https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/72d86279ee139cd4292b65c771ecf825.pdf 4824f6f15fad9962abda9b801e0c5221 PDF Text Text Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Marvin McDaniel, Chair • Carrie Besnette Hauser, Vice-Chair Marie Haskett, Secretary • Taishya Adams • Betsy Blecha • Charles Garcia • Dallas May • Duke Phillips, IV • Luke B. Schafer • James Jay Tutchton • Eden Vardy �Human Dimensions of Wildlife An International Journal ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20 Learning from hunter education volunteers’ experiences Michael R. Quartuch , William F. Siemer , Daniel J. Decker & Richard C. Stedman To cite this article: Michael R. Quartuch , William F. Siemer , Daniel J. Decker & Richard C. Stedman (2020): Learning from hunter education volunteers’ experiences, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2020.1788193 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1788193 Published online: 04 Jul 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhdw20 �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1788193 Learning from hunter education volunteers’ experiences Michael R. Quartucha,b, William F. Siemera, Daniel J. Deckera, and Richard C. Stedmana a Center for Conservation Social Sciences, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; bDepartment of Natural Resources, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Hunter education (HE) is offered in all 50 states, with oversight pro­ vided by state wildlife agencies (SWAs). The vast majority of HE courses are taught by volunteers. Recruiting and retaining volunteers to meet the demand for HE courses are growing concerns among SWAs. Insufficient information exists about volunteer instructors’ motiva­ tions, experiences, and satisfactions – all of which may affect recruit­ ment and retention. Using the volunteer process model as the theoretical framework for a mixed-methods study, 38 semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with current and former instructors in New York, followed by a mail survey administered to active instructors (n = 2,126). Findings indicated that volunteers are motivated to teach HE to sustain the tradition of hunting and create safe hunters. Those motivations, coupled with positive experiences teaching in teams, corresponded with instructor recruitment and longterm retention. Unclear roles, limited programmatic influence, and strained relationships were negatively associated with volunteer retention. Hunter education; volunteerism; volunteer process model; instructor; recruitment; retention Introduction Hunter education (HE) is offered in all 50 states in America and is overseen by state wildlife agencies (SWAs) that rely primarily on volunteer instructors. In New York, more than 2,000 volunteers taught approximately 1,500 HE courses in 2014. Meeting demand for HE courses is a growing concern, especially in suburban and urban areas (Kelly Stang, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [NYSDEC], personal communication). Despite the importance of HE volunteers, SWAs lack information about motivations, experiences, and barriers related to maintaining the volunteer base. We addressed this gap through a mixed-methods study of active and former volunteer instructors in New York. Scholars have identified several individual and group level attributes that help explain why people volunteer and why they continue to do so over time. These attributes, common to different kinds of volunteer activities and organizations, include intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, expectations about and satisfaction with one’s experience, relationships with volunteers or program staff, and attitudes toward the volunteer organization (Clary & Snyder, 1999; Garner & Garner, 2011). Despite the importance of these attributes to volunteer recruitment and retention, most HE research has focused on developing CONTACT Michael R. Quartuch Wildlife, Denver, CO, USA. © 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC mike.quartuch@state.co.us Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Parks and �2 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. curriculum materials, piloting online courses, or evaluating student outcomes (Hilaire et al., 1998). We are aware of only two studies focused on the motivations or satisfactions of HE instructors. Crume and Lang (1990) surveyed volunteer HE instructors in Kentucky and identified primary motives for volunteering including a desire to help others, prevent hunting accidents, and ensure the future of hunting. Courtney and Date (2014) evaluated Minnesota’s Firearms Safety Hunter Education program in 2013. They convened a sample of 44 HE instructors (from a pool of more than 4,000 instructors) to participate in a 90minute discussion meeting. Overall, these volunteers expressed an interest in “more varied ways of communicating with the department of natural resources” (DNR) and discontent with their relationships with DNR staff (p. 4). Given the importance of volunteers’ motiva­ tions, satisfaction with one’s experience, interpersonal relationships, and attitudes about the volunteer organization, we applied the volunteer process model to examine how these attributes are related to HE recruitment and retention. The Volunteer Process Model Snyder and Omoto (2008) presented the Volunteer Process Model (VPM) to answer questions about why people volunteer and continue doing so over time. Their model was organized into three sequential and interactive stages: antecedents, experiences, and con­ sequences. These stages specify distinct features that can be examined across different units of analysis. During the antecedent stage, individual-level attributes such as motivations and life circumstances predict why someone might begin volunteering. Scholars have drawn on different theoretical frameworks to understand volunteer motivations (Grimm & Needham, 2012). The functionalist approach focuses on the personal and social processes that initiate and sustain action over time (Clary & Snyder, 1999). A key tenet of this approach is that a given behavior may serve different psychological functions for different individuals (Houle et al., 2005). Clary and Snyder (1999) and Houle et al. (2005) identified six motives for volunteering: to express values, develop or practice skills, grow psychologically or boost self-esteem, enhance their careers, strengthen social relationships, and reduce negative feelings such as guilt or anxiety. Volunteer motivations are closely associated with satisfaction with volunteer experi­ ences. The more satisfied individuals are with their experiences (stage 2 of the VPM), the more likely they will continue volunteering (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). However, one of the keys to sustaining volunteer interest is the perception that one’s motivations to volunteer are being fulfilled (Davis et al., 2003). Crain, Omoto and Snyder (1995), and Clary et al. (1998) found that when volunteers’ motivations were realized, they were more satisfied with their experiences and held stronger intentions to continue volunteering (see Finkelstein, 2008 for additional support for this claim). Thus, “matching” specific volunteer motivations with specific volunteer experiences are more likely to result in satisfied and long-term volunteers (Clary & Snyder, 1999). The experience stage of the VPM focuses on interpersonal relationships among volun­ teers and with paid staff. Relationships can enhance or detract from volunteers’ experi­ ences and ultimately influence their decisions to continue or cease volunteering. Cyr and Dowrick (1991) study about retention of crisis line volunteers identified positive relation­ ships between volunteers and supervisory staff as contributing to satisfaction and �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 3 longevity. In contrast, poor relationships often result in volunteer attrition. According to Hustinx (2010), long-term “rank and file” volunteers were more likely to quit when they experienced issues with or received negative feedback from leaders. McLennan et al. (2008) reported similar findings for volunteer-based fire agencies in Australia; volunteers were likely to cease if they perceived poor leadership and negative relationships with paid staff. Some scholars have drawn from the extensive literature on employment satisfaction as the conceptual foundation for research on the satisfaction of volunteers. Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley (2001) reviewed 16 articles that identified five elements of volunteer job satisfaction including (a) communication quality (adequacy of information flow and clarity), (b) work assignment (tasks that challenge volunteers and make use of their skills), (c) participation efficacy (belief that one’s work is helping), (d) support (belief that the organization provides materials and emotional resources needed to do one’s job), and (e) group integration (social relationships provide rewarding experiences). Using these five elements, the authors devel­ oped an index to measure satisfaction among international nonprofit volunteers. Their findings revealed that two factors–participation efficacy and group integration–were most influential in respondents’ intention to continue volunteering. Over time, the attitudes and behaviors of volunteers may change. These changes, which occur during the consequences stage, are often the result of multiple factors, including motivations being realized, relationships with other volunteers and with paid staff, and perceptions about the organization (Crain et al., 1998; Hustinx, 2010; Snyder & Omoto, 2008). Volunteers who are satisfied with their experience may form positive attitudes about the volunteer organization. These individuals are more likely to continue volun­ teering with the same organization and are often willing to recruit new volunteers (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). Additionally, they often develop a deeper sense of community with those they serve and the role they serve becomes an important part of their identity (Snyder & Omoto, 2008). Research Questions We applied the VPM to HE volunteers to answer the following research questions: (a) why are volunteers motivated to teach HE and how are these motivations associated with volunteer recruitment and retention (RQ1), (b) how are social relationships related to HE volunteers’ experiences and retention (RQ2), and (c) how are volunteer HE instructors recruited and to what extent are attitudes about the HE program associated with volunteer retention (RQ3)? Methods We employed a mixed-methods approach to data collection (Johnson et al., 2007). A mixedmethods design allowed us to gather rich descriptive data about key concepts at a small scale via personal interviews and then systematically assess the importance of those concepts at a larger scale via a survey (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Specifically, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews with active and former HE instructors and then used these interview findings to develop a mail-back quantitative questionnaire in consultation with NYSDEC HE staff. �4 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. Sampling and Data Collection Qualitative Telephone Interviews with Current and Former Instructors We used a purposive sampling approach to reach a broad range of instructors (n = 38) and address issues associated with the transferability of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). We selected interviewees from NYSDEC Regional HE Coordinator databases, which identified demographic attributes (e.g., sex, date of birth) and other descriptive information (e.g., certification date, NYSDEC administrative region). Former instructors and former appren­ tice instructors were harder to identify, but we were able to select them based on sex, date of birth, region, and years inactive (when available). The final sample included 11 certified active instructors (CAIs), 10 Master Instructors (MIs), 10 former instructors (FIs), and 7 former apprentice instructors (FAIs) who did not become certified instructors. We developed two separate interview guides to target CAIs and MIs, and another for FIs and FAIs. We organized questions into three categories based on the VPM (i.e., antecedents, experiences, consequences) and questions about recruitment, previous volunteer experi­ ence, and acknowledgment of services (Table 1). The lead author conducted interviews by telephone from July to September 2015. Each was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Quantitative Instrument: Certified Active Instructors We implemented the questionnaire to gather data from all 2,126 currently certified HE instructors. As opposed to a probability-based sample, attempting to obtain input from all HE instructors provides all members of the target population the opportunity to share their perspectives on HE and would increase our ability to describe small subgroups within the HE population (e.g., urban or female instructors). We measured instructor motivations using 13 questionnaire items adapted from Clary et al. (1998) and Snyder and Omoto (2008). They represented three dimensions of potential HE instructor motivations: personal understanding, social relationships, and personal values. We also included five items specifically about HE and hunting, derived from inter­ view findings (e.g., “to teach others how to be safe hunters”). All items were measured on a 4-point scale from 1 (not at all important) to 4 (very important; Table 2). We assessed the instructors’ satisfaction using two questions. First, 15 items were used for measuring the four dimensions identified by Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley (2001; Table 3). Each was modified to include terms relevant to HE instructors. The second question was an Table 1. Modified Volunteer Process Model and corresponding organization of results section.* Antecedents Theme 1: Sharing values about hunting as a heritage promotes instructor recruitment and retention Theme 2: Improving instruction motivates volunteers Experiences Consequences Theme 3: Theme 5: Teaching teams are a double-edged Recruitment represents an sword organizational-level challenge Theme 4: Theme 6: Limited communication and limited Unclear roles and influence permeate instructors’ responsibilities creates experiences contention among volunteers *Adapted from Snyder and Omoto (2008) and modified to emphasize the first three levels of analysis. The fourth level of analysis representing “societal/cultural” attributes was excluded from this study, given our interest in understanding how volunteers’ perspectives about individual-, interpersonal-, and organizational-level attributes are associated with HE recruitment and retention. �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 5 Table 2. Volunteer HE instructors’ motivations to teach HE. Cronbach’s alpha Motivation Factor Concept/indicator Hunting education/tradition To teach others how to be safe hunters To maintain the tradition of hunting Contributing to wildlife management* Personal understanding To continue to learn about HE It lets me learn through direct, hands-on experience To continue to develop my skills as a hunter Interest in keeping the HE program going Social relationships Because the people closest to me volunteer Because the people I’m close to want me to volunteer Personal values Because of my personal values and convictions Because I enjoy helping other people I feel an obligation to help others Because I enjoy teaching HE Ma 3.81 3.97 3.89 3.58 3.12 3.13 3.01 2.78 3.59 1.89 1.95 1.83 3.52 3.78 3.58 3.29 3.43 SD 0.30 0.21 0.37 0.67 0.80 0.89 0.98 1.08 0.68 0.90 1.05 1.02 0.50 0.51 0.64 0.86 0.78 .47 .79 .65 .68 a 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, and 4 = very important. *Item removed due to cross-loading. Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted =.43. Table 3. Instructors’ satisfaction with the HE program. Cronbach’s alpha Satisfaction factor Concept/indicator Organizational support (NYSDEC) The support I receive from DEC HE staff My relationship with DEC HE staff How often DEC HE staff acknowledge the work I do The frequency with which I’m provided feedback The amount of time spent with DEC staff The opportunities I have to learn new things about HE Participation efficacy The difference my volunteer work is making My ability to do this job well My relationship with instructors on my team The chance I have to utilize my knowledge/skills Group integration My ability to get educational materials The quality of education materials provided to instructors My relationships with instructors outside my teamb Empowerment Freedom to decide how to carry out my assignment(s) My freedom to teach HE how I choose Ma 3.90 4.40 4.27 3.71 3.68 3.70 4.04 4.20 4.53 4.60 4.75 4.51 4.30 4.10 4.07 4.15 4.30 4.33 4.18 SD 0.80 0.93 1.00 1.19 1.08 1.06 0.94 0.60 0.74 0.67 0.60 0.77 0.50 1.11 1.10 0.92 0.70 0.95 1.06 .87 .73 .72 .78 a 1 = very dissatisfied, 2, somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = neither, 4 = somewhat satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. *Item removed due to cross-loading. Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted =.79. overall measure of satisfaction (i.e., “how satisfied are you with your volunteer experience”). Both were measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). We implemented our mail-back questionnaire with all CAIs who taught firearm or bowhunter education courses. One hundred HE instructors were removed from our sample due to incomplete information (e.g., contact information, certification date, age). We also removed the 21 CAIs and MIs who participated in the qualitative interviews. The ques­ tionnaire was distributed in March 2016 and followed a modified tailored design method (Dillman et al., 2014). Volunteers received an invitation letter and a hardcopy �6 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. questionnaire. A reminder postcard was mailed to all non-respondents one week later, followed by a second questionnaire two weeks after the postcard. A final reminder was mailed one week after that. To assess potential nonresponse bias (Stedman et al., 2019), staff from the Survey Research Institute contacted a random sample of 400 non-respondents to complete 100 nonresponse interviews. Interviewees were asked a subset of questions to determine if they differed substantially from respondents on some key variables. Only one individual refused to participate and two were too ill to respond. Some remaining indivi­ duals could not be reached or had telephone numbers that were no longer in service. Analysis We used NVivo 11 to store interview data and assist with coding and sorting. Interview notes and transcripts were analyzed using a three-step process that included both inductive and deductive analyses. First, we created broad codes informed a priori by our theoretical framework (i.e., antecedents, experiences, consequences; Stuckey, 2015). Next, we popu­ lated each of the broad codes with interviewee statements describing related concepts or topics within them (Crabtree & Miller, 1992). We then identified patterns across statements within each emergent code and used these to develop “themes.” The lead author frequently asked clarifying questions during the interview to verify the credibility of interviewee statements and we used peer debriefing to increase confirmability and dependability of findings (Spillett, 2003). The research team met regularly to review interview notes, initial codes, subsequent coding decisions, and inductive themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Doing so resulted in the confirmation or disconfirmation of various codes and theme labels. Descriptive statistics from the questionnaires completed by the CAIs were conducted and independent-samples t-tests and chi-square tests were used for examining potential differences between respondents and non-respondents. We conducted principal compo­ nent analysis (PCA), with varimax rotation for both motivation and satisfaction items. Doing so allowed us to identify the underlying dimensional structure of theoretical con­ structs. All analyses of the questionnaire data were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS version 23). Results Of the 2,126 questionnaires mailed to CAIs, 1,394 were completed and returned resulting in a 65% response rate. After removing 61 undeliverable instruments – leaving 1,365 usable responses – our cooperation rate was 68%. We detected statistically significant differences between respondents and non-respondents for three out of nine variables at the p <.05 level. Non-respondents were, on average, four years older than respondents and they were first certified to teach HE three years later than respondents. Additionally, fewer nonrespondents agreed that they had enough opportunity to provide feedback to NYSDEC. However, Cohen’s effect size values for age (d = .31), year certified (d = .21), and oppor­ tunity to provide feedback (d = .29) indicated a “minimal” strength of association (Vaske, 2019). Therefore, the dataset was not weighted to adjust for non-response. Nearly all survey respondents (95%) self-identified as White/Caucasian and male (96%), with a mean age of 62 years. More than 40% were 65 or older. For comparison, approxi­ mately 23% of all volunteers in the U.S. are between 65 and older (Bureau of Labor Statistics, �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 7 2015). On average, respondents had been certified to teach HE in New York State for about 19 years. Slightly more than half (53%) taught one or two courses per year, about 15% taught three courses, and nearly one-third (32%) taught four or more courses per year. The majority of courses were offered in suburban and rural areas of New York. Far fewer respondents lived and taught HE courses on Long Island or in New York City. The PCA revealed a four-factor solution for motivation items, accounting for approxi­ mately 64% of the cumulative variance in instructor motivations. Three of the four factors representing personal understanding, social relationships, and personal values mirrored those described by Clary et al. (1998) and Snyder and Omoto (2008; Table 2). However, two of the five HE-specific items derived from qualitative interviews with instructors loaded on other dimensions. Specifically, the item “Interest in keeping the HE program going” loaded on the personal understanding dimension and the other item, “Because I enjoy teaching,” loaded on the personal values dimension. The fourth dimension included the three remain­ ing HE items, one of which was removed due to cross-loading (Table 2). Results from the second PCA of satisfaction items initially revealed a three-factor solution based on eigenvalues greater than 1. However, a four-factor solution that accounted for 66% of the total variance in instructor satisfaction was retained because it made the most intuitive sense and was the best fit to these data. The first factor included items primarily from Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley (2001) group integration and organiza­ tional support dimensions. Specifically, it included items about relationships with and support from NYSDEC staff (Table 3). The second factor included items spanning partici­ pation efficacy (e.g., “my ability to do this job well”) and group integration (e.g., “my relationships with instructors on my team”) dimensions. The third factor was comprised of items representing external attributes (e.g., “my ability to access educational materials”), and the fourth included two items related to personal volition and empowerment (e.g., “my freedom to teach how I choose”). The remainder of this results section includes both qualitative and quantitative findings organized by VPM stages and the research question associated with each (i.e., antecedents stage [RQ1], experiences stage [RQ2], and consequences stage [RQ3], Table 1). We used a coding scheme (e.g., “R1,” “R2,” “R3,” etc.) to distinguish between respondent statements. Antecedents (Theme 1): Sharing Values about Hunting as a Heritage Promotes Instructor Recruitment and Retention Interview findings supported the idea that motivations were associated with volunteer recruitment and long-term retention. Specifically, a desire to sustain the tradition of hunting and create safe hunters manifested as two primary motivations: (a) to pass on knowledge about hunting, and (b) firearm safety. Explanations about why instructors volunteer with the HE program were often framed within the context of why hunting was important to the interviewee. Nearly all instructors were hunters and they believed that by sharing their experiences with the next generation of potential hunters, they were passing on their values and knowledge about something they cared about deeply. Often, they emphasized passing on knowledge specifically to children: R1 . . . it was most rewarding for me just to know that I was part of keeping a heritage going in New York State by educating people how to go about it the right way. �8 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. R2 I want the kids to learn their responsibilities with the different . . . guns, bows. . . . It’s part of our heritage. R3 Kids that age like 10, 11 years old, I think that’s where you really got to grab them . . . Knowledge sharing reinforced instructors’ beliefs that they were helping to stem declining numbers of both hunters and HE instructors, and gave volunteers a sense of responsibility to teach HE: R4 There’s less and less people getting into hunting . . . I think it’s important . . . for people to keep wanting to teach because as long as there’s still some people getting into it they’re going to need classes. Findings from the CAI questionnaires also indicated that sharing values about hunting as a heritage and sharing knowledge about safety promoted recruitment and retention of HE instructors. Results highlighted the importance of both hunting heritage (M = 3.8 on the 4-point scale) and public-service values (M = 3.5, Table 2). The top three motivations were (a) teaching others how to be safe hunters, (b) maintaining the tradition of hunting, and (c) personal values, convictions, and beliefs. Less important motivations included increasing personal understanding of hunting (M = 3.1) and maintaining social relation­ ships (M = 1.8). Antecedents (Theme 2): Improving Instruction Promotes Recruitment and Retention The topic of poor instruction permeated discussions about HE. This topic was often framed within the context of interviewees’ experiences as HE students, trainees, or observations when volunteering with other teams. Poor instructors were often described as older, more senior volunteers who had been teaching HE for many years. These instructors were characterized as using outmoded teaching methods or told “stories” about their own hunting experiences rather than teaching course material: R5 I think some of the instructors who instructed us did need a training themselves . . . They won’t give anybody a chance to talk . . . but these are the old timers teaching so what are you going to do? R6 Older instructors still want to do it the old way and they like storytelling . . . and I keep telling them it’s not a storytelling session, you’re supposed to teach this material. Poor instructors were often described by interviewees as “boring” and unable to connect with students. Such instruction was viewed as a disservice to potential hunters and a direct threat to hunting heritage and hunter safety. Many interviewees believed they could do a better job of teaching HE than other current instructors, and poor instruction thus served as a motivation to start and continue teaching HE: R4 There are some really great [instructors] out there and there’s some others that really just should not be speaking in front of groups of people . . . my perhaps underlying motivation was like ‘well geez is this guy going to get up there and just babble for 8 hours? I can get up there and teach a class that people will actually go away with some information’. R7 The gentleman that I was going through it with . . . he’s so set in his ways that, like I said [used] the 1970’s flipchart and . . . as I look around the room I see kids doing the head nod[i.e., falling asleep]. �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 9 Experiences (Theme 3): Teaching Teams are a Double-Edged Sword Teaching teams can be positively or negatively associated with volunteers’ experiences with the HE program. Both active and former instructors often described the rewarding aspects of being a valued member of a teaching team. These experiences contributed to the overall satisfaction and longevity of volunteers: R8 it was a brotherhood . . . it was a heritage and a brotherhood. I loved it, I really did. R9 You get to know the people and you know if somebody’s not there you know what their part of the program is and you can pick it up for them . . . So working with the same group, I think it works out a lot better that way. R10 It was nice to see . . . everybody’s specialty . . . you always had somebody that was there to help you out as well. It was never a case of you kind of stand up in front of a class . . . with no safety net. Although working with a team of other instructors was consistently mentioned as a rewarding aspect of the volunteer HE experience, several interviewees found it difficult to join a teaching team. This was an important barrier to some apprentice instructors; those without a preexisting HE social network found it hard to connect to an existing instructor team. Lack of assistance from program staff and MIs was identified as a bottleneck that prevented unaffiliated newcomers from integrating into teaching teams: R11 I felt like I really had to make the effort myself . . . It took me forever just to get hooked up with a master instructor. I finally ended up sending enough emails and being enough of a pain in the ass to hook up with somebody . . . when you’re out there with your hand up saying ‘hey call me and . . . who’s my master instructor and what do I do next?’ and you don’t get any response . . . in my experience as an apprentice it was a lot more up to me than I thought that it really needed to be. R12 Well the master instructor I was supposed to be under never got a hold of me, we never got classes going, I mean it just never went anywhere . . . I’m only going to reach out just so many times before I say ‘forget it’. Quantitative findings also highlighted the importance of teaching teams. Almost all CAIs (90%) reported that they taught HE courses with the same team of instructors every year. On average, HE instructors had been working within the same team for 11 years. We measured instructors’ satisfaction with integration into their teams and the HE program (Table 3). Most (82%) were very satisfied with their relationships with instructors on their team. Certified instructors were more satisfied with their relationships with instructors on their teaching team than they were with any other aspect of their volunteer experience. Slightly more than half (57%) were very satisfied with their relationship with NYSDEC HE staff; fewer (46%) were very satisfied with instructors on other teams. Only 29% were very satisfied with the amount of time they spend with NYSDEC HE staff. Experiences (Theme 4): Limited Communication and Influence Permeate Instructors’ Experiences Many interviewees described having very limited to no interaction with agency HE staff. Others described a “strained” relationship with HE staff and struggles to obtain course �10 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. materials from the staff. In many instances, interviewees suggested that HE staff, although well intentioned, had too many competing demands on their time or simply were not interested in HE: R13 Actually they’re . . . really a non-entity, you really don’t even know they’re there. R14 I guess my feeling is that ‘yeah it’s strained’. My relationship as [an] instructor with the DEC is strained and I think that goes without saying across the board. R15 He was a DEC employee full time, but when we talked to him he was like ‘you know what, I’m a wildlife biologist’ . . . and so it’s always kind of like the hunter safety part of it was a second thought or an added responsibility onto somebody else’s plate. Many instructors believed their opinions about teaching HE were not taken seriously by NYSDEC HE staff. This sentiment was attributed to the hierarchical structure within the HE program, as certified instructors believed they were the lowest rung on the ladder, with Master instructors above them, and NYSDEC HE Coordinators/staff at the top. Given this, CAIs felt limited in their ability to share directly with NYSDEC HE staff: R16 Some of the staff is absolutely incredible and then you’ve got other members of the staff that myself and several other instructors feel like . . . we’re taken for granted like hey yeah, you’re an instructor, so what. R13 I realize that I’m nobody right, I’m just a lousy little instructor, I’m not a master instructor, I’m not a coordinator, I’m not anything other than a card-carrying member of this organization. Survey respondents revealed similar sentiments. Two-thirds (67%) strongly agreed with the statement “input from instructors [to agency HE Coordinators] would lead to a better HE program,” but only about 60% indicated feeling comfortable expressing their opinions about the HE program. In contrast, only one-third (33%) strongly agreed that their “input is taken seriously by NYSDEC HE staff” and that they have enough opportunities to provide input about HE to NYSDEC staff (30%). Consequences (Theme 5): Recruitment Represents an Organizational-Level Challenge Interviews revealed that both CAIs and MIs were doing most of the new volunteer recruit­ ment. Although nearly all interviewees agreed that the NYSDEC was not actively recruiting volunteers, many believed that instructors were well-positioned to do so. These individuals accepted the responsibility (willingly or by default), but their efforts to recruit new volun­ teers often were limited to making an announcement prior to the start of class. The problem with this approach is that most of the students in HE courses are children who, by the time they are eligible to become certified instructors, have already forgotten about this opportunity: R17 I think that they [i.e., NYSDEC HE staff] just hope that their own instructors will pull people in . . . I don’t remember it even being mentioned in training at all . . . I always had copies of the application . . . Now I know . . . 99 times out of 100, yep it goes home, sits on the counter, goes in the trash eventually. And that’s more of how the instructors do it I think. Or that’s how I used to anyway. �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 11 Results from the questionnaires completed by CAIs indicated that three-quarters (74%) were encouraged to teach HE by other certified instructors. More than half (57%) were positively influenced by close friends and approximately half (52%) indicated being encour­ aged to volunteer by MIs. Fewer than one-third (31%) indicated being influenced to teach HE by NYSDEC HE staff. Consequences (Theme 6): Unclear Roles and Responsibilities Creates Contention Many interviewees were confused about the roles and responsibilities of MIs. Prior to becoming a MI, one volunteer asked a regional coordinator for a job description, but found out that they “didn’t have one fully developed.” This individual learned what is required of MIs “on the job.” These experiences were not universal, as another MI from a different region indicated that he had received a job description and knew what was required of him prior to accepting the position. The ambiguity, however, surrounding the role of MIs is reflected below: R18 I probably haven’t been that good at fulfilling the part of the master instructor. It’s more of a title or whatever. Lack of clarity in the role of MI led to confusion and animosity. One area of contention involved the requirement that MIs attend and evaluate at least one HE course per year. Several active and former instructors believed this requirement led MIs to believe that they were “better” or “more important” than other HE volunteers. A few MIs acknowledged this requirement, but chose not to attend other courses for various reasons (e.g., to avoid potential confrontation with other volunteers). In some cases, it was unclear to MIs whether they should attend other instructors’ courses. Others were actively discouraged from doing so by regional coordinators (NYSDEC staff): R19 You can sit in on a class and you can either tell them you’re coming or you don’t have to, but it’s up to you.’ He says ‘you don’t want to make anybody angry’ . . . So you’ve got to be careful how you play that. R20 . . . I almost stopped because my coordinator said ‘hey you went up to this one guy’s class . . . he said that you walked into his class and you know he wants to know why you’re there.’ And I said well if I have to explain that to you then our conversation is completely over right now. So it didn’t go too well with me anyway . . . I was a little turned off at that. Many active and former instructors expressed animosity toward MIs who were not part of their own teaching team. One former instructor described a negative encounter with a MI that resulted in his withdrawal from the program after more than 20 years of service: R8 . . . they have master instructors that could come and pop up on your class when they really feel like it, which is cool by me but he tried to manage me one time and then he was getting ‘out of hand’ . . . When you reprimand somebody you do it in private, you don’t do it in the crowd . . . The guy was trying to embarrass me in front of students . . . some of them . . . think they’re almighty God, they think they’re better than you because they’re your boss. The majority of MIs who attended and evaluated HE courses experienced at least one situation where they were not welcome or were openly harassed by other volunteers for doing so. Another MI verified and agreed with the negative stereotype associated with MIs: �12 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. R14 I said ‘yeah I’m a master instructor . . . and he’s like ‘oh I wish somebody had told me there was a master instructor here ‘cause I wouldn’t have come because you guys are all a bunch of jerks’ and I . . . knew partly . . . that the coordinators in a lot of regions also thought the master instructors were jerks because it was kind of like this status symbol that people wanted and they wanted a patch for their sleeve . . . most of them voice their opinion that we should change it from master instructor to instructor trainer or something like that and something less godly or kingly . . . Discussion Motivations for Volunteering New York volunteer HE instructors are a dedicated group of people who are concerned about the future of hunting. They spend many hours teaching HE and most have done so for many years. Using the VPM as our theoretical framework, we were able to illustrate the importance of motivations for recruiting and retaining volunteers, the degree that interpersonal relationships produced both positive and negative experiences for HE instructors, and how recruiting and retaining volunteers represents an organizational challenge. Volunteers’ desire to share their values with the next generation of hunters is important to recruiting and retaining them as HE instructors. Instructor values manifested through their interest in passing on knowledge about firearm safety and passion for helping to stem declines in the numbers of hunters and HE instructors. This finding builds on previous research with HE instructors highlighting the importance of specific motivations (Crume & Lang, 1990). Initial motives to teach HE help get people in the door, but the extent that “values” motivations are realized during volunteers’ experience helps sustain them (Finkelstein, 2008). SWA HE coordinators can use knowledge about instructor motivations to match them to the types of experiences and tasks that volunteers prefer. Doing so will help maintain volunteer interest and long-term retention (Clary et al., 1998; Finkelstein, 2008). For example, HE instructors can feel confident that they are contributing to hunter safety and helping to sustain a hunting heritage by learning about, or in some cases, continuing to learn about, the low number of hunting accidents per year or the number of students who passed HE courses and went hunting each year. These data illustrate the impact that HE volunteers are making and may lead to more satisfied volunteers and decreased attrition. Evaluation for Program Improvement Concerns about poor instruction motivated HE volunteers but raised questions about program evaluation. How are instructors evaluated, who is doing so, and how effective is the evaluation? The current framework for HE course evaluation established a hierarchy of instructors, causing CAIs to feel subordinate to or less important than MIs, creating an “us versus them” schism, potentially leading to attrition. Hustinx (2010) found that long-term volunteers were more likely to stop providing services when they were dissatisfied with the structure of the organization. This situation also represents a conundrum where CAIs �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 13 acknowledged the need for instructor evaluation and oversight, but also desired flexibility and resented MI evaluation. Alternative evaluation tools could help. For example, teaching evaluations, pre- and poststudent satisfaction questionnaires, or follow-up interviews could be conducted. We recom­ mend that evaluative tools be informed by HE instructors. Including instructors’ perspec­ tives into the evaluation or planning processes is more likely to result in greater support for and acceptance of such changes (Hall et al., 2016). Relationships Affect Experiences and Retention Results from our study reveal how relationships with other volunteers and with paid HE staff can have both positive and negative effects on volunteers’ experiences and long-term retention. Teaching teams are the fundamental mechanism for organizing volunteer instructors and delivering the HE program. Rewards associated with being a valued member of a teaching team foster dedication that results in instructors serving together for many years. Overall, instructors were more satisfied working with members of their teaching team than with any other aspect of the HE program. This finding: (a) illustrates how strong ties among instructor teams contribute to positive volunteer experiences, satisfaction, and longevity; and (b) supports findings from past research on volunteers (Clary et al., 1998; Finkelstein, 2008; Hustinx, 2010). Teaching teams represent personal networks. The similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971) posits that individuals are more likely to create communication ties (i.e., personal networks) with others who they believe to hold similar attitudes and values. Sherif (1958) argued that people form bonds with others they deem to be similar because this reduces areas of potential conflict in relationships. Consequently, teaching teams are a strength of the system. At the same time, tight personal networks of highly similar individuals can also take on the qualities of social cliques. In the context of an HE instructor system, such cliques might become territorial or exclusionary, effectively serving as gatekeepers preventing recruitment of a more heterogeneous volunteer base, especially from under­ served audiences. Traits among these current volunteer HE instructors – white, older men from upstate New York – may perpetuate lack of diversity. Additionally, these individuals typically offer courses in rural areas of the state and may not reach nontraditional-path hunters in New York (Quartuch et al., 2017). Given that new instructors are recruited through volunteers, a consequence of the team approach is the recruitment of new volunteers with the same demographic characteristics as current HE instructors. The manner in which recruitment is taking place has prompted NYSDEC HE staff to actively intervene to achieve a more diverse instructor pool. Findings from our study prompted program administrators in NYSDEC to advertise for volunteer instructors in new ways (e.g., social media, through partner organizations) to actively recruit a new cadre of instructors to teach hunter education courses (Kelly Stang, NYSDEC, personal communication). It is too soon to evaluate the impact of those recruitment efforts, but results from our study could be used for identifying metrics for measuring how instruc­ tors were recruited, by whom, why they are motivated to teach HE, how they prefer to �14 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. communicate with DEC HE staff, and other sociodemographic characteristics of new recruits. The Importance of Communication Volunteers sought more frequent and more substantive interactions with NYSDEC HE staff. We found that HE instructors were comfortable sharing their perspectives with NYSDEC staff, but few believed they had enough opportunities to do so or that their feedback was taken seriously. Volunteers generally perceived that HE staff were unavail­ able or “too busy” with other responsibilities to listen to them, leading to them feeling unable to influence the HE program. The communication challenges that we found between HE instructors and HE program administrators are similar to those found by Courtney and Date (2014) among those involved in Minnesota’s hunter safety program. When volunteers believe their opinions are not valued, they are less likely to continue (Pearce, 1983; Wharton, 1991). Additionally, when volunteers do not have the opportu­ nity to voice their dissatisfaction, they often stop volunteering (Garner & Garner, 2011). One approach that may prove valuable to HE staff and instructors would be to develop a communication framework promoting substantive dialogue and two-way information flow (Stern & Dietz, 2008). Doing so would provide volunteers with a mechanism to share and receive feedback about their specific experiences or the HE program generally. It may also help to identify issues between CAIs and MIs. Additional research is needed to determine a suitable platform for consistent communication between volunteers and HE staff. Our study had some limitations. In many ways, we were restricted to examining instructor motivations, experiences, and attitudes among primarily active volunteers. It was difficult identifying lapsed volunteers with updated contact information due to incon­ sistent monitoring (or tracking) by program coordinators, and it was equally challenging finding lapsed volunteers who were willing to participate in our study. It is reasonable to believe that current and former instructors differ in important ways. Additional research on lapsed instructors would lead to better understanding of the reasons why instructors stop participating and may highlight additional opportunities for HE staff to improve volunteer experiences. It is important to note that limits on resources and questionnaire length prevented us from exploring all dimensions of the VPM. The VPM is multi-faceted and could be used for targeting different units of analysis. For example, future investigations using organizations (i.e., SWAs) and HE students as the units of analysis would be useful. The former would provide an opportunity to explore relationships between staff and volunteers, and help identify effective ways for these two groups to communicate. The latter would help HE staff evaluate the efficacy of instructors. Additionally, improvements in coding qualitative data – including the use of a robust inter-rater reliability approach – could help to increase the generalizability of findings. Conclusion Our study sought an understanding about why people volunteer to be HE instructors and what factors are associated with their continued engagement as volunteers in the NYSDEC �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 15 HE program. Using the VPM as a framework for our inquiry, findings about volunteer HE instructors in New York were largely consistent with the literature on volunteerism, including extant general recommendations for volunteer retention and satisfaction. However, context-specific details emerged in our study that can guide NYSDEC toward high-priority actions and may be applicable to HE programs in other states. Specifically, our study suggested that agencies could pay particular attention to (a) recruitment of instructors (e.g., having effective methods of recruitment, especially for diversification of recruits to respond to or enhance the diversity of the hunter population), (b) clarity of role expecta­ tions (e.g., avoid confusion about roles of and relationships among different positions in the HE instructor system), (c) communication effectiveness (e.g., adequacy of communication and interactions among volunteer instructors and between them and agency staff), and (d) increasing instruction excellence (e.g., emphasizing more comprehensive evaluation of instruction practice in the field). Each of these four areas could be the subject of in-depth follow-up inquiry and program attention. Recognizing that our study was limited to the HE program in New York, it might be thought of as a pilot for future research that could be broadened in scope to more regional or national levels. Funding This work was supported by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant W-125-S. References Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Monthly labor statistics 2015 https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/ home.htm Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press. Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156–159. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1467-8721.00037 Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6. 1516 Courtney, A., & Date, A. (2014). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Firearms Safety Hunter Education program evaluation report. Division of Operations Services, Department of Natural Resources. Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doing qualitative research. Sage. Crain, A. L., Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1998). What if you can’t always get what you want? Testing a functional approach to volunteerism [Paper presentation]. Annual Meetings of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage. Crume, C. T., Jr., & Lang, M. (1990). A study of Kentucky volunteer hunter education instructor perceptions: Positive and negative motivators. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Educational Resources Center ED 376 995. Cyr, C., & Dowrick, P. W. (1991). Burnout in crisisline volunteers. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 18(5), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00707000 Davis, M. H., Hall, J. A., & Meyer, M. (2003). The first year: Influences on the satisfaction, involve­ ment, and persistence of new community volunteers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (2), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202239050 �16 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley. Finkelstein, M. A. (2008). Volunteer satisfaction and volunteer action: A functional approach. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.1.9 Galindo-Kuhn, R., & Guzley, R. M. (2001). The volunteer satisfaction index: Construct definition, measurement, development, and validation. Journal of Social Service Research, 28(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v28n01_03 Garner, J. T., & Garner, L. T. (2011). Volunteering an opinion: Organizational voice and volunteer retention in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010366181 Grimm, K. E., & Needham, M. D. (2012). Moving beyond the “I” in motivations: Attributes and perceptions of conservation volunteer tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 488–501. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0047287511418367 Hall, D. M., Glibertz, S. J., Anderson, M., & Ward, L. (2016). Beyond “buy-in”: Designing citizen participation in water planning as research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 725–734. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.170 Hilaire, L. J., Benson, D. E., & Burnham, K. P. (1998). Evaluation of home-study versus teacher-taught hunter education: Expanding learning opportunities. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(1), 56–67. DOI: 10.2307/3783802 Houle, B. J., Sagarin, B. J., & Kaplan, M. F. (2005). A functional approach to volunteerism: Do volunteer motives predict task preference? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 334–337. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2704_6 Hustinx, L. (2010). I quit, therefore I am: Volunteer turnover and the politics of self-actualization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 236–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0899764008328183 Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1558689806298224 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, (1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ev.1427 McLennan, J., Birch, A., Cowlishaw, S., & Hayes, P. (2008). I quit! Leadership and satisfaction with the volunteer role: Resignations and organizational responses [Paper presentation]. Australian Psychological Society Annual Conference, Hobart, Australia. Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.671 Pearce, J. L. (1983). Job attitude and motivation differences between volunteers and employees from comparable organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 646–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.68.4.646 Quartuch, M. R., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., Siemer, W. F., Baumer, M. S., & Larson, L. R. (2017). Exploring non-traditional pathways into hunting in New York: Implications for recruitment and retention. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22(5), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017. 1334247 Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflicts. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1086/222258 Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2008). Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409. 2008.00009.x Spillett, M. A. (2003). Peer debriefing: Who, what, when, why, how. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7 (3), 36–40. Stedman, R. C., Connelly, N. A., Heberlein, T. A., Decker, D. J., & Allred, S. B. (2019). The end of the (research) world as we know it? Understanding and coping with declining response rates to mail �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 17 surveys. Society and Natural Resources, 32(10), 1139–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019. 1587127 Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press. Stuckey, H. L. (2015). The second step in data analysis: Coding qualitative research data. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 3(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-0656.140875 Vaske, J. J. (2019). Survey research and analysis (2nd Ed.). Sagamore-Venture. Wharton, C. S. (1991). Why can’t we be friends? Expectations versus experiences in the volunteer role. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20(1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 089124191020001004 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Journal Articles Description An account of the resource CPW peer-reviewed journal publications Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Learning from hunter education volunteers’ experiences Description An account of the resource <span>Hunter education (HE) is offered in all 50 states, with oversight provided by state wildlife agencies (SWAs). The vast majority of HE courses are taught by volunteers. Recruiting and retaining volunteers to meet the demand for HE courses are growing concerns among SWAs. Insufficient information exists about volunteer instructors’ motivations, experiences, and satisfactions – all of which may affect recruitment and retention. Using the volunteer process model as the theoretical framework for a mixed-methods study, 38 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with current and former instructors in New York, followed by a mail survey administered to active instructors (</span><i>n</i><span> = 2,126). Findings indicated that volunteers are motivated to teach HE to sustain the tradition of hunting and create safe hunters. Those motivations, coupled with positive experiences teaching in teams, corresponded with instructor recruitment and long-term retention. Unclear roles, limited programmatic influence, and strained relationships were negatively associated with volunteer retention.</span> Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1788193" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1788193</a> Subject The topic of the resource Hunter education Volunteerism Volunteer process model Instructor Recruitment Retention Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2020-07-04 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Quartuch, Michael R. Siemer, William F. Decker, Daniel J. Stedman, Richard C. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 17 pages Type The nature or genre of the resource Article