Communication and competition in environmentalstudies

Matthew R. Auer

Published online: 6 March 2010� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Abstract College-bound students and graduate students interested in environmental

studies and environmental science have hundreds of programs to choose from, and

potential suitors in the academy are eager to be noticed. This article considers how pur-

veyors of environment-related degree programs and majors use branding and other com-

munication strategies as they compete for students and other coveted resources.

Departmental and degree nomenclature is examined so as to discern how academic

institutions respond to changing intellectual fashions and popular interest in environmental

affairs. This analysis is aided by Harold D. Lasswell’s insights into the politics of

communication.

Keywords Environmental studies � Environmental sciences � Forestry �Geology � Geography � Signs � Symbols � Science of communications

Introduction

Newsweek’s 2009 article header, ‘‘Green degrees in bloom’’ (Kliff 2009) seems apt con-

sidering that there are hundreds of American institutions of higher learning offering

bachelor’s- and graduate-level degrees and majors in interdisciplinary environmental

fields. In fact, there is debate whether undergraduate and graduate student interest is

growing or leveling-off (National Wildlife Federation 2008). But there is no debate about

the earnestness of academic institutions’ efforts to attract and cultivate bright, environ-

mentally minded students, accomplished faculty, motivated donors, research dollars, and

organizational prestige. Evidence of the competition for these prized assets is apparent in

the institutions’ own promotional materials. The competition is sufficiently fierce that

traditional applied science fields including geology, geography, and forestry are eager to

capitalize on popular and professional interest in environmental studies and environmental

M. R. Auer (&)School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the Hutton Honors College, Indiana University,811 East Seventh Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USAe-mail: mauer@indiana.edu

123

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390DOI 10.1007/s11077-010-9109-z

sciences, and have reinvented their missions, re-engineered their curricula, and in some

cases, have merged with other more ‘‘successful’’ academic units that have ‘‘environment’’

in their names.

Relatively little is known about how the identities of new environmentally oriented

programs and older, established programs in the applied sciences are shaped by compe-

tition among these programs. Identifying and characterizing the causal variables that

inspire academic units to adopt or adapt ‘‘environmental’’ identities is the core concern of

the present study. We consider the language and symbols used to shape these identities.

This study does not consider the consequences of new identities on institutional out-

comes—for example, on student enrollment, faculty recruitment, or garnering of extra-

mural research awards. These are important matters that should form a broader

examination of causes and consequences of competition for institutional primacy in

environmental studies and environmental sciences. The core concerns here are about the

shaping of communication strategies with only provisional conjectures about

consequences.

The development of institutional identities in both undergraduate pre-professional and

graduate professional environmental programs are considered. How these identities reflect

the value demands and expectations of the academic institutions, themselves, is examined.

In the sections that follow, the arena of environmental studies and science programs is

described and the vital roles that communications play are outlined. Trends we found, data

sources we used, and methods for analyzing these data are laid out in the methods and data

section and in our results. Harold D. Lasswell’s insights into communication help us

elucidate how academic units articulate their missions and describe their ‘‘products’’ (in

particular, their degree programs).

Background

In its 2009 rating of ‘‘Green Colleges,’’ the Princeton Review ranks 697 colleges based on

a variety of characteristics, including course offerings (Princeton Review 2009a). In this

rating system, an ‘‘environmental studies major’’ is indicative of an ‘‘environmental pro-

gram’’ (Princeton Review 2009b). It is also indicative of the challenge of developing a

census of environmental studies and environmental science programs on American cam-

puses (i.e., what, exactly, is an ‘‘environmental program’’? Is it a degree, a major, a minor?

What is ‘‘environmental studies’’? How is it different from ‘‘environmental science’’ or

‘‘environmental policy’’ or ‘‘environmental management’’?)

In recent years, associations like the Council of Environmental Deans and Directors

(CEDD—a group of U.S. academic administrators founded by the National Council for

Science and the Environment) as well as researchers (for example, Aldemaro Romero and

Paul Silveri) have attempted to categorize these programs and document their growth or

contraction. A spring 2008 survey conducted by CEDD identified 840 degree-granting

programs at 652 institutions, offering 1,183 interdisciplinary environmental degrees.

‘‘Environmental science’’ programs were most common in this group (45 percent) with

another 25 percent called, ‘‘environmental studies’’ and 30 percent having program names

varying ‘‘…widely with environmental policy and planning, environmental management

and risk analysis, and natural resources management most common’’ (Vincent 2009a: 7).

According to the CEDD survey, the 1990s and first decade of the 2000s marked

‘‘extraordinary growth’’ in the creation of environment-related programs, with two-thirds

emerging after 1990 and approximately one-quarter since 2001 (Vincent 2009a: 8).

366 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

Romero and Silveri (2006) counted a much larger population of environmental degree

programs though their protocol differed from CEDD’s.1

In contrast, The National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Environment 2008, which

contained survey results from administrators and facility managers in more than 25 percent

of American colleges and universities, reported that ‘‘between the years 2001 and 2008, the

amount of sustainability-related education offered on campuses did not increase and may

have even declined’’ (National Wildlife Federation 2008: 2)—a surprising result consid-

ering the widely reported surge of interest and availability of environment-related degree

programs and colleges and universities’ increasing commitment to sustainability (Kliff

2009; Berman 2009; Egan 2006; Calhoun et al. 2005; Vincent 2009b: 4–5).

Whether environmental degree programs are increasing or decreasing in number, pro-

gram administrators and faculty confront the same basic challenge in publicizing and

marketing what they do: they are obliged to ‘‘get their message out’’ and reach and

influence the right audience. If supply (of programs) exceeds program demand (from

prospective students), there is a buyer’s market, and resulting competition to offer a

superior ‘‘product.’’ Alternately, if supply lags demand, upstart programs seek market

share, placing pressure on established programs to demonstrate their advantages. The

present study identifies the pressures on colleges and universities to craft effective mes-

sages about what they do and why their offerings are distinctive in the environmental

arena. These pressures extend not only to established programs in environmental studies

and environmental science, but also, to the traditional applied sciences that are adapting to

demands from students, alumni, and grant-giving bodies, among others, for interdisci-

plinary programs that address complex environmental and sustainability concerns.

Methods and data sources

We examined changes in the missions and organizational identities of American colleges

and universities offering undergraduate- and graduate-level degree programs in environ-

mental studies and environmental sciences, henceforth, ‘‘environmental studies and sci-

ence’’ programs, after Camill (2009) and Vincent (2009a). Much of our data—both

qualitative and quantitative—consider graduate-level training, which was a deliberate

choice. Debate about environmental studies curricula have centered primarily on under-

graduate training (Soule and Press 1998; Chapman 2007; Brough 1992; Maniates and

Whissel 2000)2 though even these contributions tend not to consider the core concerns of

1 Romero and Silveri (2006) document two ‘‘waves’’ of new ‘‘environmental programs’’ in the periods1965–1976 and 1988–2005. In all, they tally more than 2,175 new ‘‘programs’’ emerging during the twowaves, combined. The authors use ‘‘degrees’’ and ‘‘programs’’ interchangeably. Romero and Silveri (2006:10) specify that of the 2,175 programs offered in the environmental field in 2005, 621 were at the bachelor’slevel and 274 were at the master’s level; the remainder were doctoral or law degree programs. Organiza-tional forms of interdisciplinary environmental programs are more clearly presented in CEDD’s nationalsurvey. Vincent (2009b) notes that approximately one-third of programs in CEDD’s survey are in stand-alone academic units (e.g., a department of environmental studies or college of environmental sciences).More programs still were housed in an academic unit that offered environmental studies or environmentalsciences among other majors or degree programs (Vincent 2009b). This was especially true of environ-mental science programs.2 Soule and Press (1998), for example, criticize contemporary environmental studies curricula for lackingcore intellectual foundations and rigor. They surmise that eclectic combinations of natural and socialscientists, who typically compose environmental studies programs, tend not to agree on common intellectualfoundations for the field. Hence, they inevitably fail to design majors with structure and coherence. In

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 367

123

this article, namely, documenting the pressures on colleges and universities to offer

environmental studies curricula and illuminating the strategies used to promote new

environmental identities in the academy. Knowledge of these phenomena at the graduate

level is especially poorly developed. Compared to their undergraduate counterparts, stu-

dents trained at the master’s or doctoral level may be more likely to pursue careers in their

chosen area of study. Were, for example, graduate programs in disciplines such as geology

or forestry inspired to compete for ‘‘market share’’ in environmental studies and science, it

would seem especially important for current and future graduate students in these fields to

be aware of these trends.

We draw on data from a variety of materials, including archival sources and direct

communications with various colleges and universities, to identify trends and conditioning

factors in the messaging strategies of both undergraduate and graduate degree programs in

environmental studies and science. The data we present here are illustrative and do not

represent comprehensive compilations of the titling or re-titling of degree programs,

majors, or academic units. Our objective is to offer examples of typical name changes, and

probing further, to explain the motivations for these changes and the strategies used by the

message crafters. One key source of data for nomenclature changes were the 1989 and

2006 editions of Peterson’s Annual Guide to Graduate Study (Peterson’s 1989a, b, c, d, e,

2006a, b, c, d), which is a catalogue of summary data and contact information on U.S. post-

baccalaureate programs in the humanities and the sciences, including the applied sciences.

The boundaries for the Peterson’s data were 1989 and 2006. 1989 represents an ex ante

condition, because in the following year (1990), the Tallories Declaration was promul-

gated. The Declaration, eventually signed by more than 350 presidents and chancellors of

universities in 40 countries, commits signatories to:

…establish programs to produce expertise in environmental management, sustain-

able economic development, population, and related fields to ensure that all uni-

versity graduates are environmentally literate and have the awareness and

understanding to be ecologically responsible citizens (Association of University

Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2008).

The 1990 Tallories Declaration was the first major, organized effort by universities

worldwide to promote environmental literacy; hence the preceding year, 1989, constitutes

a sensible ex ante marker for our analysis. 2006 marked the other temporal boundary; the

2006 edition of Peterson’s was the latest serial available at the time of the analysis.

Graduate programs dealing with environmental and natural resource science, manage-

ment, and policy are widely varied in scope and substance, and information on such

programs is distributed in various volumes of the multi-volume Peterson’s guides. Peter-

son’s writes (1989e: 11),

Because of the broad nature of many fields, any system of organization is bound to

involve a certain amount of overlap. Environmental studies, for example, is a field

whose various aspects are studied in several types of departments and schools

(Peterson’s, 1989a: 11).

Footnote 2 continuedcontrast, Maniates and Whissel’s (2000) survey of environmental studies curricula find comparatively fewcases of the ‘‘anything goes’’ or scattershot approach predicted by the critics; Maniates and Whissel areunconvinced that multidisciplinary faculties are necessarily prone to conflict or to develop shallow curricula.

368 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

We followed Peterson’s own protocol for organizing relevant information on professional

environmental studies programs (Peterson’s 1989a: 11), namely, by gleaning information

from Book 3 of the 1989 and 2006 volumes under the section, ‘‘Ecology and

Environmental Biology,’’ Book 4 under ‘‘Environmental Management and Policy and

Natural Resources,’’ Book 5 under ‘‘Energy Management and Policy and Environmental

Engineering,’’ and Book 6 under ‘‘Environmental and Occupational Health’’.

Our data set included information on university, school, departmental, and degree

program names and changes to names over time. Emergence of new programs and elim-

ination of old programs were documented. Confirmation of the elimination of old programs

was confirmed by direct contact (usually by e-mail) with relevant academic departments

and schools. This secondary check allowed for clarification of rare data discrepancies in

Peterson’s. For example, some academic programs appearing in the 1989 serial are absent

in the 2006 edition. This might suggest the termination of said programs. However, a

secondary check revealed, in approximately 15 cases, that the programs were not elimi-

nated but rather merged with other programs or underwent a name change.

Data on naming trends in the disciplines of geography and geology/geological sciences

were recorded as were programs in environmental studies, environmental sciences, envi-

ronmental management, environmental policy, natural resources, natural resources man-

agement, natural resources policy, agriculture, agricultural sciences, civil engineering,

environmental engineering, marine sciences, wildlife management, rangeland manage-

ment, and forestry. We performed content analyses of all records in volumes and sections

of Peterson’s mentioning environmental and natural resource search terms—namely,

Boolean derivatives of ‘‘environment*’’, ‘‘natur*,’’ ‘‘resource*,’’ ‘‘sustain*’’, ‘‘ecology*’’,

and ‘‘earth.’’ Data on programs containing these search terms were tallied from the 1989

and 2006 serials. Emergence of new academic degree titles and academic unit names

containing these search terms were tallied as were cases where academic units lacking such

terms in 1989 adopted one or more of the terms in 2006—for example, a department of

geology that became a department of earth sciences.

In general, Peterson’s data on the names of academic units are more robust and reliable

than are Peterson’s data on degree programs. This would pose a methodological obstacle

were we developing a census of degree programs or of academic units. Again, our goal is

different: to show how words and symbols are added, dropped or arranged in the names of

academic units or their degree programs, and to consider how these semantics shape the

identities of the units and/or their programs. After documenting examples of these changes

in nomenclature and identity, we endeavor to explain why academic units make these

changes in the first place. Data from academic departments’ own mission statements,

newsletters, and comparable materials support our analysis, as do interviews and personal

communications with program administrators and faculty, and from employment statistics

and projections in different applied science and environmental fields. Finally, we draw on

Harold D. Lasswell’s research on the politics of communication to illuminate institutions’

messaging strategies. Especially important is Lasswell’s concept of the ‘‘controller’’ of

communications (and how the cadre of controllers has proliferated with the emergence of

electronic media and social networking tools). We also explore the continuing salience of

Lasswell’s concepts of signs, symbols, and intensity as important elements of the com-

municator’s craft.

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 369

123

Environmentalization of academic institutional identities

Between 1989 and 2006, we found several examples of departments, schools, and colleges

in the applied sciences and in traditional, natural resource management fields such as

agriculture and forestry altering their identities by incorporating an ‘‘environmental’’ term

in their institutional title. In some instances, the environmental term or terms were added to

an existing title; in other cases, environmental terms replaced other titular modifiers or

nouns. Hence, some departments of geology added ‘‘earth sciences’’ while keeping

‘‘geolog*’’, while others dropped ‘‘geolog*’’ (Table 1).

Official explanations for name changes offered by different academic units fall pri-

marily into two categories: (1) mission-oriented transformations and (2) bureaucratic

Table 1 Universities that added an ‘‘environmental’’ term to a geology, agriculture, forestry, or civilengineering department (or school or college) name between 1989 and 2006

Geology Agriculture Forestry Civil engineering

Cal State University,Chico

Louisiana State Universityand Agriculture andMechanical College

Clemson University Marquette University

Columbia University Ohio State University Duke University Oklahoma StateUniversity

Georgia Institute ofTechnology

Texas Tech University Iowa State University University ofAlabama

Memphis StateUniversity(University ofMemphis)

Tuskegee University Louisiana State Universityand Agriculture andMechanical College

University of Alaska,Fairbanks

Montclair StateCollege

University of Alaska,Fairbanks

Michigan TechnologicalUniversity

University ofDelaware

New Mexico Instituteof Mining andTechnology

University of Nebraska,Lincoln

North Carolina St.University, Raleigh

University ofHouston

NorthwesternUniversity

University of Tennessee,Knoxville

Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and StateUniversity

University of Maine

SUNY Oneonta University of Wyoming University of Mainea University ofMichigan

University Illinois,Chicago

Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and StateUniversity

University of Montanab University ofMissouri, Rolla

University Nevada,Reno

University ofTennessee,Knoxville

WashingtonUniversity

University ofWashington

Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and StateUniversity

a Added ‘‘natural sciences’’ to ‘‘college of forest resources’’b Added ‘‘and conservation’’ to ‘‘school of forestry’’

Source: Peterson (1989b, c, d, e; 2006a, b, c, d)

370 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

transformations, and frequently both are relevant to any given name change. Hence, in

2002, Iowa State University’s Department of Forestry and the Department of Animal

Ecology merged to become the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management

within the College of Agriculture. According to the university, the name change reflected

an intention to recast student learning and to promote research ‘‘in a more holistic manner’’

(Iowa State University 2002). Mission-oriented drivers are apparent in a statement by the

new department’s head:

Sustaining viable landscapes, strong communities and a high quality of life will

require new integrated approaches to natural resource management and to the

training of future generations of natural resource scientists and managers (Iowa State

University 2002).

In this case, the university noted that the departmental merger was responsive to

recommendations made by a non-profit conservation organization (The Pinchot Institute)

which called for ‘‘expanded course offerings’’ as the ‘‘social, economic, and ecological

aspects of forestry have increased the need for a wider array of skills’’ (Iowa State

University 2002).

Iowa State University natural resource-oriented faculty embarked on another transfor-

mation in 2007 when the College of Agriculture became the College of Agriculture and

Life Sciences. Much as ‘‘environmental’’ terms came into favor in the 1990s, ‘‘life sci-

ences’’ in departmental names became popular in the early years of the 21st century. As in

2002, the name change in 2007 was described in mission-oriented terms (Iowa State

University 2007). However, political undercurrents were apparent in these same expla-

nations. A university official declared:

Iowa State University, and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in particular,

is (sic) in a high stakes battle for the best and brightest. We can’t afford to lose

students from urban areas or any other backgrounds just because their perception of

agriculture is dated or inappropriate. For many, the addition of life sciences may

prove more fitting to the kind of future they see for themselves (Iowa State

University 2007).

Washington State University, like Iowa State, struggled with waning student interest in an

old, core degree program—in this case, forestry. The program was abolished in 2008. The

decision was based on the university’s ‘‘Academic Affairs Program Prioritization’’ which

was ‘‘consider(ing) ‘how to build a focused area of environmental and sustainability using

resources currently invested’’’ in other, existing academic units (Wilent 2008: 1). In this

case, a broadened mission (‘‘environmental’’ and ‘‘sustainability’’) justifies new organi-

zational configurations and contents of degree programs. However, the department chair

conceded that a ‘‘key factor’’ in the university’s decision was low student enrollment

(Wilent 2008: 4). The forestry degree program had 15 students in 2007, down from 30 in

2002 and 40–50 in the mid-1990s (Wilent 2008: 1).

Changes in student enrollment were also consequential in the organizational transfor-

mation of the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

But unlike Washington State, changes at Boulder were warranted by an increasingheadcount among environmental majors. The program consisted of a conservation edu-

cation major in the Department of Geography and Geology in 1951; two decades later, it

was replaced by a ‘‘more heavily science-based major in Environmental Conservation’’

housed in a stand-alone Department of Geography (University of Colorado at Boulder

2009). The university website explains that:

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 371

123

The number of students in this major rarely exceeded 100. But, beginning in the late

1980s, the size of the major grew quickly from 120 in 1987-88 to 514 in 1993-94.

The major was revamped into a separate program in Environmental Studies in 1993,

administered through the Office of Interdisciplinary Studies. By 1995-96, 537 stu-

dents majored in environmental studies. In 1997-98, administration of the major

moved to the Office of Environmental Studies, where it remains.

Reinforcing the sense that the program had outgrown its departmental home in geography

was the fact that, by the mid-1990s, environmental studies majors outnumbered geography

majors by more than 3:1 (Interview, Sam Fitch, October 24, 2008). The Environmental

Studies Program was spun-off from geography in 1993,3 but a new set of pressures, from

the bottom-up, led to additional bureaucratic transformations. The budget for the newly

autonomous program was small—around $15,000. This was justified, in part, because the

program had no faculty lines (all faculty were borrowed from other units) and advising and

several other administrative functions were handled primarily by one professional staff

member. In 1996, after complaining that the program was under-resourced, environmental

studies students staged a dramatic march across campus, carrying an oversized $4 million

bank check—the estimated combined tuition of the environmental studies majors. Their

demands for core faculty and full-time faculty administration were not immediately

addressed, but some years later, several ‘‘co-rostered’’ faculty (split appointments) joined

the program and a full-time director’s position was created (Interview, Sam Fitch, October

24, 2008; personal communication, Sam Fitch, January 10 and 14, 2010).

The Iowa State, Washington State, and Boulder cases highlight differences in the officialexplanations and the back story explanations that shape decisions to adopt ‘‘environmental’’

names, launch new environmental degree programs, and eliminate old, traditional degree

programs (Fig. 1). Whereas mission-oriented and bureaucratic changes constitute the offi-

cial drivers, the back story involves political and financial stressors and demands.

Hence, adopting an environmental or sustainability mission for a newly reorganized

academic unit (the official, ‘‘mission-oriented’’ explanation) becomes necessary when

student enrollments are declining (back story), and the intellectual synergies promised by

the consolidation of previously autonomous academic units (official ‘‘bureaucratic’’

explanation) offers a diplomatic way to justify a merger of unequal partners (back story).

In the early years of the 2000s, Northwestern University’s Department of Geology, like

Washington State University’s Department of Forestry, struggled with low undergraduate

enrollments. In 2006, the department changed its name to the Department of Earth and

Planetary Sciences (Northwestern University 2006). ‘‘An old view of geology is a guy with

a hammer out on an outcrop somewhere, and today the people who are operating the Mars

rover are geologists,’’ declared the department’s chairman. ‘‘Part of a name change like this

is trying to break that old stereotype’’ (Alexander 2007). New faculty were hired to reverse

a long trend of retirements; one faculty recruit promised to bring materials from NASA’s

lunar sample collection into one of his undergraduate courses (Alexander 2007). In late

2007, the department chairman had good news to report:

As I have previously reported, EPS (Earth and Planetary Sciences) has recently

undergone something of a renaissance. Course enrollments have increased; our

undergraduate major population has tripled; graduate student morale has steadily

3 Whereas the University of Colorado at Boulder Environmental Studies Program website indicates that theprogram separated from the Department of Geography in 1993 (University of Colorado at Boulder 2009),other sources mark 1994 as the date of separation (Anonymous 1998).

372 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

improved; and our profile inside and outside the university has dramatically risen.

These salutary changes wouldn’t have taken place without the addition of our new

faculty members (Northwestern University 2007).

The department chairman has since reiterated the importance of new, dynamic faculty in

resuscitating the program (Interview, Brad Sageman, January 5, 2010). He also affirmed

the value of changing the unit’s name from ‘‘Geological Sciences’’ to ‘‘Earth and Planetary

Official Explanation

Back Story

Broaden and update the mission of academic unit

Meet student, faculty, and societal needs by re-organizing (e.g. departmental mergers)

Political Demands • Loss of university

leaders’ support for “less successful” units. o Retiring faculty not

replaced. o Graduates with

traditional degrees (e.g., in forestry, geography) thought to have less competitive career prospects.

o Pressure mounts to change the unit’s identity as more and more competitors change theirs.

o In units with multiple degree programs, students or faculty in the more “successful program” demand a “divorce” from the “less successful” program.

• Gifts from wealthy donors lead to (or are contingent on) bureaucratic reorganizations or changes in mission. (A financial opportunity creates political pressure).

Financial Demands • If departmental

revenue depends on tuition generation or credit hours logged, revenue declines as enrollments decline.

• “Older” faculty skill sets are deemed out of synch with current and emerging grant and contract opportunities; indirect cost recovery is lower for faculty whose skills and interests misalign with funding agencies’ priorities.

• Exogenous financial stressors (e.g., economic recession; declining support from state government) necessitate consolidation of “less successful” programs.

• As new environmental programs grow in popularity, more financial resources are directed to these programs. “Less successful” programs in “near fields” (e.g., geography) struggle to obtain comparablebudget allocations.

Adoption of “Environmental” in Academic Unit’s Name

Adoption of Environmental Degree Program

Fig. 1 Conditions shaping adoption of ‘‘environmental’’ names and degree programs

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 373

123

Sciences’’ so as to update the department’s image and more accurately reflect the ‘‘broad,

interdisciplinary’’ focus of its work. A third factor in the department’s revival, particularly

among undergraduates, was the addition of an ‘‘earth system sciences’’ track to what had

been a geological sciences-only major; the new track demands comparatively less

mathematics preparation (Interview, Brad Sageman, January 5, 2010; Northwestern

University 2006; see also, Northwestern University 2008 and Alexander 2007). Once

again, a mission-oriented explanation—in this case, a revision of the brand (transformation

of ‘‘geology’’ to ‘‘earth and planetary sciences’’)—was presented for the name change.

However, declining undergraduate student enrollments, poor graduate student morale, and

dwindling faculty ranks appear to be important impetuses for departmental reinvention and

for the development of a new major.

In recent years, geological and ‘‘geosciences’’ educators in colleges and universities have

been able to avoid some of the back story problems highlighted in Fig. 1. Pressures to adopt

new missions, merge departments, and shuffle faculty have, for the most part, not included a

stressor shown under ‘‘political pressures’’—namely, declining job prospects for graduates

of these degree programs. Jobs in geological sciences are available, and that trend is likely to

continue, due in part to increasing worldwide demand for oil, natural gas, coal, precious

metals, and other minerals. But student interest in the field is not rising in tandem. Even with

growing demand for geological scientists, the number of geological science degrees granted

from U.S. institutions, whether at the bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral level, have remained

essentially unchanged since the late 1990s through 2007 (Keane and Martinez 2008).

Concerned that geosciences-based industries are facing worker shortages, in 2006, the

American Geological Institute surveyed more than 770 undergraduates majoring in geology

or related geosciences fields and more than 575 graduate students in comparable programs to

gauge their attitudes toward careers in geology. AGI reports that:

Despite the marketability of a master’s degree, many of these students are more

interested in entering the public sector rather than the private sector job market. The

top six career pathways for master students include: State/Local Government (67%),

Federal Government (67%), Environmental Industry (61%), Academia (45%),

Petroleum Industry (42%), and Continuing Education (34%)… This limited interest

by students to enter non-environmental private sector careers is problematic. These

industries are projected to continue to grow over the next several years as indus-

trializing nations increase their demands for raw materials and energy (Baker 2006).

AGI doubts the wisdom of careers in government and academia because they ‘‘are

expected to be focused purely on replacement of retirees’’ whereas private industry jobs,

including in the mining and petroleum sectors, are genuine growth areas for employment

(Baker 2006). Meanwhile, AGI laments the trend whereby geologists frequently enter

environmental fields. Here, Lasswell’s distinction between outcomes and effects in the

social process seems especially apt (Lasswell 1971: 19; 24). University departments of

geology may embrace ‘‘earth sciences’’ and transform degree programs so that they address

broader environmental questions or even matters of planetary science. Potential outcomes,

as illustrated in the Northwestern University case, may be elevated student interest and

surging enrollments. However, the long-term institutional effects for traditional occupa-

tions in the geosciences (e.g., petrology, coal sedimentology) may be less than desirable if

graduates disproportionately pursue careers in ‘‘environmental’’ fields. Ideally, broadly

trained students in earth and planetary sciences would be able to lend new insights,

374 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

practices, and environmental wisdom to these same, traditional geosciences professions.

Nevertheless, the ‘‘old school’’ mineralogy, stratigraphy, and oil and gas experts who make

up the core of the geology profession are anxious about current and future pools of talent.

Academic foresters might envy the predicament that geology educators find themselves

in, i.e., how to awaken student interest in a field with excellent career prospects. Profes-

sional forestry education, more so than the geological sciences, is struggling with the back

story problem shown in Fig. 1: graduates of traditional forestry degree programs have (or

they perceive to have) declining career prospects. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates

that between 2008 and 2018, fewer than 6,000 jobs will be created in occupational cate-

gories such as forestry, forest and conservation technicians, and forest fire inspectors and

prevention specialists (Fig. 2).4

In contrast, more than 55,000 jobs are expected to be added to the ranks of environ-

mental engineers and technicians, environmental scientists, and other environmental

occupational categories.5 Employment of environmental engineers will increase 30.6 per

cent, outpacing the 24.3 percent growth rate for civil engineers (United States Department

Fig. 2 Projected changes in total employment in U.S. forest sector jobs. Source: United States Departmentof Labor (2009a)

4 The comparatively negligible expected increase in the number of employees in the ‘‘forest fire inspectorsand prevention specialists’’ job category (200 additional employees between 2008 and 2018) raises seriousquestions about America’s preparedness to combat expected increases in climate change-induced wildfires(see, United States Global Change Research Program 2009, especially, p. 66, 79, 82, 95, 100, 112, and 131).5 Environmental ‘‘health’’ workers in the ‘‘environmental scientists and specialists, including health,’’occupational category:

conduct research or perform investigation for the purpose of identifying, abating, or eliminatingsources of pollutants or hazards that affect either the environment or the health of the population.Utilizing knowledge of various scientific disciplines may collect, synthesize, study, report, and takeaction based on data derived from measurements or observations of air, food, soil, water, and othersources (United States Department of Labor 2009c).

In the job category, ‘‘environmental scientist and protection technicians, including health,’’ an employee:

performs laboratory and field tests to monitor the environment and investigate sources of pollution,including those that affect health. Under direction of an environmental scientist or specialist, maycollect samples of gases, soil, water, and other materials for testing and take corrective actions asassigned (United States Department of Labor 2009d).

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 375

123

of Labor 2009a; see also, Vincent 2009a: 10). Adding ‘‘environmental’’ to a civil engi-

neering degree name (Table 1) appears to be in synch with a job market that favors this

type of training. The Department of Labor also reports that forestry is among the lowest

mean wage earning industries among major occupational groups it tracks (Hajiha 2005).

Among the four forestry-related occupational classes shown in Fig. 2, three are clas-

sified as ‘‘low’’ earning professions—jobs with a median wage below the national median.

In contrast, of the four environment-related job categories, two rank ‘‘high’’ (median wage

is above the national median for all workers) and two rank ‘‘very high’’ (median wage is

higher than that earned by 75 percent of all workers) (United States Department of Labor

2009b). When prospective students perceive poor job prospects or poor remuneration in a

particular field, they may be less likely to major or pursue advanced training in said field.

Based on data collected from 36 member institutions of the National Association of

University Forest Resource Programs, Terry Sharik reports that enrollments in traditional

forestry degree programs have declined since 1996 and are at less than half what they were

in 1980 (Sharik cited in Wilent 2008: 4). These trends are corroborated by Luckert (2006)

and Hager et al. (2007). Based on surveys of undergraduate student leaders in forestry

programs around the United States, Sharik and Frisk (2008) found that the two primary

reasons for students’ declining interest in careers in forestry were uncertainty about jobs

and expectations of low salaries.6

Whereas Washington State University dropped its bachelor’s degree in forestry, the

University of Washington responded to declining forestry student enrollments by adding

new bachelor’s degrees in environmental science and resource management and paper

science and engineering (Wilent 2008: 4). Meanwhile, in early 2008, the University of

Washington’s College of Forest Resources fended off the possibility of a merger with a

proposed new College of the Environment. Some faculty on campus expected that if the

new college was formed, the old forestry college would be acquired and downgraded to a

school, losing its dean. At the time, the dean of the College of Forest Resources observed,

‘‘We feel that this will diminish our influence both on and off campus and therefore we

have voiced our objections’’ (Wilent 2008: 4). In the spring of 2008, the state’s board of

regents approved a charter for the new College of Environment. Which units would join

the new college remained unclear as of the summer of 2008, but the college urged potential

member schools and departments that bigger was better, and indeed, bigger promised

distinction in a crowded field of environmental programs. A university primer declared:

The UW’s environmental expertise spans more fields than Duke, Michigan, Stanford

or Yale – all with existing environmental colleges – as well as 17 other universities

known for their environmental programs. The ultimate composition of the new

college has yet to be determined. If all the units proposed for the college choose to

join, the college would have one of the largest groups of environmental scientists and

scholars in the country…. The college would have three times the faculty and four

times the external funding of existing colleges such as Duke’s Nicholas School of

6 The forestry profession’s recruitment efforts cannot be helped by reports of low job satisfaction amongfederally employed foresters. The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2009 survey placed theU.S. Forest Service at 206th out of 216 organizations ranked by overall employee satisfaction (Society ofAmerican Foresters 2009). See also, JobsRated.Com’s 2009 survey of ‘‘best’’ and ‘‘worst’’ occupationswhich rated ‘‘lumberjack’’ the single worst job from a list of 200 professions. The ranking was based oncriteria such as work environment, physical demands, stress, income, and hours per week (JobsRated.Com2009).

376 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

Environmental and Earth Sciences or University of Michigan’s School of Natural

Resources and Environment (University of Washington, 2008a).

The gravitational pull of the new college proved strong. On July 1, 2009, the College of

Forest Resources became the School of Forest Resources within the new College of the

Environment, and the forestry dean became dean emeritus. The head of the new School of

Forest Resources (an interim director) opened his welcoming message on the school’s

website with:

The change from the College of Forest Resources to the School of Forest Resources

is a major event for the University of Washington — painful for some and exciting

for others (University of Washington, 2009).

Like the University of Washington’s forestry program, many geography programs have

been pressured into academic mergers, with the prospect of diminished institutional

identity. Not infrequently, ‘‘earth’’ or ‘‘environmental’’ is part of the new brand. Hence, in

1995, the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Department Geography was downgraded to a

program and merged with the Department Anthropology—a less drastic outcome than the

total elimination of geography and its degree programs, which a campus committee had

recommended in 1991 (Arden 1995). Current degree programs in the unit focus on

environmental and urban geography. Similarly, Western Washington University’s

Department of Geography and Regional Planning lost its departmental status after moving

from the College of Arts and Sciences to the new Huxley College of the Environment. In

this case, geography was folded into other departments and institutes in the new college,

but an M.S. in Geography was preserved.

Geography’s declining fortunes are only partly a consequence of the rising fortunes of

environmental studies and science. Geography departments have been in decline for

several decades. Some programs found salvation in mergers with geology, earth sciences,

and other divisions many years prior to what Romero and Silveri (2006) identify as the

‘‘second wave’’ of environmental studies that began in the late 1980s. For example, the

Geography Department at the University of California at Riverside was downgraded to a

program and merged with the Department of Geology in 1971, becoming the Department

of Earth Sciences. Undergraduate enrollments suffered in the years to come and faculty

retired and were not replaced. In 2000, Riverside suspended its M.A., M.S., and Ph.D.

degrees in geography (University of California at Riverside 2000).

Indeed, geography’s embattled status on college campuses dates at least to the middle of

the twentieth century and perhaps earlier. The death of geography professor Derwent S.

Whittlesey, the Harvard Crimson wrote in 1956, leaves ‘‘Harvard without a faculty

member to teach geography. His death may mark the end of geography at the University’’

because ‘‘the Administration reportedly had taken no steps to replace him.’’ Apparently, as

early as 1948, most geography faculty members at Harvard ‘‘were told to look for work

elsewhere. The reason given was ‘Harvard cannot hope to have strong departments in

everything’’. (Anonymous 1956). Harvard eliminated its geography program within the

Department of Geology and Geography by mid-century, and in later years, the University

of Michigan and Chicago followed suit (Cohen 1988).7 Meanwhile, geography’s demise at

7 Cohen (1988) derived four lessons from the demise of the geography department at Harvard: (1) strug-gling departments should not over-rely on a single, influential figure to save the program; (2) poor teachingdoes not help the departmental cause; (3) departments are weak that are characterized by intellectualfragmentation and lack of a common conceptual framework; and (4) size matters—small faculties arevulnerable, and if the faculty stays small, it must become adept at creating intellectual networks.

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 377

123

Columbia University may have been sealed prior to World War II when the field’s main

exponents on campus failed to recruit students nor create a robust departmental structure.

The geography department was abolished in 1986 (DeBres 1989). A comparison of

graduate-level degree programs in geography in 2006 vs. 1989, as derived from data in

Peterson’s, indicates the loss of several degree programs and/or departments (Table 2).8

The science of communication: lessons from Lasswell

Faced with declining enrollments and competition from upstart environmental programs,

department chairs in fields like geography and forestry must find ways to convey why their

field still matters and justify why their degree programs are valuable. Their audiences

include ‘‘Millennials’’—teens and college-aged students who are frequently typed as fickle

‘‘customers’’ (Wolberg and Pokrywczynski 2001). Other audiences include protective or

‘‘hovering’’ parents, finicky donors, and impatient senior academic administrators. In such

a challenging arena, an effective communication strategy is vital. Insights by Lasswell

offer a potential map for institutions competing for environmental studies and science

market share, including ‘‘out of favor’’ academic departments as well as new-fangled,

interdisciplinary environmental programs.

In documenting a science of communication, Lasswell was particularly attuned to the

practices of political institutions and of mass media. He urged communication analysts to

embed their research in the larger social process (1948a)—something we have attempted

here in our rendering of the participants (administrators, faculty and students in new

environmental programs and in older programs that are ‘‘at risk’’); perspectives (including

Table 2 Universities that drop-ped a graduate degree in geogra-phy, eliminated a geographydepartment, or both (2006 vs.1989)

a MA in Geography suspended(2007); no plans were in place torevive the program as of 2007

Source: Peterson’s 1989b, c, d, e,2006a, b, c, d

East Tennessee University

Gannon University

Illinois State University

Memphis State University (University of Memphis)

Montclair State University

Murray State University

University of California, Riverside

University of Colorado, Denver

University of Northern Colorado

University of Rhode Island

University of Southwestern Louisiana (University Louisiana,Lafayette)

University of Vermonta

Valparaiso University

Washington University

8 These findings depart somewhat from Murphy (2007: 124–125) who marks the late 1980s as the ‘‘end ofan era of decline’’ in geography programs; he records no ‘‘major loss’’ among geography departments sincethat time. The fact that our findings diverge from Murphy could be semantic, i.e., we catalogued droppeddepartments and graduate degree programs among all institutions of higher learning listed in Peterson’s,whereas Murphy makes reference to losses (or lack thereof) in ‘‘major’’ departments. Moreover, Murphydocuments the emergence of 12 new graduate-level degree programs in geography between 1995 and 2005(Murphy 2007: 127).

378 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

demands and expectations of higher level administrators, department chairs, and ordinary

faculty); base values (respect deprivation as traditional departments are absorbed into new,

multi-disciplinary units); strategies (adopted by the environmental and traditional depart-

ments to protect vested interests); outcomes (impacts on enrollments; impacts on tradi-

tional departments’ visibility); and effects (homogenization of institutional identities in the

academy; workforce that lacks skills in traditional occupations, e.g., petrology).

Lasswell (1948a: 39–40; 42–43) distinguished among several sets of actors in generic

communication processes, including: (1) participants who detect trends and collect

information in the larger world or environment (‘‘surveyors’’); (2) ‘‘controllers’’ or

manipulators of message content (and to a lesser extent, ‘‘handlers’’ who relay (frequently,

in unaltered form) communications to or from controllers); and (3) audiences or targets. To

animate these categories of participants, Lasswell used world political affairs as a back-

drop. Hence, the first group of participants in communication processes—detectors of

trends and conditions in the field—included diplomats, attaches, and foreign correspon-

dents (1948a: 40); whereas the second group—the controllers and handlers—were con-

stituted by news editors or censors who distilled or otherwise shaped field communications

before transmitting them to target audiences (the third group).

The cast of actors performing the surveillance function (the first group) in mass com-

munication have proliferated greatly since Lasswell’s 1948 essay on ‘‘Attention Structure

and Social Structure’’ (Lasswell 1948b). At CNN’s ‘‘iReporter’’ web page, readers are

enticed with, ‘‘See It First. Your Stories. No Boundaries’’ (CNN 2008). iReports is a CNN

product, so presumably, a ‘‘control’’ function remains in place; nevertheless, the network

beckons, ‘‘iReport: Unedited. Unfiltered. News’’. Elsewhere on the Internet, audiences also

have access to unfiltered content, including eyewitness reports and musings of amateur

intelligence-gatherers. A blog dedicated to news about blogs reports that, as of October

2005, there were 100 million blogs in existence (Riley 2005).

Both the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and the School of

Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University host blogs for their students; Yale’s

blog disclaims the opinions of its bloggers (Yale University 2008). On the one hand, blogs

can serve an important recruiting tool for the academy as would-be students identify with

the bloggers who are their peers. On the other hand, universities, as blog ‘‘controllers,’’ risk

having unflattering (or otherwise undesirable) views expressed on these sites, and if they

purge a derogatory posting, they are susceptible to charges of censorship. Hence, the

fragmentation of information-gathering creates dual challenges for the middle actors in

Lasswell’s communications stream—the editors and other specialized controllers. The task

is more complicated still, because controllers in the academy compete for open commu-

nication channels. They vie for audience attention, not only vis-a-vis other controllers, but

also with intelligence-gatherers who no longer depend on controllers to transmit their

messages. An indicator of the ascendance of the decentralized communicator (i.e., indi-

vidual uploaders of content) versus the traditional controller (i.e., professional editors,

publicists) are the indefinite norms governing acceptable practices by the former. Consider,

for example, the jaunty tips for users of information-sharing web sites, such as YouTube.9

In the arenas of undergraduate and graduate student recruitment, communication

experts at colleges and universities must contend with decentralized networks of target

9 YouTube’s ‘‘community guidelines’’ declare (YouTube 2009), ‘‘We’re not asking for the kind of respectreserved for nuns, the elderly, and brain surgeons. We mean don’t abuse the site. Every cool new communityfeature on YouTube involves a certain level of trust. We trust you to be responsible, and millions of usersrespect that trust. Please be one of them’’.

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 379

123

audiences’ own peers whose personalized impressions, transmitted by text messages on

cell phones and via social networking websites, reach the target first. These spontaneous

and informal communications may also have more weight than the formal, vetted com-

munications of university-based controllers. The exigencies of finding the right commu-

nication platforms—and the right messages—are not lost on universities. Some universities

send many or most of their communications to students’ cell phones instead of their e-mail

accounts. For example, beginning in the fall of 2007, Utah State began alerting students on

their phones about tickets to athletic events; a voice activation option on students’ voice

mail allows for customized messages. A Utah State administrator declares, ‘‘A head

football coach can issue a personal invitation to a game and a student can give news on

recent events’’ (Angelo 2007: 62).

Once a particular communication has been received by the target audience, the next

logical question is, what are the effects? And which strategies appear to produce the

desired effects? Lasswell contends (1946a: 80) that any sign (ink on a page, pixels on a

screen, sounds transmitted by radio) and symbol (written words, objects, images, or

markings that represent something or convey meaning) used by the communicator will

have one or more of five effects on a receptive audience, namely: (1) attention (2) com-

prehension (3) enjoyment (4) evaluation, and (5) action. Getting the audience’s attention

and having the audience understand are straightforward; Lasswell notes that attention is

mostly about signs, less about symbols; comprehension depends on both signs and sym-

bols. The third and fourth categories of effects—enjoyment and evaluation, unlike atten-

tion and comprehension, are explicitly normative. ‘‘We speak of enjoying…’’ (or not

enjoying) ‘‘…a play, speech, or program…we also speak of agreeing, or disagreeing, with

a speaker’s tribute…’’ to a political leader or to a political ideal (Lasswell 1946a: 81). The

fifth category is a cardinal concern of the communicator, including controllers who seek

acquisitive or comparable responses in the audience. The message is crafted so as to secure

support, to entice membership, to encourage sacrifice, and so on. It stands to reason that

prospects for desired ‘‘action’’ are higher when a communication is enjoyed and positively

evaluated by the target audience.

Lasswell’s work on the effects of communications drew heavily on his research on

propaganda used by combatants in World War II; on scripted speech of characters in

Hollywood movies; and on patterns in electoral and opinion polling data (1946a, b).

However, the basic principles laid out by Lasswell in these and other works (e.g., Lasswell

1936: 311–325; Lasswell 1971: 26–27) are adequate for characterizing and clarifying

communicative strategies, outcomes, and effects in almost any arena, including a uni-

versity’s careful crafting of very short communications, such as institutional titles, and

even single words that are intended for either specialized or mass audiences. Lasswell

notes (Lasswell 1946a: 85),

Not only complete statements, but single words and expressions (unit symbols) may

reasonably be expected to exercise some effect upon an audience. The incessant

repetition of a common symbol of the self, like ‘American,’ may enhance common

loyalty and a sense of separation from other countries.

Communications, long or short, can have varying degrees of ‘‘intensity,’’ as designed by

the controller of the message. Intensity, Lasswell writes (Lasswell 1946a: 86), is composed

of ‘‘prominence’’ and ‘‘style.’’ Of the former,

No one doubts that the probability of audience response is greater if a statement

appears in a front page headline than when it occupies a subordinate position on an

380 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

inside page. Nor does anyone doubt that some ways of phrasing a statement are more

likely than others to affect the audience (Lasswell 1946a: 86).

Prominence, he observes, relates to signs; it is about placement and choice of media. Style is

about the symbols that compose the statement and their arrangement (Lasswell 1946a: 87–

88). Hence, the controller’s choice about how to channel messages (prominence and signs)

and about the content stream (symbols and style) create a particular intensity in the message

and elicit a response from the audience. In choosing a name for a school or an academic

degree program, it would seem logical for the controller to be especially careful about

prominence and style. The institution’s name and the names of its products or services are

among the first bits of information that the audience will encounter, or will deliberately seek

out. If the signs and symbols are unappealing, the audiences’ search may end quickly.

Changing old, familiar, but perhaps ‘‘tired’’ academic unit names or degree titles were

strategies used by many academic institutions in the 1990s and early 2000s, according to

our data. A combination of words that included the heavily symbol-laden, ‘‘environment,’’

‘‘natural,’’ or ‘‘earth’’ were typical ingredients in the strategy. When new words were

adopted in the title of the academic unit (prominence—positioning of a message), so were

new identities. Symbols in the names communicated something new and different about

the organization’s values. Hence, when a School of Forestry became a School of the

Environment, an institution that had been defined primarily by skill (forestry) and a util-

itarian ethic was redefined by intellectual holism, interdisciplinarity, and a ‘‘land ethic’’.10

‘‘School of Environment’’ evinces complex connections among natural systems and peo-

ple; an ethic of caring about and not merely careful management of resources; and respect

for the limits of scientific management and of scientific knowledge, itself.

New professional opportunities (e.g., Iowa State case), new modes for scientists to work

together (e.g., University of Washington case), new ways to prepare students for complex,

real-world problems (e.g., Northwestern University case), and interdisciplinarity (all cases

presented here) are invoked as part of the ‘‘official explanation’’ for ‘‘environmentalizing’’

institutional and degree program names and identities. We believe that Lasswell’s concepts

of sign, symbol, prominence, and style help elucidate the organizations’ own formal justi-

fications for their reinvented missions, structures, and programs. The ‘‘back story’’ expla-

nations are illuminated by Lasswell, too. Messengers are aware that the choice of font, of

language, of imagery, and the placement and channeling of messages affect the institution’s

long-term prospects.

Regarding Lasswell’s concept of ‘‘intensity,’’ we observe one other noteworthy strategy

employed by academic units. Schools that adopt environmental symbols in their most vital

communications often do so repeatedly, such as in departmental titles. Between 1989 and

2006, we tallied eight academic units that added an environmental term to a title that

already had such a term, or that began the period (1989) with zero environmental terms but

ended (2006) with at least two (Table 3).

Repeating certain symbols serves, in principle, to intensify the message. It also

potentially sharpens the message, as old symbols are de-emphasized (e.g., placed second or

third among the key words in the title—‘‘prominence’’) or are eliminated. The key risk of

10 Though the meaning and significance of ‘‘land ethic’’ requires more commentary than a single excerptfrom the concept’s inventor (Aldo Leopold), a pithy distillation is found in Leopold’s admonition to ‘‘…quitthinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what isethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends topreserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it does otherwise’’.(Leopold 1968: 224–225).

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 381

123

this strategy is that the multiplication of terms induces ‘‘symbol inflation.’’ Overuse of the

symbol renders it decreasingly effective at mobilizing support (Brunner 1994: 6–7). As

more academic units incorporate environmental terms in their names, other units feel

compelled to do likewise, or to invoke environmental signifiers multiple times, so as to

stand out from the crowd.

Some academic units that already contain ‘‘environment’’ or ‘‘natural’’ or both in their

titles have also taken on board non-verbal environmental cues. Hence, three leaves

alternately arrayed around a green stem are embedded between ‘‘Natural’’ and ‘‘Resour-

ces’’ in the wordmark of the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and

Environment (Fig. 3) (University of Michigan 2008).

In this case, political and financial demands of the variety depicted in Fig. 1 inspired

both an institutional name change and the adoption of a non-verbal cue. When Garry

Brewer was appointed dean of that university’s formerly named School of Natural

Resources in 1991, the university’s president gave him a weighty charge: re-energize a

school that lagged comparable units on campus in terms of academic reputation and donor

interest, among other concerns. Overhauling the school required a variety of interventions,

including a name change. ‘‘School of Natural Resources’’ struck Brewer as somewhat

outdated. He preferred ‘‘School of the Environment.’’ Some faculty members worried that

alumni would object to the elimination of ‘‘natural resources’’ in the name. Eventually,

Table 3 College, school, or departmental name changes that involve multiple ‘‘environmental’’ terms,1989–2006

University Former name New name

Mississippi Valley StateUniversity

Department of Natural Science Department of Natural Science andEnvironmental Health

Montclair StateUniversity

Department of Environment, Urban,and Geographic Studies

Department of Earth and EnvironmentalStudies

Montclair StateUniversity

Department of Physics/Geoscience Department of Earth and EnvironmentalStudies

Tuskegee University School of Agriculture and HomeEconomics

College of Agricultural, Environmental,and Natural Sciences

Ohio State University School of Natural Resources School of Environment and NaturalResources

University of Michigan School of Natural Resources School of Natural Resources andEnvironment

University ofMassachusetts,Amherst

College of Food and Natural Resources College of Natural Resources and theEnvironment

University of Vermont School of Natural Resources Rubenstein School of the Environmentand Natural Resources

Peterson’s (1989b, c, d, e, 2006a, b, c, d)

Fig. 3 Logo of the School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Source:University of Michigan (2008). (Reprinted with permission)

382 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

‘‘School of Natural Resources and Environment’’ was settled upon. But the messaging

work was not yet complete. A three-leaf symbol, centered in the school’s wordmark, was

adopted. It was hoped that leaves would signal greenness to the environmentally minded,

but also resonate with ‘‘old school’’ foresters among the alumni and faculty (Brewer,

Interview, October 24, 2008; Brewer, personal communication, December 17, 2009).

In this case, the adoption of a new name and logo was intended not merely to revive interest

in the program (e.g., appeal to environmentally minded students who otherwise might not be

motivated by ‘‘natural resources’’), but also as a defensive measure—to protect the program

against possible challengers. A complementary objective was to create ‘‘lasting impact’’

through branding. The viewer should come to immediately recognize the wordmark and to

associate it, subconsciously, with a particular value disposition, such as trust or quality.

The University of Wisconsin’s Department of Wildlife Ecology adopted another branding

technique. It emphasized—and continues to emphasize—its founder, Aldo Leopold. This

‘‘heroic’’ symbol (consistent with Lasswell’s concept of ‘‘myth,’’ (Lasswell and McDougal

1992: 354–355; Lasswell 1971: 25) connotes authenticity and ‘‘being first.’’ The depart-

ment’s home page juxtaposes a commanding black and white portrait of Leopold against

color images of wildlife (University of Wisconsin 2008). The first words on the webpage,

even preceding the title of the department are ‘‘Founded by Aldo Leopold in 1933’’—

positioning (prominence) and style reminiscent of a storied company brand or a trusted name.

In both the University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin cases, the effects are

comparable. Wisconsin’s wildlife imagery operates at a conscious level, orienting the

viewer to the department’s core research and teaching missions. However, the mono-

chromatic Leopold image and Michigan’s tender stem and leaf symbol, are effective at the

subconscious level, inducing, as Lasswell might frame it, enjoyment and a positive esti-

mation of what is presented, leading to action. The viewer’s actions might include, min-

imally, efforts to learn more about the institution, or, at a much greater level of

commitment, to join an enterprise whose identity and values resemble the viewer’s own.

These strategies might work. Alternatively, they may generate symbol inflation and

yield a non-response in the audience. These risks remain salient so long as many academic

units play the same symbolic game. Newly branded academic schools and colleges and

degree programs are entering a field crowded with competitors who peddle comparable

products with like-promotional messages. To wit, a University of Washington primer about

its new College of Environment asks, rhetorically, ‘‘Haven’t other universities been doing

this for years?’’ (University of Washington 2008b). The institutional response reads:

Yes, and no. Many universities around the world house environmentally related

faculty together. The college we envision is unusually porous and flexible, able to

respond adaptively to emerging environmental issues. Specific interactions among

relevant students, faculty, staff, and partners will address specific research or policy

questions, develop solutions for specific environmental problems, and develop cur-

ricula to bring environmental research and problem-solving into the classroom. By

incorporating partners and community members into the University and sending our

faculty and students to work outside the University, we will enlarge and strengthen

the learning process, create respect for all stakeholders, and enable the university to

become a much more relevant contributor to the environmental dialogue (italics

added) (University of Washington 2008b).

Which parts of this explanation support, ‘‘Yes, other universities have been doing this for

years’’ and which parts support, ‘‘No, other universities have not been doing this for years’’ is

open to debate. The new environmental college’s ‘‘porous’’ and ‘‘flexible’’ structure can

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 383

123

‘‘adapt’’ to ‘‘emerging environmental issues,’’ and ‘‘specific interactions’’ among faculty,

staff, students, and partners ‘‘will address specific research or policy questions’’ and

‘‘develop solutions for specific environmental problems’’. However, the vision and mission

statements of many other colleges, schools, and departments, including newly founded or re-

organized units make comparable claims about their programs’ particular advantages.

Consider, for example, a message to alumni from the dean of the Rubenstein School of

the Environment at the University of Vermont (founded in 2003), which emphasizes the

school’s ability to ‘‘adapt to current and future conditions’’ and which stresses the

importance of ‘‘partnerships’’ (University of Vermont 2004). Meanwhile, the mission

statement of Columbia University’s Earth Institute declares:

The Earth Institute has a flexible and responsive structure that enables its members to

meet its intellectual and implementation objectives efficiently and effectively. To

that end, the Earth Institute has developed a streamlined governance structure that

invites broad participation from the many constituent parts of the Earth Institute and

promotes community building (italics added) (Columbia University 2008).

Though not intended as such, the University of Washington’s answer to ‘‘Haven’t other

universities been doing this for years?’’ may be more ‘‘yes’’ than ‘‘no.’’

Concluding remarks

More than 60 years ago, Harold D. Lasswell laid out a schema for elucidating commu-

nication processes. A generic act of communication, he wrote, poses the following

questions:

Who

Says What

In Which Channel

To Whom

With What Effect (1948a: 37).

For heuristic purposes, the separation of these tasks into five lines, as presented in the

original, is superior to the many redactions that compile the questions into a single sentence

(see e.g., Petty and Wegener 1998). Lasswell’s schema is unambiguous and trenchant, with

each line isolating a specific and ordered analytical problem. Nevertheless, in ‘‘The Structure

and Function of Communication in Society,’’ Lasswell declares he is less interested in

dividing up the act of communication than in viewing the act as a whole in relation to the

entire social process (1948a: 38). This is a logical approach: the analyst should expect that

targeted communications are informed by the communicators’ perceptions of the audiences’

personal and professional identities, expectations, and value orientations and demands.

Different communication strategies are developed and deployed to elicit desired actions and

outcomes in the social process of almost any given problem context.

In academia, as in other arenas, targeted marketing and communication strategies are

important for ‘‘branding’’ and for attracting ‘‘customers’’ and allies, including students,

parents, donors, sponsors of extramural research, and other audiences (Maringe and Gibbs

2008; Kirp et al. 2003). Deans and departmental chairs who strive to make their institu-

tional identities and degree programs distinctive must be sensitive to which messages and

symbols appeal to which audiences and by way of which media or ‘‘channel.’’ Commu-

nications developed in and for universities are increasingly specialized and even

384 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

customized for individual targets. A new, topic-specific newsletter is developed to appeal

to a particular alumni group or special class of donors; introductory courses with catchy

titles are offered to attract non-majors; identity-enabled voice mail allows a department to

send individualized invitations to an upcoming event; and so on. Our research reveals that,

in the field of environmental studies and science education, typical communication strat-

egies by universities include the incorporation of environmental symbols into degree titles

or into academic unit names, with some established units opting to retire titles or names

that seem out of favor or antiquated.

We do not endeavor to suggest that this strategy is inherently good or bad. We do not

condemn schools and colleges’ efforts to ‘‘change with the times,’’ nor even to infer that

academic units in environmental and natural resource fields are succumbing to intellectual

fads. Indeed, it is illogical to expect post-secondary institutions to stand still while the

world changes and as knowledge itself changes. There are persuasive reasons why the life

sciences, information technology, and business administration have emerged as vital fields

of study whereas core subjects of yesteryear, including Latin and rhetoric, have declined in

popularity (though not necessarily in value or importance).

Colleges and universities have forceful reasons for crafting new identities around

environmental studies and science. We do not doubt that many and perhaps all of these

institutions are sincere in recasting their missions, in part, so as to embrace more system-

based and interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences and environmental

studies. A well-designed environmental curriculum that internalizes and operationalizes

concepts like interdependence, complexity, adaptation, resilience, and multiple methods—

and that values multiple participant voices—is probably an improvement (measured by

value indulgences) over a doctrinaire utilitarian or orthodox positivist approach to natural

resource management.

Notwithstanding the academy’s growing affinity for conceptual and practice-based

holism in environmental studies, we note (as have other contributors to this journal, e.g.,

Brunner and Willard 2003) the continued fragmentation of knowledge in post-secondary

institutions, generally. Ironically, many institutions laud interdisciplinarity and team-based

approaches to solve complex problems, yet they maintain structures and practices that reify

even finer epistemic divisions, and they reward specialization and reductionism at the

expense of problem-solving.

We suggest that below the surface of some official mission-oriented explanations for new

environmental departmental and degree identities are faculty and administrators’ deeply

embedded professional and psychological insecurities, per Brunner and Willard’s thesis

(2003). Established departments in the applied social sciences, for example in geography,

may be at risk of being displaced by new, cross-disciplinary programs. From the old guard’s

perspective, the new programs do not engage; they encroach. This view is reinforced when

the old program is ‘‘merged’’ into a new structure, with loss of identity and leadership.

We document ‘‘back story’’ drivers (conditioning factors) of departmental mergers

and of new departmental titles. Schools and departments’ forward-looking statements

about new directions and opportunities are quietly accompanied by footnotes about

declining student enrollments and dwindling faculty lines. Further research is needed to

uncover the roles played by intellectual tribalism and knowledge fragmentation (per

Brunner and Willard 2003) as causal factors in departmental realignments and re-engi-

neered curricula. However, already, we can document the regrets of academicians in

traditional fields, such as forestry and geography, who confront a future of diminished

leadership and a lower profile on campus following mergers with ‘‘stronger’’ units

(Wilent 2008).

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 385

123

We close by noting that the adoption of ‘‘environmental’’ identities and degree pro-

grams are no guarantors of better times for academic units. Our data reveal that several

graduate-level degree programs with an ‘‘environmental’’ term (such as ‘‘environ*’’ or

‘‘ecolog*’’) in their titles were terminated between 1989 and 2006 (Appendix I). Partic-

ularly vulnerable were programs in the environmental sciences, as opposed to hybrid

science/management or science/policy programs. These data add an important nuance to

generalizations about the uninterrupted growth of environmental studies and science

programs at the graduate level. Each of the suspended programs has particular, context-

specific reasons for its termination, and further research is needed to determine why

programs with otherwise popular and au courant terms, like ‘‘environment’’ nevertheless

go by the wayside.

We suspect environmental programs are susceptible to some of the problems weighing-

down traditional fields like geography and geology as well as professional disciplines, like

forestry. Adopting a topical, symbol-laden noun or modifier in a masthead or HTML meta

tag is only one part of a would-be effective communication strategy. And of course, a well-

designed and executed communication strategy probably cannot succeed in the absence of

an academic program that really delivers what it promises. Based on Cohen (1988), deLeon

and Steelman (2001), Brunner and Willard (2003), and our own research, we recognize

several important bases for successful programs in environmental studies and science and

for other fields that promote practice-based learning. These factors include supportive

high-level administrators, faculty who resist intellectual fragmentation, and research pro-

grams and curricula that rely on formal structures and methods for promoting problem-

oriented, interdisciplinary inquiry.

Acknowledgments Tatyana Ruseva, Justin Naab, and Joel Bolinger are gratefully acknowledged for theirhelp compiling and organizing data for this project. Helpful comments on prior drafts were provided bySusan Clark, Garry Brewer, William Ascher, and Shirley Vincent.

Appendix I

Table 4 Environment-related degree programs dropped between 1989 and 2006

University/College Title of dropped degree program

Cornell University MS Chemical Ecology

Emory University MS Environmental Science

George Washington University MS Environmental Science

Johns Hopkins University PhD Environmental Chemistry

Minnesota State University, Mankato MS Ecology

New York Medical College MS Environmental Science

Old Dominion University MS Environmental Chemistry

SUNY Albany MS Ecology and Animal Behavior

SUNY Buffalo MS Environmental Studies

SUNY Plattsburgh MA Ecology

University of Charleston (West Virginia) MS Environmental Studies

University of Michigan MS Water Resources Management

University of Nevada, Las Vegas PhD Environmental Biology

386 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

References

Alexander, C (2007). Department of Geology no more; NU changes name. The daily Northwestern. 8 Jan.Angelo, J. M. (2007). Gotta get a message to you. University Business: Solutions for Higher Education

Management, February, 60–63.Anonymous. (1956). Geography at Harvard. The Harvard Crimson. November 26.Anonymous. (1998). ENVS reallocation request. Internal document of the University of Colorado at

Boulder. On file with author.Arden, C. (1995). Getting together anthropology, geography, and the field museum. UIC News. Feb. 22.

Available at: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/uicnews/articledetail.cgi?id=2799. Accessed 4April 2008.

Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (2008). The Tallories Declaration: 10 PointAction Plan (1994 updated version). Available at http://www.ulsf.org/pdf/TD.pdf. Accessed on 11March 2008.

Baker, M. A. (2006). Student and faculty employment attitudes in the geosciences: 2006. American Geo-logical Institute Report GW-06-002. Available at: http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/gw-06-002.pdf.Accessed 18 July 2008.

Berman, J. (2009). College students are flocking to sustainability degrees, careers. USA Today. August 3.Brough, H. (1992). Environmental studies: Is it academic? World Watch January/February: 26–33.Brunner, R. D. (1994). Myth and American politics. Policy Sciences, 27, 1–18.Brunner, R. D., & Willard, A. R. (2003). Professional insecurities. Policy Sciences, 36, 37–70.Calhoun et al. (2005). We rise to play a greater part: Students, faculty, staff, and community converge in

search of leadership from the top. 2005 update in support of Campus Sustainability Day III. Ann Arbor,MI: Society for College and University Planning. Available at: http://www.scup.org/asset/49750/scup-csd-101705.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2009.

Camill, P. (2009). Environmental literacy and the academy. AESS Newsletter, summer: 4–5.Chapman, R. L. (2007). How to think about environmental studies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 14,

59–74.CNN. (2008). iReport. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/exchange/. Accessed 21 July 2008.Cohen, S. B. (1988). Reflections on the elimination of geography at Harvard, 1947–51. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, 78, 148–151.Columbia University. (2008). Mission: Solutions for sustainable development. Available at:

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1791. Accessed 18 July 2008.DeBres, K. (1989). An early frost: Geography in Teachers College, Columbia and Columbia University,

1896–1942. The Geographical Journal, 155, 392–402.deLeon, P., & Steelman, T. A. (2001). Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the

policy sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 163–173.Egan, T. (2006). The greening of America’s campuses. New York Times. 8 January.Hager, S., Straka, T., & Irwin, H. (2007). What do teenagers think of environmental issues and natural

resources management careers? Journal of Forestry, 105, 95–98.

Table 4 continued

University/College Title of dropped degree program

University of New Mexico MS Ecology

University of North Texas MS Land and Water Resources Assessment andManagement

University of San Francisco MS Ecology

University of Louisiana, Lafayette/University ofSouthwestern Louisiana

PhD Environmental and Evolutionary Biology

University of Texas, Dallas MS Environmental Science

Virginia Commonwealth University MS Environmental Biology

Wichita State University MS Ecology

Peterson’s (1989b, c, d, e, 2006a, b, c, d)

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 387

123

Hajiha, F. (2005). Employment and wages by major occupational group and industry. Occupationalemployment statistics. U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at:http://www.bls.gov/oes/2005/may/major.pdf page 2. Accessed 18 July 2008.

Iowa State University. (2002). New department will broaden education and research offerings. Available at:http://www.ag.iastate.edu/aginfo/news_detail.php?var1=580. Accessed 11 March 2008.

Iowa State University. (2007). Press release: Regents approve ISU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.Available at http://www.ag.iastate.edu/news/cals_newsrelease.php. Accessed 11 March 2008.

JobsRated.Com. (2009). The 10 worst jobs of 2009. Available at: http://www.careercast.com/jobs/content/JobsRated_10WorstJobs. Accessed: 30 December 2009.

Keane, C. & Martinez, C. (2008). US geoscience enrollments and degrees remain steady in 2007. Geo-science Currents 6. Available at http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/Currents-006-2007-Enrollments.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2008.

Kirp, D. L., Berman, E. P., Holman, P. R., Solomon, D., & Van Antwerpen, J. (2003). Shakespeare,Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Kliff, S. (2009). Green degrees in bloom. Newsweek. 12 August.Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Lasswell, H. D. (1946a). Describing the contents of communications. In B. L. Smith, H. D. Lasswell, & R.

D. Casey (Eds.), Propaganda, communication, and public opinion: A comprehensive reference guide(pp. 74–94). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1946b). Describing the effects of communications. In B. L. Smith, H. D. Lasswell, & R. D.Casey (Eds.), Propaganda, communication, and public opinion: A comprehensive reference guide (pp.95–117). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948a). The structure and function of communication in society. In B. Lyman (Ed.), Thecommunication of ideas: A series of addresses (pp. 37–51). New York: Institute for Religious andSocial Studies.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948b). Attention structure and social structure. In B. Lyman (Ed.), The communication ofideas: A series of addresses (pp. 243–276). New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.

Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1992). Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science and

policy, vol I. New Haven: New Haven Press.Leopold, A. (1968). A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University

Press.Luckert, M. K. (2006). Has the myth of the omnipotent forester become the reality of the impotent forester?

Journal of Forestry, 104, 299–306.Maniates, M. F., & Whissel, J. C. (2000). Environmental studies: The sky is not falling. BioScience, 50,

509–517.Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P. (2008). Marketing higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Murphy, A. B. (2007). Geography’s place in higher education in the United States. Journal of Geography in

Higher Education, 31, 121–141.National Wildlife Federation. (2008). Campus environment 2008: A national report card on sustainability in

higher education. Available at: http://www.nwf.org/campusEcology/docs/CampusReportFinal.pdf.Accessed 12 Dec 2009.

Northwestern University. (2006). October 2006 actions of the curricular review committee. Available at:http://www.wcas.northwestern.edu/faculty/teaching/Oct2006GeolSciMajor.pdf. Accessed 4 April2008.

Northwestern University. (2007). Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences: Alumni welcome. November1. Available at: http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/current/people/alumni/index.html. Accessed 4April 2008.

Northwestern University. (2008). Program of study: New major options. Available at: http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/programs.html. Accessed 18 July 2008.

Peterson’s. (1989a). Graduate and professional programs. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s Guides, Inc.Peterson’s. (1989b). Graduate programs in the biological and agricultural sciences (book 3). Princeton, NJ:

Peterson’s.Peterson’s. (1989c). Graduate programs in the physical sciences and mathematics (book 4). Princeton, NJ:

Peterson’s.Peterson’s. (1989d). Graduate programs in engineering and applied sciences (book 5). Princeton, NJ:

Peterson’s.Peterson’s. (1989e). Graduate programs in business, education, health and law (book 6). Princeton, NJ:

Peterson’s.

388 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123

Peterson’s. (2006a). Graduate programs in the biological sciences (book 3). Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s.Peterson’s. (2006b). Graduate programs in the physical sciences, mathematics, agricultural sciences, the

environment and natural resources (book 4). Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s.Peterson’s. (2006c). Graduate programs in engineering and applied sciences (book 5). Princeton, NJ:

Peterson’s.Peterson’s. (2006d). Graduate programs in business, education, health, information studies, law and social

work (book 6). Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s.Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D.

Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323–390). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Princeton Review. (2009a). Green honor roll. Available at: http://www.princeton.com/green-honor-roll.aspx. Accessed: 22 Dec 2009.

Princeton Review. (2009b). The green rating: How we score schools. http://www.princetonreview.com/green-rating-methodology.aspx. Accessed: 22 December 2009.

Riley, D. (2005). The Blog Herald blog count October 2005: Over 100 million blogs created. Blog Herald.October 10. Available at: http://www.blogherald.com/2005/10/10/the-blog-herald-blog-count-October-2005/. Accessed 21 July 2008.

Romero, A., & Silveri, P. (2006). Not all are created equal: an analysis of the environmental programs/departments in U.S. academic institutions from 1900 until May 2005. Journal of Integrative Biology, 1,1–15.

Sharik T. & Frisk, S. (2008). Reasons and reservations for enrolling in forestry degree programs: A surveyof undergraduate students. Paper presented at the 7th biennial conference on university education innatural resources, Corvallis, Oregon. March 15-17, 2008. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1957/8512. Accessed 18 July 2008.

Society of American Foresters. (2009). Forest service and BLM rank low in employee satisfaction survey.The Forestry Source 14(17). Available at: http://www.safnet.org/members/secureDocument.cfm?docID=672. Accessed: 27 Dec 2009.

Soule, M., & Press, D. (1998). What is environmental studies? BioScience, 48, 397–405.United States Department of Labor. (2009a). Occupational employment, training, and earnings. Bureau of

Labor Statistics database. Selected occupational projections data. Available at: http://data.bls.gov/oep/noeted/empoptd.jsp. Accessed 18 Dec 2009.

United States Department of Labor. (2009b). Occupational variable data definitions. Bureau of LaborStatistics database. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_nem_definitions.htm. Accessed 18 Dec2009.

United States Department of Labor. (2009c). Occupational employment, training, and earnings. Bureau ofLabor Statistics database. Environmental scientists and specialists, including health. Available at:http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes192041.htm. Accessed 18 Dec 2009.

United States Department of Labor. (2009d). Occupational employment, training, and earnings. Bureau ofLabor Statistics database. Environmental science and protection technicians, including health. Avail-able at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes194091.htm. Accessed 18 Dec 2009.

United States Global Change Research Program. (2009). Global climate change impacts in the UnitedStates. New York: Cambridge University Press.

University of California at Riverside. (2000). Graduate council report to the Riverside Division AcademicSenate, May 25. Available at: http://acadsen.ucr.edu/agenda/001107/MA-MS-disestab.pdf. Accessed 4April 2008.

University of Colorado at Boulder. (2009). History: A brief history of environmental studies at the Uni-versity of Colorado, Boulder. Available at: UCB, Environmental Studies Program, http://envs.colorado.edu/about/C114/History/. Accessed 13 Dec 2009.

University of Michigan. (2008). Logos for the School of Natural Resources and Environment. Available at:http://www.snre.umich.edu/newsroom/logos. Accessed 18 July 2008.

University of Vermont. (2004). Dean’s message: RSENR committed to evolutionary change, adaptation,and fitness. The Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources: News for our alumni andfriends, spring/summer. Available at: http://www.uvm.edu/envnr/news_events/alumnews/alumspring04.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2008.

University of Washington. (2008a). UW Regents approve proposed College of the Environment. June 12.Available at: http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=42460. Accessed 28 July 2008.

University of Washington. (2008b). UW College of the Environment. Available at: http://www.washington.edu/provost/print/CoEnvQandA_18oct07.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2008.

University of Washington. (2009). Message from the director. Available at: http://www.cfr.washington.edu/aboutTheSchool/msgDirector.shtml. Accessed: 30 Dec 2009.

Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390 389

123

University of Wisconsin. (2008). Wildlife ecology: University of Wisconsin. Available at:http://wildlife.wisc.edu/. Accessed 18 July 2008.

Vincent, S. (2009a). Growth in environmental studies and science programs, AESS Newsletter. Summer, 10,7–8.

Vincent, S. (2009b). Trends in environmental studies and science programs, AESS Newsletters, fall: 4–5.Wilent, S. (2008). WSU to eliminate forestry degree program’’. The Forestry Source, 13, 1–4.Wolberg, J., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of generation Y college students.

Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 33–52.Yale University. (2008). Yaleblog. Available at: http://environment.yale.edu/blog/. Accessed 18 July 2008.YouTube. (2009). YouTube community guidelines. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_

guidelines. Accessed 31 Dec 2009.

390 Policy Sci (2010) 43:365–390

123