heavily on the USGS to provide research I use when writing 

recovery plans and regulatory documents. Whether it was better to have had research as a branch of FWS, or that the 

current arrangement is more appropriate, I don’t think I can comment on. However, the connection between FWS-ES 

(regulatory) and USGS (research) is essential to my doing my job well. At least within my current job description (and the 

general job responsibilities of ES as I see these), without that connection to research, and ideally, targeted applied research 

that informs management decisions, it would be extremely difficult for me to do my job. I guess this is sort of a statement 

of the importance for a continued close coordination between FWS and USGS to support and develop good research for 

species conservation. 

(92) Splitting the research unit of the USFWS off was probably not one of the smartest things to have happened. Since 

that time I have seen a change in the way the service operates. Our office went from 100 to 50% assistance to state and 

public needs and now the other 50% is more in the way of research, applying for grants, writing up reports and presenting 

the findings. This is not a bad thing, as I am enjoying the change in conducting more research. I have noticed now that 

when job openings are available, they tend to lean toward applicants with their PhD’s, though they may not be the best 

suited. This is done to get more people in that have the mentality for conducting research. This change has also led to 

competition between USGS-BRD and USFWS for the few funding sources that are available. Instead of working together 

most of the time, the two agencies are competing. 

(167) There needs to be closer coordination between the USGS research stations and the ecological services field offices 

so that coordinated research can occur. The local USGS office does little research that addresses ecological service’s 

needs and questions. The USFWS should re-emphasize research as a means for answering basic questions about species 

recovery and management, rather than continue to be stuck in short term thinking and producing rules without any overall 

advances in our knowledge of species’ biology. 

(189) An earlier question mentioned publications of the FWS. I think that is a great idea, but such outlets need credibility. 

Publication in one FWS publication with which I am familiar is dependent on the whims of a poorly qualified nonscientist editor whose name often ends up added to the list of authors. People in the field are aware of this, and science 

and the service are served poorly by such actions. Adopting an editorial board, similar to that used by most scientific 

publications, would be appropriate and would help restore credibility to service publications. However, this board should 

be comprised of qualified people from throughout the region, not a small group of cronies from within the regional office. 

Also, we have been told many times by our regional leaders that research for the service is the purview of USGS. That 

does nothing to promote good science within the service, and also ignores the fact that many researchers within the USGS 

whom we have worked with won’t touch a project without lots of money and guarantees of first authorship on resulting 

publications. 

 (202) Although I do not do much research in my position with FWS, I use research to make regulatory decisions. 

Research is very important to my job and there is much information that is still lacking – for example we do not know 

what one of the federally endangered animals that I work with eats. Our own research staff (FWS biomonitors) and USGS 

staff (out of Kearney Mesa and Carlsbad) have been extremely helpful to me. In particular, research staff was on 

extremely valuable resource when I was working on the western riverside MSHEP. In an addition, USGS staff has helped 

our Carlsbad FWS biomonitors develop digital forms for data collection. This has allowed us to collect data on palm 

pilots and handheld computers, and download data into a database. This saves our biomonitors time and also helps to 

eliminate human error. The one problem that needs desperately to be addressed is that our FWS staff can not remotely 

transfer data to the USGS server. It is my understanding that there is some sort of firewall problem in Colorado. As a 

result, we must ask biologists that are heading in the direction of the USGS office to hand carry the data on CD. It is a 

great tragedy that in this day and age of advanced technology; the department of the interior cannot transfer digital data 

from one agency to another. Please provide USGS san Diego with support that they need to resolve this issue. 

(219) I think the USGS could be used as a resource by the FWS, except the structure does not encourage partnership. The 

funding is not shared, but competed for. This causes strife instead of collaboration. Money set aside by our agency to be 

paid to USGS for services would solve this problem. 

(248) FWS has had to increase research capability (internal) since our research arm transferred to USGS. USGS can be a 

valuable partner, but they are very slow (some times years) to release and share conclusions. 

Sub-theme: Other resources 

(6) I find that too much emphasis is placed on what degrees a person has. Too often the belief is that one is incapable of 

doing research or can not do quality research unless they have a PhD. After their name. The FWS has a lot of incredibly 

talented field biologists who are more than capable of doing the research needed if they were only given the resources. 

157

(8) Technological support for research is non-existent. It, throughout the FWS, has been either of no help or acted as an 

impediment to our efforts in collaborating with USGS and other partners, as well as in our efforts to deploy technological 

solutions to data collection efforts. For example, use of PDAS to collect field data is completely unsupported, despite 

their ability to significantly reduce labor costs and improve data QA/QC. USGS is able to offer limited support, but FWS 

network protocols prevent data sharing with USGS partners (an IT issue). Recognition and support of technology that can 

provide solutions to common problems as well as establishing open standards that permit or even promote data sharing 

and collaborative research between agencies would significantly increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the research 

at FWS, USGS, and other partnering agencies. 

(35) Thanks for getting us access to the electronic journals in the recent past. This has been a tremendous time saver. 

Please increase the number of journals in the pollution, toxicology and medical journal areas. 

(68) The service’s online literature search capability/interface is excellent and should be retained. The electronic library of 

journals available online is a good start, but should be enhanced. In this age of needing information at your finger-tips, it 

is vital to be able to get this kind of information without having to drive across town to a research library and photocopy 

journal articles. There are several contaminants journals like environmental science and technology, marine pollution 

bulletin, etc. That the service should subscribe to. 

(115) I have only been a biologist for the last year, in that time good research support. 

(128) Research support in FWS for service scientists is completely missing in this organization. There is no recognition of 

the necessary research work some of us do nor the effort does it take to get outside the service funding to accomplish this 

necessary work. Why this is a mystery. 

(190) Would appreciate receiving a copy of survey results. Hopefully these promote some change in the institution. One 

other point: it would be useful if the service could establish a more effective institutional (and funding) framework for 

science support. Prime example of an effective top-down initiative is the national park service’s natural resource 

inventory and monitoring program. 

(193) Please make a recommendation for an agency-sponsored web-based journal that would become the service’s or 

refuge division’s outlet for archiving and sharing gray literature. This is a major gap and problem within the service. Too 

few of our reports ever make it to a peer-reviewed journal. Most refuge workers recognize that the results of all their 

projects may not merit publication in a journal, but such reports certainly merit better archiving and sharing within the 

agency. 

(241) Currently, all of my “research” activity is endangered species monitoring as just part of my job. Therefore, some of 

the questions in the survey did not seem very applicable to my situation, mainly in regard to my position. My job is refuge 

management and I do not have a research emphasis. However, if research is needed I feel there is a good atmosphere for 

getting it done. 

Outside influences on research in the FWS 


6% of comments from all respondents (15/250) 


12% of respondents commenting on research in FWS (15/130) 


(5) The service isn’t held in very high regard w/our peers in other fed. agencies, state agencies, private sector, or 

academia. We aren’t as lowly as bureau of reclamation or corps. of engineers, but we aren’t much higher up from the 

bottom of the pile. The staff biologists constantly get rolled by the very top heavy layer of middle management at the state 

fish & wildlife offices, and especially at the regional offices and D.C. Politics plays way too much of a role in our 

agencies decisions and in funding from D.C hiring practices weigh heavily on nepotism and cronyism and most offices 

are very incestuous. The managers at every level are populated by climbers who show up to work to work on their next 

promotion, not working to recover listed species and their habitats. Moral isn’t that high, and there’s not much respect for 

the managers. This isn’t meant to be a rant, just the way I see it. Maybe I’m an ideologue, or full of it. Working for a 

bureaucracy is tough, and I am not naive to think there is any “big” organization that doesn’t basically exist to self 

perpetuate and not reach the goals of their mission statement or what society (and taxpayers) expect of them. Enough said. 

(7) I hope that this survey can reveal that the role of research and science in decision-making at the FWS and DOI has 

been severely undermined. It is not only the lack of original research, but the notion that data can be rejected (or worse, it 

is “bad science”) if it does not fit into the goals of the decision makers. We have numerous instances where peer-reviewed 

literature was rejected or reinterpreted to support a position contrary to the conservation mission of the FWS. This has 

occurred even to the point of a reviewer inserting disparaging remarks about a researcher for no other reason than the 

researcher had data about the needs of a particular species that would have refuted a pre-determined conclusion. As a 

scientist, the politicization of science is extremely disturbing, and I object to a non-scientist defining “bad science” for me. 

158

(13) The service has a long tradition of excellent science that continues to the present day. However, the questioning of 

our science due to a political agenda is very disconcerting for all involved. To add to staff’s frustration is the perception 

that BRD should do research which leaves the perception that the service does “hobby science” (see previous comments). 

As a side note, I know that refuges “is” the service, but as a non-refuge employee, it is very disturbing to see the blue 

goose side by side with the service logo as if refuges was an equal partner (as another agency would be) with the service 

instead of a program within the service. Signs/symptoms such as this add to the disillusionment/confusion as to how do 

non-refuge programs fit within the service and reduce camaraderie among programs that used to be within the service. 

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to seeing the results. 

(22) As a scientist it is extremely disappointing to be ask to complete this FWS “science” questionnaire without being 

given any meaningful background on the why, what, how and so what of the survey. Especially when my trust and respect 

level for how data and science are currently used, ignored, spun or abused is by far the lowest I’ve experienced in 33 years 

of federal conservation science service in both republican and democratic administrations. 

(50) I feel it is critical to FWS success as lead agency with mandated fish and wildlife management and regulatory 

responsibilities to have clear vision on research needs specific to our agency mission. USGS and cooperators cannot fill 

role of research needs that require internal coordination and vision w/n FWS (e.g. Endangered species, ANS). A 

scientifically based management agency without a R&D arm is left to accept new and evolving information w/n the 

context of political priorities, budgeting shortfalls, agency ownership issues which is not conducive to ‘good science’ or 

the scientific method. 

(51) Once again, regulatory duties consume most of the staff time and it is prioritized as such. Although there is some 

support from administrators to advance science, often research is not supported if there is a chance for results to not 

support a policy decision. We often receive short notice for research funding but we are not able to utilize such funds 

because time was not prioritized for proposal writing. My last and strongest point of emphasis is that one’s background in 

research and publishing is not at all considered when evaluating candidates for an open position. Most promotions/hires 

occur when applicants excel in law and policy but only meet the minimum education requirements (BS degree with 

minimum credit hours). 

(71) What about the fact that our research information, applications, and recommendations are completely ignored by the 

Washington office? Policies are instituted based on political influence, not biological facts. 

(96) I feel that science or research should drive what the FWS does and way to often it is neglected or pushed aside. 

(102) As oversight and review of our work continues to increase under things such as the data quality act, reporting 

requirements under atoms, tails and/or other workload tracking systems, and pressures from economic interests of any 

given us administration and/or local politicians, our work and decisions are going to be open to increasing scrutiny and 

challenges. In my opinion, research and management can not be separated without negative consequences. Research is a 

facet of scientific based management that validates a given management scheme, identifies existing inadequacies, or future 

needs. Without this type of oversight, management operates in a vacuum, under a static view of the world. 

(127) FWS administrators have become advocates of not offending outside interests to the point of not supporting 

individual biologists that have research findings that become contentious. As part of that advocacy, FWS administrators 

will ‘throw to the wolves’ any employee that doesn’t toe the line and say what the ‘official’ word is. The sad fact is that 

the “good science” policy for DOI employees doesn’t apply to management. FWS management is the worst enemy of the 

agency biologists. 

(165) FWS management at the highest levels in the CNO is absolutely shameless when it comes to ignoring research in 

order to issue incidental take permits under section 10, to the point where the entire program is an embarrassment. 

(170) This agency is moving toward a wildlife conservation schedule that is dictated by politics, not science. It is very 

disappointing and disheartening! 

(185) There are continuing morale problems regarding research in FWS. The recent effort to instruct us in good science 

(video, etc.) was condescending, especially in light of the current hypocrisy on a larger scale of the lack of acceptance of 

global warming, the recent marbled murrelet decision, among many other decisions or positions that are contrary to good 

science. It is a discouraging atmosphere; however, I think field staff will continue to use integrity and science principles 

in decision making and resource protection and management to the best of their abilities and authorities. The loss of the 

research arm of FWS reduced our abilities to have good research available to problem solve. Coordination and 

communication with USGS has not sufficiently filled that gap. 

(198) While most of my responsibilities during the past six years have been to compile and analyze data collected by 

others (production of biological opinions, EIS); I also have participated in research conducted principally by others in this 

office I now have inherited those responsibilities (due to retirement and other staff departures) with no reduction in my 

159

other duties. I feel quality research is crucial to the service meeting its management goals and obligations, but staffing and


monetary constraints limit the production of useful information. 


Although this may not be specifically pertinent to your survey, it has been my experience (especially during recent years) 


that politics, more than science, drives management decisions in the service. For biologists at mid-management levels and 


below, this is very disheartening. 


(211) Pulling research from FWS was detrimental – development of NBS/BRD. FWS decisions are being overturned by 


interior bases on politics rather than good science. FWS needs more research to meet our obligation (e.g. SPP. Status 


reviews) – but needs the time specifically. Now we must collaborate with others to get research done, and are subject to 


uncertainties.


Perceptions of the FWS as a research agency 

10% of comments from all respondents (24/250) 

18% of respondents commenting on research in FWS (24/130) 

(31) Research in the service is not promoted, we lost that when we lost the research centers like Patuxent, Lee Town, and 

the coop units, what we do now are “studies”. 

(36) Any research in the service should be directed to on the ground accomplishment. “Good science” is important, but 

the definition of “good science” needs to be clear. Decisions should be based on the best scientific information possible. 

But, “good science” is directly proportional to the amount of time, money, and people available. There probably will 

never be enough time and money to know all the answers. To successfully protect and manage this country’s fish and 

wildlife resources, timely decisions will have to be made with available information. In this day of ever increasing time 

spent on the policy and procedure overload, we need to be careful that requirements for producing peer reviewed articles 

in professional journals do not take precedence over on the ground accomplishments for fish and wildlife resources. 

(37) In region 5, the regional biologists contracted with a statistician to answer any questions refuge biologist may have 

with their projects. I think this tends to be the weakest area for most biologists, and have helped significantly to improve 

research design and data analysis. 

(87) This survey is more applicable for wildlife biologist than refuge managers. In addition, we were told years ago that 

biologist on refuges should not be doing research unless it was in cooperation with USGS or with universities taking the 

lead. Refuge biologists are supposed to collect data only on monitoring type studies that are not considered research. 

Perhaps this policy changed without my knowledge but that is the way I understood it as an employee with FWS. 

(88) I find it mildly humorous/odd/something that we are being asked about FWS research in light of our researchers 

being moved to USGS. I just don’t consider FWS to be a researching organization – at least not the ecological services 

portion of our agency. Because anyone with any knowledge at all of region 1 could figure out from my demographic info 

that I am, here it is: [name deleted]. So, if you have any questions about my responses, give me a yell. 

(95) FWS needs to decide what level of research they want to be involved in and then to commit to it. It seems that ever 

since the research branch moved to USGS, the service has been unclear on what they should or should not be doing in the 

area of research. I can remember being told not to use the word “research” to describe any of my activities. 

(113) I am one of very few experienced scientists in my office. I frequently am called upon to assist my co-workers with 

scientific issues, but I rarely am able to obtain assistance within the office on scientific matters because there are so few 

people with sufficient knowledge. I do not feel that I am part of an organization that conducts scientific research. 

(119) Overall, I have a high opinion of the FWS, in spite of its many shortcomings. FWS could be a much more efficient 

& effective wildlife conservation agency. However, during my 25 year career, the agency has become more bureaucratic 

at the field level. When I first started working for the agency in the late 1970s, field biologists were more insulated from 

administrative & bureaucratic tasks. We practiced good science and left politics to supervisors & administrative tasks to 

administrators. Sadly, that isn’t the case anymore. We’re encouraged by FWS to practice good science (incl. Research 

where appropriate) but field biologists are so burden with bureaucratic BS (and given tasks that are unrelated to our jobs) 

it’s increasingly difficult to perform good science. It’s frustrating and tough on morale. 

(140) Most positions in the service are not oriented towards research. In general, we provide oversight of program 

funding, review of actions, and evaluate impacts. 

(162) The separation of the research branch within us fish & wildlife service to that of us geological survey, has 

fragmented the research capabilities of the agency. In addition, there is absolutely no incentive or reward system in place 

to recognize those who publish peer-reviewed scientific research; or performance/conduct system in place to address 

160

biologist with no interest/skills to publish their studies. There are only limited opportunities to present at national meetings 

of wildlife professionals (e.g. The wildlife society). The agency limits how many staff may attend from each region, 

which is a disincentive to submit papers/posters for participation because of the uncertainty of funding to support 

presenting it. A travel ceiling in 2004 prevented me from presenting a paper at the Burlington, VT TWS meeting for 

which I had been accepted as a presenter. This aspect is very unfortunate. The TWS national meetings are comprised of 

professors and students primarily, and to a much lesser degree, state and federal agency personnel. Existing state and 

federal staff has much to contribute, but because of agency priorities, few are interested and willing to attend and 

contribute to the advancement of science. There is no incentives or reward systems by our agency to attend scientific 

meetings or to formally write-up results of investigations. This facet of the profession is left up entirely to the priority 

systems established by each individual employee. Those who believe it is important to present and publish the results of 

our studies do, without reward/regret; and those that couldn’t care less don’t. We both get paid the same. 

(172) Our biggest obstacles to conducting meaningful research: 

1. Money 

2. Staffing 

3. Perception that research is not for FWS to do 

(204) Beyond my current “research “ which is part of a large monitoring effort, opportunities or encouragement to pursue 

original research are extremely limited, at best. I have been told more than once that “FWS does not do research,” since 

FWS research functions were split off to USGS-BRD (=NBS, etc.) 

(205) Just reorganized and was re-assigned branch chief for “applied science” (fewer responsibilities for research in this 

capacity). Other comments: I am a lead in monitoring an endangered species (population trends & habitat modeling) some 

do not consider monitoring as research per se. For the purposes of this survey, I am considering statistically valid 

monitoring as research. From my perspective, the FWS has lost the capacity to do scientifically credible research since it 

lost its research branch. Sure there are a few isolated individuals or groups who are involved with research activities, but 

generally speaking FWS does not do research (i.e. Hypotheses testing). There is shoe string work going on willy-nilly that 

those who are doing thing they are doing research, but in reality they are doing descriptive studies, or their work lacks a 

statistically valid/rigorous design (i.e. Most is not publishable). Lee, you are more than welcome to give me a call if you 

want to discuss the survey further. [name deleted] (p.s. well organized and thoughtful survey!) Just reorganized and was 

re-assigned branch chief for “applied science.” Fewer responsibilities for research in this capacity. 

(213) When I asked four other employees if they were filling out this survey, they laughed at me and said “research in 

FWS is a joke,” and “why bother – they will just add a little spin control and it will all mean nothing because “everything 

is fine””. If you complain, you get passed over for advancement. FWS is amassing a large bobble-head collection of 

biologists under the current regime. 

(214) I have seen a steady reduction in emphasis on quality research in the FWS over the last 25 years (experienced both 

in the service and as a professional researcher before joining). I see contracting out our research capacity and directing 

our biologists out of the field and into paperwork administration as a major weakness. Refuge biologists must be out in 

the field to do their jobs well for several reasons. (1) They provide a better balanced view of the refuge ecosystem that 

cans contractors or specialists who are brought in for a short, narrowly focused job. (2) if refuge biologist are allowed 

time to go out in the field regularly on research, they will be in a position to notice small interactions that may well be 

critical but not noticeable on the short term or if you cannot go right out in the response to reports or conditions. (3) 

Refuge biologists will have the refuges best interests in view – not the “publish or perish” attitude that I have personally 

seen drive academic (and increasingly USGS) into making their personal, short-term job evaluations look good. There is a 

chronic problem with FWS biologists not staying in one location long enough to develop a consistent data base for the 

refuge since there is no career or salary ladder to reward them unless they move on. This may work for managers, but is a 

poor model for biologists. P.s. whatever happened to the promises that have been repeatedly reaffirmed both within and 

outside the service – that the top priority is a biologist on every refuge? We still have only 1/2 the refuges with biological 

staff. 

(216) I believe there are people in the USFWS that have been here to long and don’t want to do anymore than they have 

to. They hold back others who want to do more. It is like they are afraid someone will gain more knowledge than them. I 

feel these types of employees see it as a threat to their job security if they give someone a chance to gain knowledge. 

161

(217) This station remains committed to applied research projects that will improve management and we will do what we 

have do to see this type of work continue – but it is a struggle – you have to want it very much to make it happen. I 

understand why many give up – increasing a administrate burdens and restrictions drain your “on the ground efforts” and 

emotions. Section 2: I probably should not have answered this section since I have minimal involvement in actual 

research. But, I have initiated studies, found $, students, partners for research. If I wasn’t involved and committed many 

of these projects and others would not have happened. Section 3.2: 5% actual research, I am a manager who strongly 

supports research. I seek funds, partnerships, students, etc. Refuge biologist and others do actual work. Station biologist, 

ms/PhD students, coop. Research. Investigators do work requested. 

(227) I’m very dismayed by the apparent emphasis on bean counting and budgets in FWS as opposed to a focus on science 

and natural resources. 

(238) Service needs to recognize its employees more when research is done and published in peer reviewed journals etc. 

Currently (my case) never recognized for any publications – however, have been recognized for promoting research 

projects. 

(242) The key here is the fundamental difference between pure and applied science. Since Petuxent, Northern Prairie, and 

Denver have been spun off to USGS and USDA, FWS has become a largely applied science organization. We use 

research results of others to develop management plans, etc. on national wildlife refuges. I feel free to call with further 

questions/discussion. If research is again in the future of this agency it will take new people, new PDs, new money, etc.– 

training would also be good. Lee, please feel free to call. 

(243) I think FWS needs to decide what capacity they want to have to do research. If they want to do research then they 

should have research positions and reward scientists for their good research. 

(244) I strongly urge you to change the climate within the USFWS so that conducting research is valued and supported 

above the levels today. Right now it seems only research can be conducted by USGS scientists. 

(245) Institutional lack of support for publishing in peer-reviewed journals. FWS does not value scientists. Thanks for the 

opportunity to comment. 11. Despite job being 90% research, FWS refuses to acknowledge it on paper and keeps my title 

in management services. Hence, there is no career path for me by conducting research. Publication in peer-reviewed 

journals is not rewarded or encouraged by FWS. I appealed my title, but lost. Region 6 – fisheries clearly does not want 

its biologists to be classed as researchers even though in my case, essentially all of my funding comes from the Colorado 

river recovery program rather than FWS base funds. Part of the problem is that administrators at regional level do not 

have a research background and do not understand its importance. Also, many decisions within agency are increasingly 

based on political consideration rather than on sound science, hence, science is under-valued. 

(250) I would like to see the FWS moved back towards a more research oriented role in order to provide staff with more 

hands on application of science in regards to the regulatory documents we generate. Furthermore, I see biological 

decisions being made by non-scientists or individuals who have lost touch with the scientific method. 

Primary category: miscellaneous comments 

9% of respondents’ comments (23/250) contained content reflected in this category. 

Sub-theme: Research 

(28) You should have a questionnaire about how FWS scientist feel about this current administration’s support for science 

based research. 

(58) There are so many imperiled species for which we nothing little about. The field will always have a need for research 

that informs routine decision-making related to conservation of at risk species. 

(65) The law places a high reliance on the professional judgment of field level managers; especially refuge managers (see 

compatibility policy). In the eyes of some research-oriented personnel with different agendas, that professional judgment is 

often discounted as unreliable qualitative information. 

(122) Within the last 2 years a biologist was added to the staff, station previously did not have a biologist position, we now 

have someone dedicated to monitoring and collecting data. 

162

(148) In my opinion, research often fails to provide up-to-date clear answers for practical questions. People who manage 

moist soil units, forests, or wetlands are biologists, foresters, biotech’s, and refuge managers. These people are not going to 

pull out a scientific article written for scientists, and make a list of tasks they need to do to support habitat management. To 

be really effective research must be written for the people who do the work at the level where those decisions are being 

made. If the goal is to provide scientific information that can guide management decisions, the answers must be provided 

quickly, not years later. Researcher’s suggestions on how to manage habitat (based on research they have conducted) 

should be clear and concise, not vague, ambiguous, or suggestions that to answer that question, another research project 

should be conducted. Researchers should be receptive to conducting research on relevant topics that will help make 

management decisions, rather than on what they want to or are accustomed to conducting research on. There comes a time 

when a decision must be made on where to invest the dollars – on yet another shorebird (for example) research project that 

will show what we already know – that shorebirds are in great decline due to habitat losses – or on reversing the habitat 

losses by restoring or protecting habitat to support the species better. Do we need to study the train wreck, or fix the tracks? 

Since my job is all about habitat, and most species are in decline due to habitat losses or degradation, why not apply the 

majority of dollars to habitat improvements and restoration? Fund research that is specific to questions that need to be 

answered to address management issues. Do not fund research projects that study the same issue over and over, or are 

simply written to obtain publications. Resources are too meager to support research for research’s sake. 

(150) For large research project there should be the potential to involve all staff in some format and all staff should know 

what activities are taking place on site or in cooperation with others. 

(207) We recently hired a science coordinator who heads our joint venture technical committee and has primary 

responsibility for research in our office. 

(222) NCTC – to – field office. More research but not much. More of a need currently. 

(224) Personally, research on my own or with colleagues helped me to better understand the environment and it was very 

rewarding. In addition, building relationships with experts outside the service is important. 

Sub-theme: People who felt the need to comment that they had no comments 

(14) None (82) No (191) None 

(30) None. (93) No (192) None 

(81) None (156) None (196) None 

Miscellaneous 

(33) Good luck! 

(134) As always, not enough funding to do mission of protecting trust resources. 


(144) See section 6 


(158) Cultural hindrances are the hardest to change from the field level and easiest to change from the leadership level. 


(210) It would be beneficial to obtain more guides from personal and educational course work by attend meetings of 


professional society and training classes or college course. 


163 
Appendix 4B. Survey Instrument 


164 
165

166

167

168

169

170

171

Appendix 4C. Demographic Comparison of Known Publishers v. Other 

Survey Respondents 

Table 4c.1. Central tendency measure comparison of the age of known publishers v. other survey respondents. 

Known publishers (n = 368) Other survey respondents (n = 925) 

Mean 46.4 43.8 

Median 47.0 45 

Mode 44, 49, 50 (multiple modes) 50 

Notes. The 95% confidence interval for the mean of age of the known publishers ranges from 45.58 to 47.22; the 95% confidence interval for the 

mean of the age of the other survey respondents ranges from 43.2 to 44.37. There is no overlap in these two confidence intervals indicating that 

the average ages of the individuals in the published group and the other survey respondent group are different. 

Table 4c.2. Frequency comparison of the gender of known publishers v. other survey respondents. 

Known publishers (n = 368) Other survey respondents (n = 925) 

Male 260 591 

Female 106 320 

Table 4c.3. Frequency and central tendency measure comparison of the educational level of known publishers v. other survey 

respondents. 

(1)High school diploma 

(2)Terminal occupational 

(3)Associate degree 

(4)Bachelor’s degree 

(5)Master’s degree 

(6)PhD 

(7)JD 

(8)MD 

(9)Other 

Median 

Mode 

Known publishers (n = 368) Other survey respondents (n = 925) 

1 4 

3 

9 

77 404 

198 432 

86 55 

1 1 

1 1 

3 6 

5.0 5 

5.0 5 

Notes. Sparsity across the full range of values in the table precluded a chi-square test. A Chi-square using only educational levels 4, 5, and 6 did 

indicate an association between educational level and known publication status (16% of BS, 31% of MS, and 61% of PhD were known 

publishers). Treating the data for only educational levels 4, 5, and 6 as interval data (although it may violate some assumptions to do so), the 

average education level for publishers is 5.06 (95% confidence interval ranging from 4.98 to 5.14); the average education level for the other 

survey respondents is 4.6 (95% confidence interval ranging from 4.55 to 4.65). These two confidence intervals do not overlap, indicating that the 

average education level (limited range) between the known publishers and other survey respondents is significantly different. 

Table 4c.4. Central tendency measure comparison of the employment tenure of known publishers v. other survey respondents. 

Known publishers (n = 368) Other survey respondents (n = 925) 

Mean 15.5 11.8 

Median 14 10 

Mode 13 3 

Notes. The 95% confidence interval for the mean of tenure of the known publishers ranges from 14.66 to 16.40; the 95% confidence interval for 

the mean of the tenure of the other survey respondents ranges from 11.24 to 12.39. There is no overlap in these two confidence intervals 

indicating that the average tenures of the individuals in the published group and the other survey respondent group are different. 

172

Table 4c.5. Frequency and central tendency measure comparison of the Fish and Wildlife Service region of known publishers v. 

other survey respondents. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

Mode 

Known publishers (n = 368) 

78 

27 

50 

43 

34 

48 

51 

31 

1 

Other survey respondents (n = 925) 

234 

89 

95 

135 

95 

134 

64 

56 

1 

Notes. A Chi-square measure of association indicated a relationship between region of FWS and categorization as a known publisher or not. The 

actual form of the relationship driving this finding is difficult to determine. Within the known researchers, the greatest percentage came from 

Region 1 (21.5%), next highest percentage was from Region 7 (14%), the lowest was from Region 2 (7.5%). As far as percentage of known 

researchers within region, Region 7 had the highest proportion of respondents who were known researchers (44.3%); the region with the next 

highest proportion was Region 9 with 35.6%; the lowest proportion was from Region 2 (23.3%). 

Table 4c.6. Frequency and central tendency measure comparison of responses of known publishers and other survey 

respondents to the question “Within the past 3 years, have your research responsibilities changed, or have you moved within the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to or from a job with more research responsibility?” 

(1) To a job that includes more research responsibilities 

(2) From a job that included more research responsibilities 

(3) Remained in current job, but now have added research responsibilities 

(4) Remained in current job but now have fewer research responsibilities 

(5) None of the above apply to me 

Mode 

Known publishers Other survey 

(n = 368) respondents (n = 925) 

29 89 

53 104 

62 105 

42 71 

178 531 

5 5 

Table 4c.7. Frequency comparison of known researchers and survey respondents who answered that 50% or more of their job is 

research. 

Known researcher Other survey respondent 

0-49% of job involves research 232 (24%) 521 (54%) 

50-100% of job involves research 97 (10%) 120 (12%) 

Notes. This comparison indicates that the group of known researchers and the group of survey respondents who answered that 50% or more of 

their job is research are not highly overlapping groups. 

173