Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
TYPE Brief Research Report
PUBLISHED 07 February 2023
DOI 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Amy May,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, United States
REVIEWED BY
Breeanne Jackson,
University of California, Merced, United States
Jennifer M. Gee,
University of California, Riverside, United States
*CORRESPONDENCE
Robin Verble
verbler@mst.edu
†These authors have contributed equally to this
work and share first authorship
‡These authors have contributed equally to this
work and share senior authorship
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Science and Environmental Communication,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Communication
RECEIVED 17 August 2022
ACCEPTED 23 January 2023
PUBLISHED 07 February 2023
CITATION
Ragland M, Harrell J, Ripper M, Pearson S,
Granberg R and Verble R (2023) Gender, sexual
orientation, ethnicity and socioeconomic
factors influence how wildland firefighters
communicate their work experiences.
Front. Commun. 8:1021914.
doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
COPYRIGHT
©2023 Ragland, Harrell, Ripper, Pearson,
Granberg and Verble. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
Gender, sexual orientation,
ethnicity and socioeconomic
factors influence how wildland
firefighters communicate their
work experiences
Miranda Ragland1†, Jennifer Harrell1† , Molly Ripper1, Seth Pearson2,
Rachel Granberg3‡ and Robin Verble1*‡
1Department of Biological Sciences, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, United States,
2United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rolla, MO, United States, 3United States Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, Halfway, OR, United States
As climates change, natural resource professionals are often working on the frontlines
of intensifying environmental disasters, acting in both scientific and emergency
response roles. One subset of this group, wildland firefighters often engage in
multifaceted careers that incorporate elements of resource planning, conservation
management, community disaster relief, and operational management. Despite these
STEM roles and nearly half (48%) of them having earned at least a bachelor’s
degree, usually in a STEM field, wildland firefighters are almost exclusively lumped
with emergency responders in the scientific literature. We surveyed 708 wildland
firefighters with 9 open response questions as part of a larger survey asking
about experiences and attitudes in the United States federal workplace. From their
responses and voluntarily provided demographic data, we extracted information
about response length, use of hedges, tag questions and imperatives, use of personal
language, use of expletives and derogatory language, use of apologetic language, and
the types of responses provided. We then analyzed whether certain demographic
and socioeconomic factors were statistical predictors of language use in wildland
firefighter survey responses with the goal of ultimately providing a framework
for dierentiating and identifying factors that may influence employee retention,
attitudes, morale, and experiences among wildland firefighter sub-demographics.
We found that dierent demographic groups varied in their responses to questions:
Minority groups used fewer words and were more likely to relate personal experiences
than majority groups.
KEYWORDS
wildfire, workplace behavior, natural resources, mental health–related quality of life,
qualitative survey data, work-life balance, language use and attitudes, environmental health
Introduction
Natural resources managers are STEM professionals who work at the intersection of
conservation science and environmental planning. In a rapidly changing world, environmental
planning now must consider intensifying and more frequent natural disasters such as wildfires,
floods, and hurricanes (Wotton et al., 2017). Wildland firefighting activities often draw from a
wide pool of STEM-based disciplines, including fire ecology, fuels management, fire planning,
and forestry to meet the suppression needs that are incurred annually, particularly in the
western United States. These professionals are often not considered in studies of STEM
populations due to the interdisciplinary and multifaceted nature of their work, despite being
Frontiers in Communication 01 frontiersin.org
Ragland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
academically trained in environmental, biological, geology, natural
resources, and other STEM disciplines; historically, wildland
firefighters have been exclusively considered in emergency
management literature, neglecting to account for the important
scientific cultural, occupational, and interpersonal components that
may influence the career environment.
Working environment, workplace stress, and workplace
homogeneity has the potential to marginalize the voices and needs
of minority groups, such as women, BIPOC (Black Indigenous and
persons of color), and members of the LGBTQ+community.
Diversity in this context may influence the experiences of
these individuals through a variety of mechanisms including
prejudice, stereotyping, outgroup derogation, workplace harassment,
marginalization, and others. Very limited research exists that
contextualizes wildland firefighters but work on female firefighters in
Canada shows that “othering” through discrimination and hostility
played a key role in women’s experiences in the career (Gouliquer
et al., 2020). Likewise, few studies directly examine the ways in which
these stressors may differentially impact minority and marginalized
wildland firefighters. Those that do report trends in experience
rather than context: A quantitative survey of wildland firefighter
experiences observed significantly higher rates of reported injury
in BIPOC wildland firefighters than white wildland firefighters
(Wildland Fire Survey, 2022). Similarly, Loomis and Richardson
(1998) found occupational fatality of Black workers was 1.3–1.5
times higher than that of white workers, and Pratt et al. (1992) found
that Black women were more likely to be injured than white women
while working in agriculture settings.
In other sectors of the workforce with similar workplace
characteristics, researchers have found marginalization to be a key
factor influencing minority experiences. A recent study at NASA
found that stochastic team-based work environments (in contrast
to stable unit-based work environments) resulted in increased
marginalization of LGBTQ professionals: They report less inclusive
and respectful attitudes from colleagues in these environments, and
decreased opportunities for community-building (McDermott, 2019;
Cech and Waidzunas, 2022). Many wildland firefighters currently
work in teams that assemble seasonally and often need to rapidly
restructure and reorganize during a wildfire based on complex and
rapidly evolving conditions, thus creating an analogous situation
to the NASA team-based environment. A non-fire study of Black
women found that workplace marginalization resulted in increased
stress-related illness, less interest in high quality performance, job
attrition, and overall decreased job performance (McGee, 1999), and
these effects are likely widespread across the workforce. Given the
ways in which the workplace environment for wildland firefighters
can marginalize its minority populations, finding methods to report
their summative experiences and needs is important for retention,
recruitment, and workplace safety.
Wildland firefighting is a natural resources career field that lacks
diverse representation (Riley et al., 2020). Approximately 83.6% of
wildland firefighters are white, 78.7% are male, and 93.5% identify
as straight (Wildland Fire Survey, 2022). In the United States,
the USDA Forest Service is the agency tasked with wildfire
response and employs the highest number of wildland firefighters,
generally divided among three job status types: permanent full-time,
permanent seasonal, and temporary seasonal. Among permanent
employees, retirement status is either “primary fire” or “secondary
fire,” meaning the amount of additional government benefits you
will receive based on your job description is either one of two levels
(primary =highest, requires entry into the wildland fire workforce
prior to age 37).
Wildland firefighters assemble into teams based on geography
and qualifications and are self-led (based on a combination of
training and experience. They often work extended hours (16-h days,
14 days in a row with a 2-day break) for extended periods (4–8
continuous months), then experience periods of no work during
similar durations. The teams often both live and work together due
to the remote nature of the work, thus forming close social bonds
like those reported by military personnel during combat (Siebold,
2007). A recent study found that married wildland firefighters and
those with families experience significant familial stress and strain
related to their careers (Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, 2021).
Recent studies of wildland firefighter mental health have documented
that 20–55% of wildland firefighters are at elevated suicide risk
(Stanley et al., 2018;O’Brien and Campbell, 2021). Further, hiring
issues and stress-related injuries have already been observed in
federal wildland firefighters: In 2022, the federal wildland firefighter
workforce hiring campaign failed to fill over 1,000 positions in
California, reducing the anticipated seasonal workforce by ∼30%
(Sacks, 2022).
Quantitative responses from a recent survey of wildland
firefighters (Wildland Fire Survey, 2022) revealed very few gendered
or other demographically divided experiences. However, previous
studies have shown that female wildland firefighters have unique
health risks (Jung et al., 2021), fitness scores (Sharkey, 2016),
coping strategies (Eriksen, 2019), and workplace stressors (Mitchell,
2019). Further, recent publications have highlighted the need
for inclusivity and increased diversity in the profession (Riley
et al., 2020), and national news outlets have communicated
the stories of women facing sexual assault, harassment, and
subsequent retaliation as federal wildland firefighters (Baldwin and
Carpeaux, 2018). In similarly isolated and extreme environments,
McDermott et al. (2022) characterized the experiences of female
STEM professionals who experienced hypermasculinity, sexual
assault and harassment, and an inequitable and unsafe working
environment, all factors contributing to increased attrition from
the profession.
We hypothesized that open response questions may
provide additional details that differentiate gendered and other
demographically unique experiences that were missed in multiple
choice or scalar questions. The specific objectives of this project
were to analyze open responses for demographic differences
that were unelucidated by quantitative analyses (Wildland
Fire Survey, 2022) to help develop future surveys that are
linguistically tailored to the demographics to which they are
administered. Ultimately, this may allow us to form a better
framework for assessing factors that differentially influence
employee retention, attitudes, morale, and experience among
wildland firefighters.
Materials and methods
In January 2022, a member of our team administered an
extensive survey to federal wildland firefighters. The survey
contained 123 questions with a range of response types, primarily
Likert scales, yes/no choices, multiple choice, 2 short-answer,
Frontiers in Communication 02 frontiersin.org
Ragland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
and 9 qualitative open-response long form questions. Questions
addressed attitudes, experiences, and perceptions about recruitment,
retention, training, infrastructure, leadership, safety, mental
health, pay and benefits, morale and culture, and work-life
balance. Participants could omit questions as they wished. The
questionnaire was reviewed by three senior wildland firefighters
prior to its distribution for clarity, ease of response, and breadth
of coverage.
All respondents self-administered the survey questions
voluntarily with no incentives after reading a brief statement
about the purpose of the survey. No identifying information was
provided. The survey was available on an anonymous Google form
from 1 January through 1 March 2022. Survey participants were
recruited via professional networks, internet outlets, social media,
and e-mail. This survey was not sponsored by a university or
organization at the time of its distribution and the University of
Missouri System’s Institutional Research Board deemed approval for
analysis of previously collected data unnecessary. Full quantitative
survey results are in review elsewhere and can also be found
at www.wildlandfiresurvey.com.
Criteria for inclusion in the survey results were employment
as a current or former federal wildland firefighter and completion
of at least 70% of questions. For our study, we defined a wildland
firefighter as a federal employee who is tasked with preventing,
actively suppressing, or supporting the active suppression of fires
occurring in natural or naturalized vegetation. Broadly, this includes
operational wildland firefighters (e.g., engine crews, hand crews,
hotshot crews, smokejumpers, rappelers), fire prevention, fuels
management specialists, fire ecologists, fire planners, wildland fire
dispatchers, fire cache managers, fire equipment operators, and fire
aviation. Approximately 48% of our sample population had earned
a bachelor’s degree, 5.4% had earned a graduate degree, and 76.3%
had some education post-high school (e.g., associate degree, technical
school, some college). The majority of our respondents (73.8%)
were USDA Forest Service employees at the time of the survey and
listed under the job title “Forestry Technician” or “Senior Forestry
Technician,” which made it impossible to distinguish among other
identifying attributes of their jobs.
We extracted the 9 qualitative questions (Table 1) and their
associated demographic data from the survey and used them to
complete this analysis. For each response, we extracted the associated
question; respondent gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity,
veteran status, age range, highest degree earned, marital status, family
status, retirement status, GS level, job status, and highest wildland
firefighting training level attained (Table 2). We then manually
analyzed the number of words in the response; whether the response
was a personal or impersonal statement; the type of response; whether
the respondent hedged (Fraser, 2010); whether consensus building,
tag imperatives, or tag questions were employed (Arbini, 1969;
Bradley, 2009); whether the respondent was apologetic (Holmes,
1989;Sugimoto, 1998;Schumann and Ross, 2010); whether the
response contained a derogation or insult; and whether expletives
were utilized (Staley, 1978;Hughes, 1992;De Klerk, 2009;Jacobi,
2014,Table 2). We selected these categories of analysis based on a
search of literature that analyzed differences in speech and writing
patterns among men and women. We then excluded categories that
could only be detected vocally (e.g., fry and intonation). Table 2
summarizes the codebook used by the 4 coders to analyze responses.
Intercoder reliability was assessed by a random quality assessment
TABLE 1 Questions posed during the survey in the sequential order in
which they were presented and the total number of individuals responding
to each question.
Question
no.
Question content No.
responses
1 What are 2–3 actions agencies can take to
improve the hiring process?
591
2 What challenges have you experienced
gaining employment in fire? What helped
you overcome those challenges?
519
3 What successes have you experienced gaining
employment in fire? What helped you
achieve that success?
496
4 This space is open for getting anything off
your chest that the previous questions stirred
up. Scream into the void here:
280
5 Do you trust your team to keep you safe on
the fire line? Why?
551
6 Have you experienced feeling unsafe
(mentally, emotionally, physically) in the
workplace outside of suppression operations?
Explain. This could be during work hours in
any activity that does not involve fighting
fires. It also includes activities after work,
such as in government housing or gatherings
with coworkers.
396
7 Have you ever had a formal or informal
mentor? If yes, please elaborate. How did you
meet them? How have they helped advance
your career?
404
8 How else can we improve access to career
development opportunities in fire?
313
9 Have you experienced someone else placing
limits on career advancement or withholding
training opportunities? If yes, please
elaborate. What was your relationship to the
individual?
208
Responses decrease near the end of the survey and are depressed in questions that do not request
an answer (e.g., question #4).
by senior author Verble at a rate of 10%. Responses that did
not answer questions or responded with “I don’t know” or “n/a”
were excluded from further analysis. We used nested analyses of
variance to examine relationships between demographic variables
(nested within individual respondent) and response word count
(alpha =0.15). Student’s t-tests were used to compare differences
among means. We used Chi-square analyses to compare categorical
variables with p<0.15. Data were analyzed in Excel and JMP 16.0
(SAS, 2022).
Results
We analyzed a total of 91,200 words across 3,758 responses from
708 individuals. On average, respondents completed 5.35 of the 9
questions asked, skewed toward the questions that were asked at the
beginning of the survey (Table 1). The demography of our respondent
class was similar to previously documented demographics of wildland
firefighter populations in Canada (Grahame Gordon Wildfire
Management Services, 2014).
Frontiers in Communication 03 frontiersin.org
Ragland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
TABLE 2 Comment attributes analyzed in this study and descriptions of how the attribute was defined by the researchers.
Data collected Description
Number of words in the response The total number of words in the response, including abbreviations that had 3 or more letters. Did not include numerical
representations or symbols.
Gender identity Self-selected by the respondent from a list with option for additional identifiers; options listed included male, female, non-binary
Sexual orientation Self-selected by the respondent from a list with option for additional identifiers; options listed included straight and LGBTQ+; data
were pooled into categories of “straight” and “LGBTQ+” for this analysis; responses not conforming to these two options were
removed from analysis
Ethnicity Self-selected by the respondent from a list with option for additional identifiers and option to select multiple ethnicities;
respondents who selected more than one option were grouped as “more than one race or ethnicity”; Non-white respondents were
listed as BIPOC during analyses
Veteran status Binary response (yes/no) selected by the respondent
Age range Categorical variable, selected from list by respondent; options were <1965, 1965–1974, 1975–1984, 1985–1994, 1994–2004
Highest degree earned Self-selected by the respondent from a list; options included GED/High school diploma, Associates degree, Bachelor’s Degree,
Technical School, Master’s Degree, Ph.D., and postdoctoral degrees. Ph.Ds. and postdoctoral degrees were combined for analysis.
Marital status Self-selected by the respondent from a list; options included married, single, divorced, widowed
Family status Self-selected by the respondent from a list; options included have kids, do not want kids, want kids someday, and undecided.
Retirement status When possible, inferred by job title; groupings assigned by researchers included primary fire, secondary fire, and non-fire. If
retirement status could not be determined, the entry was omitted from this analysis
GS level Categorical variable, selected from list by respondents; options included 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9+; Low “GS level” corresponds with less
time working in the federal system (or less work experience) and lower pay. High “GS level” corresponds with senior positions and
higher pay. GS levels are standardized across federal employment.
Job status Self-selected by respondent from a list with options for additional entries; list included permanent full-time (works 12 months per
year, anticipates employment year to year), permanent seasonal (works a designated number of months or hours per year,
anticipates employment year to year), and temporary seasonal (works a designated number of months or hours per year, does not
anticipate employment from year to year; must reapply for new jobs each year). Entries that did not conform to these categories
were evaluated individually to determine whether they could be placed into one of these and if they could not, they were omitted.
Personal/impersonal statement Researchers coded whether the respondent wrote their response to describe an event they observed or experienced, an emotion they
felt, or an idea they had (personal) or a detached statement that reported facts or removed their own experiences and/or ideas from
the narrative (impersonal). Example: “I feel that the U.S. Forest Service should do more to support us as firefighters” (personal
statement) vs. “The U.S. Forest Service is ineffectual at supporting firefighters.” (impersonal statement)
Type of response Researchers coded whether the response was a directive, feeling, question, statement of fact, or statement of opinion. Statements of
fact did not need to be factually true, rather they needed to be written in a factual manner. A statement of opinion was a statement
about beliefs, personal ideas, or other assertions not generally held in absolute terms. A feeling described a respondent’s inner
emotional state. A directive issued a command or statement about what should be done.
Hedge Researchers coded hedges as words or phrases used to express ambiguity, indecisiveness, lack of confidence and/or commitment,
uncertainty, or caution in a statement.
Consensus Researchers coded consensus as instances where respondents used “we” instead of ‘I’ in their response or included tag questions.
Apologetic Researchers coded whether the respondent used language that suggested regret, embarrassment, shame, or lackof pride in their
statement or actions. Phrases such as “I’m sorry” or “not proud,” or words such as “embarrassed,” “ashamed,” and “regret” were
coded as apologetic language.
Derogation or insult Researchers coded responses as derogatory/insulting when they included language that demeaned or devalued an idea, person,
agency, or group. This did not include responses that reported negative experiences, only those that used disrespectful or
unconstructively critical language.
Use of expletives Researchers entered an ordinal value for the total number of expletives used in the statement and recorded the specific expletives
used. Expletives included common English language “swear words” and “curse words,” but excluded mildly inappropriate language
(e.g., damn would be included, but darn and dang excluded). Words that are deemed commonly offensive to society, including
gender and racial slurs and homophobic and xenophobic language were also included in this category. Expletives that were repeated
multiple times were included in the ordinal count for each instance of use.
Response length
Across all questions, male responses were longer than female
responses. Responses from straight respondents were longer
responses than LGBTQ+respondents. Respondents who reported
being neurodivergent or having mental health issues wrote shorter
responses than those who did not. Those individuals who had
primary fire retirement also wrote longer responses than those who
were either in secondary fire or had exited the field. We found no
effect of training level, job status, GS level, family status, marital
status, education level, ethnicity, or veteran status on the length of
response (Figure 1).
Personality and statement type
Survey respondents were more likely to write in a personal
vs. impersonal style (54.85% personal). Age, gender, and sexual
Frontiers in Communication 04 frontiersin.org
Ragland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
FIGURE 1
Response length is significantly dierent between minority and majority groups within demographics. Mean =mean number of words written in a
response. Alpha =0.15. Gender P=0.0005. Sexual Orientation P=0.1444. Mental Health Status P=0.0381. Retirement Status P=0.0001. Bars represent
standard error. Error bars are not presented for non-significant terms.
TABLE 3 Demographic and socioeconomic variables (column 2) that are
significantly correlated to language use categories (column 1) using a
Chi-square analysis.
Category Variable Chi square P
Personal/impersonal statement Age range 29.34 0.0813
Personal/impersonal statement Gender 26.15 0.0102
Response type Sexual orientation 29.72 0.0745
Hedge Ethnicity 2.57 0.1091
Hedge Retirement plan 21.77 0.0163
Tag question/imperative Veteran status 4.53 0.0333
Explicit language GS-Level 15.13 0.0344
Explicit language Neurodivergence 26.83 0.0015
Alpha =0.15.
orientation significantly influenced whether a respondent wrote in
a personal or impersonal manner. Younger respondents were more
likely to write in a personal style than older respondents (Table 3).
Female and non-binary respondents were more likely to write in a
personal style than male respondents. LGBTQ +respondents were
more likely to write in a personal style than straight respondents. We
found no effect of neurodivergence, ethnicity, veteran status, family
status, education level, marital status, retirement type, job status,
or training level on whether a respondent wrote in a personal or
impersonal manner.
Overall, respondents framed their responses as facts (55.03%),
opinions (24.55%) or directives (17.76%). Straight respondents were
significantly more likely to use directives (18.05 vs. 13.55%), than
LGBTQ+respondents. LGBTQ+respondents were significantly
more likely to frame their response as an opinion than straight
respondents (29.44 vs. 24.23%). We found no effect of age, gender,
neurodivergence, ethnicity, veteran status, education level, marital
status, family status, retirement type, or training level on the type of
statement a respondent used when answering a question (Table 3).
Use of hedges, tag imperatives/questions,
and apologetics
Overall, hedges occurred in 11.34% of responses. Individuals in
primary retirement plans hedged less than individuals in secondary
retirement or non-fire retirement plans. Respondents in primary fire
retirement plans hedged on 11.24% of their responses. Secondary fire
retirement plan respondents hedged on 13.14% of their responses,
and individuals who had non-fire retirements hedged on 25.00% of
their responses. BIPOC respondents hedged more frequently than
white respondents (19.40% of responses vs. 9.18% of responses;
Table 3).
Tag questions and tag imperatives (Table 1) were employed in
3.46% of responses. The only significant differences observed in
tag question and tag imperative use was between veteran and non-
veteran respondents. Veteran respondents used tags significantly
Frontiers in Communication 05 frontiersin.org
Ragland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
more than non-veteran respondents (5.32% of responses vs. 3.20%
of responses). Most respondents wrote in unapologetic language
(98.38%), and we observed no demographic differences in the use of
apologies among respondents.
Derogatory and explicit language
No significant differences were observed among demographic
groups in the use of derogatory language. A total of 97.50%
of responses contained no derogatory language. Explicit
language was found in 2.75% of responses. Use of explicit
language was significantly more common in respondents with
less work experience and in individuals who identified as
bipolar. Individuals who were GS-6 (middle experience level)
used significantly less expletives than all other GS-levels. The
most used expletives were shit (N=50 occurrences) and fuck
(N=30 occurrences).
Discussion
We found significant differences in how different demographics
responded to open response questions: Individuals who were
part of underrepresented groups used fewer words and used
personal language more often than the majority groups. BIPOC
respondents and those in secondary retirement plans were more
likely to frame their responses as opinions or hedge. Veterans
were more likely to use tag questions/imperatives. Expletive
and derogatory language use were rare among respondents:
Respondents who identified as bipolar and respondents with
less work experience were more likely to use expletives in
their responses.
Previous studies have found depressed response rates among
ethnic minorities in postal surveys (Sheldon et al., 2007) and
women in web vs. paper surveys (Sax et al., 2003). Authors
of these studies attribute these lower response rates to literacy,
technological accessibility, and range of survey distribution. None of
these studies measured response length. Our response rates matched
the anticipated population demographics of our study population,
suggesting we did not under sample minority wildland firefighters;
however, minority respondents wrote shorter responses, which is
not “non-response,” but does decrease the amount of information
provided by the minority respondent. Decreased response length is
not likely attributed to literacy, access, or limited survey distribution
in our study, because our population is relatively educationally
homogenous and all short responses were provided by preexisting
participants (i.e., they were already responding to the survey, so
distribution or access weren’t limiting factors); therefore, social
or cultural factors are the likely explanations for these findings
(Wildland Fire Survey, 2022). Regarding women’s short responses,
Jones and Myhill (2007) write that the extensive use of language by
women has been culturally observed as superficial or shallow, while
in males it is observed as a mark of intellectual superiority: Female
respondents may be (unconsciously) aware of this stereotype and
may tailor their language accordingly to be perceived as serious and
intelligent in their responses. We encourage future work on this topic
to examine whether other minority groups may experience similar
negative stereotypes.
Our results supported previous research that found that men were
more likely to write about impersonal topics than women (Newman
et al., 2008). We also found that younger, non-binary and LGBTQ+
respondents were more likely to write about personal topics than
men. These differences were likely observable due to the open-
ended nature of the prompts (Table 1;Newman et al., 2008). Hedges
were employed by respondents in secondary retirement plans more
often than those in primary retirement plans; secondary retirement
plans are associated with those individuals that are secondarily
involved in wildland fire work (e.g., may spend more of their time
indirectly working in wildland fire), thus they may be less confident
in their responses due to less time spent working in the field. BIPOC
respondents were also significantly more likely to hedge than white
respondents, possibly due to perceived power imbalances and the
potential risks associated with direct negative comments about their
experiences (Olvet et al., 2021). Granberg et al. (in review) found
that BIPOC wildland firefighters were more likely to experience
workplace injuries, difficulty in acquiring resources to resolve these
injuries, and endure unwanted comments and jokes in the workplace
at higher rates than their white co-workers. Women were no more
likely to hedge than men, despite historical associations with women’s
speech (Meyerhoff, 1992). Likewise, tag questions and tag imperatives
have also traditionally been associated with women’s speech (Arbini,
1969;Dubois and Crouch, 2008;Bradley, 2009); however, there was
no association between gender and the use of tag questions or
imperatives in our data. We found an association between veteran
status and the use of tag questions and imperatives. We can find no
previous documentation of this association, and this topic warrants
further investigation.
Practical implications
These results provide a window into the communication styles of
specific demographics of the wildland fire workforce and provide an
opportunity to understand how incident reporting, complaint filings,
and other written mechanisms of documentation may be shaped
by demography, including gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
worker status, experience level, veteran status, and health status.
Importantly, this knowledge can help build inclusive systems that
allow all members of the wildland firefighting community to access
their resources and communicate their needs in an effective and
equitable manner.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study
on human participants in accordance with the local legislation
and institutional requirements. The patients/participants
provided their written informed consent to participate in
this study.
Frontiers in Communication 06 frontiersin.org
Ragland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
Author contributions
RG and SP did not complete any of this work on behalf of
the United States Forest Service nor did they complete it during
their work hours. It was completed independently and without
federal resources. RV conducted statistical analysis, coded data,
binned, and wrote the manuscript. RG conducted the survey. SP
binned and provided subject matter expertise. MRa and JH coded,
data verified, and edited the manuscript. MRi coded and data
verified. All authors contributed to the article and approved the
submitted version.
Acknowledgments
Foremost, over 700 wildland firefighters took this survey, and we
are indebted to them for their frankness and time. Dylan Johnson and
Greta Adams assisted in coding. Student support has been provided
by the Missouri S&T College of Arts, Science and Education.
The Missouri S&T Biological Sciences Write Club encouraged the
production of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.
Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may
be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the
publisher.
References
Arbini, R. (1969). Tag-questions and tag-imperatives in English. J. Linguist. 5, 205–214.
doi: 10.1017/S0022226700002243
Baldwin, L., and Carpeaux, E. (2018). Rape, Harassment and Retaliation in the U.S.
Forest Service: Women Firefighters Tell Their Stories. PBS News Hour. Available online
at: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/rape-harassment-and- retaliation-in-the-u-s-
forest-service- women-firefighters-tell- their-stories (accessed August 15, 2022).
Bradley, P. H. (2009). The folk-linguistics of women’sspeech: an empirical examination.
Commun. Monogr. 48, 73–90. doi: 10.1080/03637758109376048
Cech, E. A., and Waidzunas, T. (2022). LGBTQ@NASA and beyond: work structure
and workplace inequality among LGBTQ STEM professionals. Work Occup. 49, 187–228.
doi: 10.1177/07308884221080938
De Klerk, V. (2009). Expletives: men only? Commun. Monogr. 58, 156–169.
doi: 10.1080/03637759109376220
Dubois, B. L., and Crouch, I. (2008). The question of tag questions in women’s
speech: they don’t really use more of them, do they? Lang. Soc. 4, 289–294.
doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006680
Eriksen, C. (2019). Negotiating adversity with humour: a case study of wildland
firefighter women. Polit. Geogr. 68, 139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.08.001
Fraser, B. (2010). “Hedging in political discourse: the Bush 2007 press conferences,”
in Perspectives in Politics and Discourse, eds U. Okulska and P. Cap (Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing).
Gouliquer, L., Poulin, C., and McWilliams, J. (2020). Othering of full-time and
volunteer women firefighters in the Canadian fire services. Qual. Soc. Rev. 16, 48–69.
doi: 10.18778/1733-8077.16.3.04
Grahame Gordon Wildfire Management Services (2014). Workforce Demographic
Issues in Canada’s Wildland Fire Management Agencies. Available online at: https://www.
ccmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Workforce-Demographic-Issues-in-Canada’s-
Wildland-Fire-Management- Agencies.pdf (accessed August 15, 2022).
Granberg, R., Pearson, S., and Verble, R. In review. Attitudes, work experiences, morale
& working conditions among federal wildland firefighters. Int. J. Wildl. Fire.
Grassroots Wildland Firefighters (2021). Impacts of the Profession as Recognized by
Spouses and Partners. Available online at: https://www.grassrootswildlandfirefighters.
com/partnerspouse-survey (accessed August 15, 2022)
Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative
competence. Appl. Ling. 10, 194–213. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.2.194
Hughes, S. E. (1992). Expletives of lower working-class women. Lang. Soc. 21, 291–303.
doi: 10.1017/S004740450001530X
Jacobi, L. L. (2014). Perceptions of profanity: how race, gender, and
expletive choice affect perceived offensiveness. N. Am. J. Psychol. 16, 261–276.
doi: 10.1037/e603132013-001
Jones, S., and Myhill, D. (2007). Discourse of difference? Examining gender differences
in linguistic characteristics of writing. Can. J. Educ. 30, 456–482. doi: 10.2307/2046
6646
Jung, A. M., Jahnke, S. A., Dennis, L. K., Bell, M. L., Burgess, J. L., Jitnarin, N., et al.
(2021). Occupational factors and miscarriages in the US fire service: a cross-sectional
analysis of women firefighters. Environ. Health 20, 116. doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-
00800-4
Loomis, D., and Richardson, D. (1998). Race and the risk of fatal injury at work. Am. J.
Public Health 88, 40–44. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.88.1.40
McDermott, V. (2019). ‘It’s a Magnifying Glass’: The Communication of Power in a
Remote Field Station (Thesis). University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK.
McDermott, V., Gee, M., and May, A. (2022). Women of the Wild: Challenging
Gender Disparities in Field Stations and Marine Laboratories. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
McGee, M. M. (1999). The effects of workplace marginalization on individual African
American women: a collective case study (Ph.D. Dissertation). The Fielding Institute, Santa
Barbara, CA.
Meyerhoff, M. (1992). “A sort of something: hedging strategies on ouns,” in Working
Papers on Language, Gender and Sexism. AILA Commission on Language and Gender,
59–72.
Mitchell, K. M. (2019). Sisters in the brotherhood: experiences and strategies of women
wildland firefighters (M.S. thesis). University of Reno Nevada, Reno, NV.
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., and Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender
differences in language use: an analysis of 14,000 text samples. Dis. Process. 45, 211–236.
doi: 10.1080/01638530802073712
O’Brien, P., and Campbell, D. (2021). “Wildland firefighter psychological and
behavioral health: preliminary data from a national sample of current and former
wildland firefighters in the United States,” in International Association of Wildland Fire
6th Annual Human Dimensions Conference (virtual conference).
Olvet, D. M., Willey, J. M., Bird, J. B., Rabin, J. M., Pearlman, R. E., and
Brenner, J. (2021). Third year medical students impersonalize and hedge when
providing negative upward feedback to clinical faculty. Med. Teach. 43, 700–708.
doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2021.1892619
Pratt, D. S., Marval, L. H., Darrow, D., Stallones, L., May, J. J., and Jenkins, P. (1992).
The dangers of dairy farming: the injury experience of 600 workers followed for two years.
Am. J. Ind. Med. 21, 637–650. doi: 10.1002/ajim.4700210504
Riley, K. L., Steelman, T., Sallcrup, D. R. P., and Brown, S. (2020). “On the need
for inclusivity and diversity in the wildland fire professions,” in Proceedings of the
Fire Consortium-Preparing for the Future of Wildland Fire, eds S. M. Hood, S. Drury,
T. Steelman, and R. Steffens (Missoula, MT; Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station), 2–7.
Sacks, B. (2022). Leaked data shows California is short more than a thousand wildland
firefighters. Buzzfeed News. Available online at: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/
briannasacks/california-firefighter- staffing-forest- service
SAS (2022). SAS Institute Inc. SAS 9.1.3 Cary, NC.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., and Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates
and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res. High. Educ. 44, 409–432.
doi: 10.1023/A:1024232915870
Schumann, K., and Ross, M. (2010). Why women apologize more than men:
gender difference in perceiving offensive behavior. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1649–1655.
doi: 10.1177/0956797610384150
Frontiers in Communication 07 frontiersin.org
Ragland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1021914
Sharkey, B. J. (2016). Fitness for wildland fire fighters. Phys. Sports Med. 9, 92–102.
doi: 10.1080/00913847.1981.11711059
Sheldon, H., Rasul, F., and Graham, C. (2007). Increasing Response Rates Amongst Black
and Minority Ethnic and Seldom Heard Groups. Report by the Acute Coordinate Center
for the NHS Patient Survey Programme of the Picker Institute Europe. National Health
Institute, Oxford, 75.
Siebold, G. L. (2007). The essence of military cohesion. Armed Forces Soc. 33, 286–295.
doi: 10.1177/0095327X06294173
Staley, C. M. (1978). Male-female use of expletives: a heck of a difference in
expectations. Anthropol. Ling. 20, 367–380.
Stanley, I. H., Hom, M. A., Gai, A. R., and Joiner, T. E. (2018). Wildland firefighters and
suicide risk: examining the role of social disconnectedness. Psychiatry Res. 266, 269–274.
doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.017
Sugimoto, N. (1998). “Sorry we apologize so much”: linguistic factors affecting
Japanese and U.S. American styles of apology. Intercultural Communication Studies
VIII: 1998–1999.
Wildland Fire Survey (2022). Available online at: www.wildlandfiresurvey.com
(accessed January 17, 2023).
Wotton, B. J., Flannagan, M. D., and Marshall, G. A. (2017). Potential climate change
impacts on fire intensity and key wildfire suppression thresholds in Canada. Environ. Res.
Lett. 12, 095003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7e6e
Frontiers in Communication 08 frontiersin.org
