Forest Science Education in Research Universities

Abstract

J. For. 113(6):581–584 http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-018 Copyright © 2015 Society of American Foresters THEME REPORT Forest Science Education in Research Universities Kevin L. O’Hara and Hal Salwasser I n recent decades, forest science education in North America has undergone a shift from being exclusively based at doctor of philosophy-granting universities to a high proportion of bacca- laureates coming from colleges and universities where the bachelor of science or the master of science is the terminal degree. For example, in 1960, 100% of forestry graduates from programs accredited by the Society of American Foresters (SAF) in the United States were from PhD-granting universities, but in 2010 this number was only 72% (Figure 1) (O’Hara and Redelsheimer 2012). A related trend has been the decline in the number of PhD-granting universities offering an SAF-accredited BS degree. In recent years, several under- graduate programs have closed (University of Illinois, University of Wisconsin–Madison, and University of Alaska–Fairbanks) or have closed and are currently attempting to restart (University of Wash- ington and Washington State University). This trend is evident not only in the United States and Canada: long-running undergraduate forestry education programs at Oxford University in the United Kingdom, ETH Zurich in Switzerland, and Australia National Uni- versity (ANU) and the University of Melbourne in Australia have also closed in recent years, resulting in a reorganization of forestry education in countries around the globe. This reorganization of forestry education has implications for forest science education at the baccalaureate level and also the capa- bility for conducting forest science research in the United States, Canada, and countries facing similar trends. This in turn affects our ability to produce researchers and academics in the forest sciences, and our capacity to generate and update the scientific foundation of contemporary forestry. Without educational programs in profes- sional forestry at high research universities, institutional support for forest science research and postbaccalaureate forestry education can erode rapidly. PhD-granting universities are therefore of critical im- portance in forest science education and maintaining forest science infrastructure in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere. Forest science is also changing at rates that may be unprece- dented in the history of North American forestry. Forestry is now focused on ecosystems that are analyzed at multiple spatial scales to produce a wide range of ecosystem benefits and services. Forest sci- ence education must embrace these ongoing changes into the curri- cula and be inclusive of the broader range of faculty expertise needed to encompass the rapidly evolving character of contemporary for- estry. The Forest Science in Research Universities subgroup of the Berkeley Summit attempted to address the difficulties faced by forest science education at research universities in the United States and Canada. Research universities were defined as those that produce PhD graduates or as “doctorate-granting universities” in the Carne- gie Foundation (2010) Classification of Institutions of Higher Learning. A table of classifications of universities with forestry pro- grams can be found in O’Hara and Redelsheimer (2012). However, smaller universities and colleges face problems similar to those of the larger research universities such as the trend to consolidate forestry programs with other academic units. There are also cascading effects where the changes in larger programs have implications for smaller programs including a potential for smaller programs to assume a greater role in applied forestry research. Hence, the fate of forestry programs at large and small universities are intertwined. Our discus- sions focused on the organizational structure of forest science pro- grams at large universities and the implications of the changes in organizational structure on the teaching and research missions of these programs. We also provide recommendations for maintaining forest science education at research universities and how these pro- grams might be structured. Organizational Challenges at Research Universities Many forestry programs in research universities have undergone a transformation in their organizational structure. Two primary re- organizational trends have occurred, sometimes simultaneously within a single institution: forestry programs have moved from col- leges or schools to departments; and forestry academic units have been combined with other units to form larger units with a broader environmental or natural resources focus. The University of Wash- ington recently moved from a College of Forest Resources to a School of Environmental and Forest Sciences in a larger College of the Environment. Other examples include forestry at Pennsylvania State University which moved from a school to a Department of Ecosystem Science and Management. The University of Minnesota forestry and forest products program has transitioned from a division to a school to a college to its present status as a Department of Forest Resources, with forest products and wildlife in separate departments. Some programs have seemingly gone in the other direction: The University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Forestry was formed in 1951 from a smaller Department of Forestry. The University of Received February 20, 2015; accepted June 3, 2015; published online July 2, 2015. Affiliations: Kevin L. O’Hara (kohara@berkeley.edu), Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Hal Salwasser (deceased), College of Forestry, Oregon State University. Acknowledgments: Contributions by Berkeley Summit participants are gratefully acknowledged: Mark Ashton (Yale University), Bruce Bare (University of Washing- ton), Keith Blatner (Washington State University), Steve Bullard (Steven F. Austin University), Tom DeLuca (University of Washington), Alan Ek (University of Minnesota), Peter Kanowski (Australia National University), Richard Kobe (Michigan State University), Mike Messina (Pennsylvania State University), Kevin O’Hara (University of California, Berkeley), Hal Salwasser (Oregon State University), Tat Smith (University of Toronto), facilitator Kim Ingram (University of California Cooperative Extension), and recorder John Battles (University of California, Berkeley). Alan Ek also provided a helpful presubmission review of this article. Journal of Forestry • November 2015