The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) contracted Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) to support its efforts to assess the state of ocean acoustics education in the United States. To that end, SPR collaborated with the National Academies to design and administer a comprehensive survey to collect information that the National Academies would then use to inform its larger study efforts. Ultimately, SPR administered the survey to 200 individuals representing institutions and organizations from fields in acoustics, ocean acoustics, and acoustics supporting disciplines. The survey’s purpose was to gather data to support the National Academies’ investigation into their study goals including
This final report provides a high-level summary of survey responses and is being used by the National Academies to produce a more comprehensive report on the state of ocean acoustics in the country. This report starts by providing an overview of the methodology and limitations of the survey. It is then divided into five sections based on respondent type: academic, industry (for-profit, non-profit, and other organizations), federal (government, military, and defense), professional society, and all respondents (questions that were asked to multiple respondent types). Each section then has five subsections that summarize
These summaries are then followed by tables that provide information in more detail.
SPR collaborated with the National Academies and the Committee on Ocean Acoustics Education and Expertise (the Committee), a group of expert faculty and professionals positioned to support the assessment of the ocean acoustics field, to develop a survey instrument designed to collect data connected to the study goals listed above. To start, SPR completed a document review of existing literature focused on the ocean acoustics education and workforce, which included the review of reports provided by the National Academies and the Committee. This document review helped to identify potential survey questions to include in the survey instrument. Upon completing a draft of the survey instrument, SPR met twice virtually with the National Academies and select members of the Committee to develop and revise the survey instrument. SPR also piloted an early version of the survey to members of the Committee as an additional opportunity to collect feedback around the usability and framing of the survey. Additional written feedback from both groups was provided and incorporated into the final version of the survey instrument. Per the Committee’s request, the final survey instrument consisted of three versions for respondents representing academic institutions, industry organizations, and professional societies.
On May 8, 2023, the survey was electronically administered via a unique link to a list of professionals who work for an institution or organization in the field of acoustics, ocean acoustics, or an acoustics supporting discipline. This contact list was provided to SPR by the National Academies and the Committee. On a weekly basis throughout the 6-week administration window, SPR shared the survey via a unique link with additional survey respondents that were identified by the National Academies and the Committee. Additionally, potential respondents were recruited through a snowball sample, meaning that survey respondents recommended additional individuals from the field to receive the survey. These names received a unique link and were cross-referenced with the original contact list. New names were then shared with the National Academies and the Committee for approval, after which they received their unique survey link. Finally, the Committee also promoted the survey during academic and professional conferences using a general link that took place between May and June 2023. The survey closed on June 16, 2023, and reached 200 individuals of which 39% completed the survey, 22.5% partially completed the survey, and 38.5% did not start the survey. These response rates reflect survey completion at the time of closure and vary slightly from the final numbers (n = 110) after the survey was cleaned and analyzed to exclude those who did not complete questions identifying their institution’s/organization’s sector.
The survey cleaning and analysis process lasted approximately 6 weeks. During this time, SPR, the National Academies, and the Committee continued to meet to make decisions about the presentation of the data in the final report. For instance, in accordance with SPR’s data-sharing policy, no tables were generated when the sample size fell below three respondents. This decision is part of a commitment to protect confidentiality. Additionally, it was decided that respondents that did not complete the survey past identifying their institution’s/organization’s sector would be dropped from the survey. This prevents survey results from being skewed by unresponsiveness. As part of the cleaning process, SPR also identified incidents of duplication caused by survey takers attempting the survey via their unique link and the general link. The most complete response by a unique individual was kept except in one instance where a respondent completed two different survey types (an academic and industry), in two separate survey sessions. In this instance, both responses were kept.
Ultimately, the cleaning process concluded with 110 unique respondents that included a combination of participants that completed the survey (71.8%) and partially completed the survey (28.2%). While quantitative data were summarized in descriptive tables as part of the analysis phase, SPR analyzed open-ended responses to identify high-level themes and shared the raw form of the data as well. Last, the Committee requested that
SPR remove less informative “none” or “I don’t know” responses from the open-ended and other write in responses. While the responses themselves were removed from this report, the response is still counted toward the exhibit’s n-value, and responses can be viewed in the de-identified raw data shared with the National Academies at the time of this report.
There are a few limitations to acknowledge that may inform clearer understanding of the survey results within the report. For one, given the need to understand the state of ocean acoustics education and workforce, the National Academies and the Committee requested that respondents be asked to report data on student enrollment and demographics of faculty, industry personnel, and/or professional society members. Even though respondents were instructed to seek these data prior to starting the survey, they may not have had access to it, may not have been permitted to share it, or may have experienced survey fatigue searching for the information and completing the survey. As shown below, very few respondents reported this information, so we advise that publicly available data sources be used to obtain this information. Additionally, respondents were asked to complete the survey on behalf of their institution/organization. Concerned about a low response rate, the Committee advised SPR to add a question at the top of each survey section allowing respondents to select whether they would answer questions on behalf of themselves or their institution/organization. This is reported in each section below. Last, because the report shares qualitative data in their raw form as “exhibits,” it has not been corrected for grammar or sentence structure.
This section of the report summarizes the survey responses for 59 academic respondents. Of the total academic respondents, 64.4% (n = 38) completed the survey with the remaining having partially completed the survey. Additionally, though respondents were asked to respond to the survey on behalf of their institution, 66.1% (n = 39) indicated they would complete the survey as an individual based on their own experiences in their field.
This section is divided into five subsections: Background; State of Acoustics Education; Mentorships, Internships, Apprenticeships, & Competencies; Recruitment Strategies; and Future of Acoustics. Each subsection starts with summary bullet points followed by descriptive statistics for each survey question.
This section summarizes background information for academic respondents and their institutions including their institution’s name, sector, region, and size as well as the length of time respondents have been at their institution and their role.
Institution/Organization Name
TABLE 1 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| University of Washington | 6 | 10.2% |
| University of Texas at Austin | 5 | 8.5% |
| Brigham Young University | 4 | 6.8% |
| Pennsylvania State University | 4 | 6.8% |
| University of New Hampshire | 4 | 6.8% |
| Naval Postgraduate School | 3 | 5.1% |
| Oregon State University | 2 | 3.4% |
| Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego | 2 | 3.4% |
| University of Massachusetts Dartmouth | 2 | 3.4% |
| University of Michigan | 2 | 3.4% |
| University of Victoria | 2 | 3.4% |
| Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution | 2 | 3.4% |
| Cornell University | 1 | 1.7% |
| Duke University | 1 | 1.7% |
| George Mason University | 1 | 1.7% |
| Georgia Institute of Technology | 1 | 1.7% |
| Great Lakes Water Studies Institute | 1 | 1.7% |
| Institute of Oceanography, National Taiwan University | 1 | 1.7% |
| Joliet Junior College | 1 | 1.7% |
| New Jersey Institute of Technology | 1 | 1.7% |
| Northeastern University | 1 | 1.7% |
| Portland State University | 1 | 1.7% |
| Stony Brook University | 1 | 1.7% |
| Syracuse University | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of Alabama | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of Louisiana at Lafayette | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of Miami | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of Mississippi | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of New Orleans | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of Rhode Island | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of South Florida | 1 | 1.7% |
| University of Vermont | 1 | 1.7% |
NOTES: This is a fill-in question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Which of the following best describes your institution’s/organization’s sector?
TABLE 2 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Academic Institution (public) | 39 | 66.1% |
| Academic Institution (private) | 13 | 22.0% |
| University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) | 6 | 10.2% |
| Defense Graduate Institution | 1 | 1.7% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Which of the following best describes your institution/organization?
TABLE 3 Academic Respondents (n = 58)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Graduate School | 43 | 74.1% |
| Four-Year College or University | 43 | 74.1% |
| Community College | 2 | 3.5% |
| Career or Trade School | 1 | 1.7% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. Respondents had to select Academic institution (private), Academic institution (public), or Other (academic) in order to respond to this question.
Where do you spend the majority of your time?
TABLE 4 Academic Respondents (n = 30)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Graduate Program | 21 | 70.0% |
| Four-Year College or University | 9 | 30.0% |
NOTES: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding. Respondents had to select more than one option among graduate school, four-year college or university, community college, and career or trade school describing their institution/organization in order to respond to this question.
Which unit (e.g., department, technical committee, etc.) do you represent?
TABLE 5 Academic Respondents (n = 55)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Research Laboratories | 4 | 7.3% |
| Center for Acoustics Research & Education | 3 | 5.5% |
| Biology | 3 | 5.5% |
| Electrical and Computer Engineering | 3 | 5.5% |
| Electrical Engineering | 3 | 5.5% |
| Graduate Program in Acoustics | 3 | 5.5% |
| Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering | 2 | 3.6% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 3.6% |
| Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering | 2 | 3.6% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Oceanography Department | 2 | 3.6% |
| Physics | 2 | 3.6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 3.6% |
| Scripps Institution of Oceanography | 2 | 3.6% |
| Acoustics Department | 1 | 1.8% |
| Applied Physics Laboratory | 1 | 1.8% |
| Cooperative Institute for Marine Ecosystem and Resources Studies | 1 | 1.8% |
| Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Department of Natural Resources and the Environment | 1 | 1.8% |
| Department of Natural Sciences | 1 | 1.8% |
| Department of Ocean Engineering | 1 | 1.8% |
| Engineering/Oceanography | 1 | 1.8% |
| Graduate Research Assistant | 1 | 1.8% |
| Great Lakes Water Studies Institute—Marine Technology | 1 | 1.8% |
| Marine Mammal Institute | 1 | 1.8% |
| Marine Science and Conservation & Electrical and Computer Engineering | 1 | 1.8% |
| Ocean Science and Engineering | 1 | 1.8% |
| Office of Research and Innovation | 1 | 1.8% |
| Physics Department | 1 | 1.8% |
| Physics, Signal Processing | 1 | 1.8% |
| Research Center | 1 | 1.8% |
| Research Lab | 1 | 1.8% |
| School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences | 1 | 1.8% |
| School of Mechanical Engineering | 1 | 1.8% |
| School of Earth and Ocean Sciences | 1 | 1.8% |
| Soft Money Department at University | 1 | 1.8% |
| Underwater Acoustics | 1 | 1.8% |
NOTES: This is a fill-in question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Which of the following best describes your role?
TABLE 6 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Professor/Instructor | 28 | 47.5% |
| Researcher | 16 | 27.1% |
| Student | 4 | 6.8% |
| Administrative staff in a department | 3 | 5.1% |
| Other | 8a | 13.6% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a “Other” write in responses included: Assistant Professor; Director; Executive Director; Postdoc; Professor/Program Director; Technical Lab Director; Vice Provost.
How long have you been in this role?
TABLE 7 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1–3 years | 12 | 20.3% |
| 4–6 years | 8 | 13.6% |
| 7–9 years | 6 | 10.2% |
| More than 9 years | 33 | 55.9% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately how large is your institution?
TABLE 8 Academic Respondents (n = 58)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Fewer than 2,000 students | 4 | 6.9% |
| 2,000–5,000 students enrolled | 3 | 5.2% |
| 5,001–15,000 students enrolled | 7 | 12.1% |
| 15,001–30,000 students enrolled | 17 | 29.3% |
| More than 30,000 students enrolled | 27 | 46.6% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
In which region is your institution/organization based?
TABLE 9 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| West (Includes California, Oregon, Washington) | 14 | 23.7% |
| New England (Includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) | 11 | 18.6% |
| Middle Atlantic (Includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) | 8 | 13.6% |
| West South Central (Includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) | 7 | 11.9% |
| East North Central (Includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) | 5 | 8.5% |
| South Atlantic (Includes Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) | 5 | 8.5% |
| Mountain (Includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) | 4 | 6.8% |
| International—Please specify the country | 3a | 5.1% |
| East South Central (Includes Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee) | 2 | 3.4% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Respondents that indicated their organization/institution was internationally based noted that they were based out of Canada and Taiwan.
What is the current state and presence of education (e.g., degree programs, short courses, training programs, etc.) for acoustics and supporting disciplines that eventually lead into ocean acoustics in the United States?
This section of the survey asked academic respondents about the state of acoustics education. Below we share the key takeaways that help describe the current state and presence of acoustics education and supporting disciplines including findings on the programs offered; enrollment; the faculty with acoustics expertise; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); and recruitment and retention.
Which of the following statements apply to your institution?
TABLE 10 Academic Respondents (n = 47)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| My institution offers courses in acoustics | 37 | 78.7% |
| My institution offers courses that include content on ocean acoustics | 32 | 68.1% |
| My institution offers a formal program in supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, | 31 | 66% |
| oceanography, geophysics) that inform acoustics | ||
| My institution offers a formal program in acoustics | 17 | 36.2% |
| None of the above | 2 | 4.3% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
Which of the following types of acoustics courses are taught by your institution and which of the following types of acoustics courses are not currently taught by your institution, but you wish they were offered to students?
TABLE 11 Academic Respondents (n = 30)
| Response | Courses Currently Taught | Courses Not Taught But Want to Offer | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Fundamentals of Acoustics | 26 | 86.7% | 3 | 10.0% |
| Signal Processing | 24 | 80.0% | 2 | 6.7% |
| Underwater Acoustics | 22 | 73.3% | 6 | 20.0% |
| Transducer Design & Modeling | 12 | 40.0% | 5 | 16.7% |
| Acoustic Laboratory Methods | 11 | 36.7% | 8 | 26.7% |
| Computational Acoustics | 11 | 36.7% | 7 | 23.3% |
| Physical Acoustics | 10 | 33.3% | 5 | 16.7% |
| Animal Bioacoustics | 9 | 30.0% | 10 | 33.3% |
| SONAR Systems Engineering | 9 | 30.0% | 8 | 26.7% |
| Musical Acoustics | 9 | 30.0% | 7 | 23.3% |
| Vibration Acoustics | 9 | 30.0% | 4 | 13.3% |
| Architectural Acoustics | 7 | 23.3% | 5 | 16.7% |
| Medical Acoustics | 7 | 23.3% | 5 | 16.7% |
| Noise Control Acoustics | 7 | 23.3% | 5 | 16.7% |
| Digital Communications | 7 | 23.3% | 3 | 10.0% |
| Material Properties & Acoustics | 6 | 20.0% | 5 | 16.7% |
| Psychoacoustics | 6 | 20.0% | 4 | 13.3% |
| Other | 17a | 56.7% | 6b | 20.0% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. Respondents had to select that their institution offers a formal program in acoustics or their program offers courses in acoustics in order to respond to this question. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on acoustics courses their institution offers. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: acoustics related to diagnostic medical sonography; array processing; ecological acoustics; introduction to sonar equations; music and acoustic technology; nonlinear acoustics; ocean mapping; outdoor acoustics; sound propagation in the ocean; spatial audio; survey of underwater acoustics; audio engineering; nonlinear acoustics; outdoor sound propagation; spatial sound and 3D audio; structural acoustics; ultrasound in solids.
b Other responses include: acoustics and artificial intelligence; wave scattering and fluctuations; agroacoustics, consumer audio acoustics; undergraduate acoustics courses; and “none.”
Approximately how many total students are enrolled in all your formal programs related to acoustics at your institution?
TABLE 12 Academic Respondents (n = 7)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Fewer than 25 students | 1 | 14.3% |
| 25–50 students | 2 | 28.6% |
| 51–75 students | 2 | 28.6% |
| More than 100 students | 2 | 28.6% |
NOTES: Respondents had to select that their institution offers a formal program in acoustics. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on the number of students enrolled in acoustics at their institution. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
In what ways is ocean acoustics content offered within your institution?
TABLE 13 Academic Respondents (n = 32)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| My institution offers courses in supporting disciplines (e.g., acoustics, marine biology, physics, etc.) where ocean acoustics is a section or module of focus within the course. | 23 | 71.9% |
| My institution offers at least one specialized course on ocean acoustics. | 22 | 68.8% |
| My institution offers courses in supporting disciplines (e.g., acoustics, marine biology, physics, etc.) where we complete a seminar or read an academic article on ocean acoustics. | 13 | 40.6% |
| My institution offers professional development in ocean acoustics (conference workshops, online modules, etc.). | 7 | 21.9% |
| My institution offers a certificate or degree program in ocean acoustics. | 4 | 12.5% |
| Other | 4a | 12.5% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. Respondents had to select that their institution offers courses that include content on ocean acoustics in order to respond to this question. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on acoustics courses their institution offers. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: acoustics seminars where ocean acoustics is one of the seminar topic areas; in addition to fisheries acoustics, we have a general acoustics course that will include ocean acoustics if the professor teaching it chooses to include it (having taught it before I know that this is popular); three acoustics microcredentials; research faculty (applied research lab) support graduate students in underwater and ocean acoustics research projects.
Under which of the following disciplines do those courses with material on ocean acoustics fall?
TABLE 14 Academic Respondents (n = 24)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Oceanography | 11 | 45.8% |
| Mechanical Engineering | 8 | 33.3% |
| Biology or Marine Biology | 8 | 33.3% |
| Physics | 6 | 25% |
| Ocean Engineering | 5 | 20.8% |
| Hydrography | 3 | 12.5% |
| Electrical Engineering | 2 | 8.3% |
| Civil Engineering | 1 | 4.2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4.2% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Geophysics | 1 | 4.2% |
| Marine Technology | 1 | 4.2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4.2% |
| Other | 4a | 16.7% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied and could write in responses. Respondents had to select that their institution offers courses in supporting disciplines (e.g., acoustics, marine biology, physics) where ocean acoustics is a section or module of focus within the course or that their institution offers courses in supporting disciplines (e.g., acoustics, marine biology, physics) where they complete a seminar or read an academic article on ocean acoustics in order to respond to this question. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: meteorology and geology (n = 1) and acoustics (n = 3).
Approximately what is the gender breakdown of students enrolled in acoustics at your institution, as a percentage?
TABLE 15 Academic Respondents (n = 6)
| Gender | Average | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 60.7% | 25% | 84% |
| Female | 35.2% | 16% | 75% |
NOTES: Respondents had to write in a percentage. Respondents had to confirm that they had access to the gender breakdown of students enrolled in acoustics at their institution, as a percentage, in order to respond to this question. Only 2 respondents provided information to survey options “non-binary student,” “gender other,” and “gender decline to answer” which is below the data sharing threshold. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were asked to write in responses.
How many professionals are recognized as having acoustics expertise within your institution?
TABLE 16 Academic Respondents (n = 16)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Fewer than 5 | 5 | 31.2% |
| 5–10 | 4 | 25% |
| 11–15 | 3 | 18.8% |
| More than 15 | 4 | 25% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information on the number of professionals recognized as having acoustics expertise at their institution in order to respond to this question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of professionals identified as having acoustics expertise are international, non-U.S. citizens?
TABLE 17 Academic Respondents (n = 16)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 9 | 56.2% |
| 1%–10% | 4 | 25% |
| 11%–25% | 2 | 12.5% |
| 91%–100% | 1 | 6.2% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their institution had more than one acoustics expert in order to respond to this question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
How many professionals identified in the previous question as having acoustics expertise specialize in ocean acoustics?
TABLE 18 Academic Respondents (n = 16)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| None | 2 | 12.5% |
| Fewer than 5 | 9 | 56.2% |
| 5–10 | 3 | 18.8% |
| 11–15 | 1 | 6.2% |
| More than 15 | 1 | 6.2% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their institution had more than one acoustics expert in order to respond to this question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what is the gender breakdown of professionals identified as having acoustics expertise?
TABLE 19 Academic Respondents (n = 9)
| Gender | Average | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male (n = 8) | 83.6% | 33% | 100% |
| Female (n = 8) | 28.9% | 0% | 100% |
| Non binary (n = 5) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Other (n = 4) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Professionals prefer not to answer (n = 3) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
NOTES: Respondents had to write in a percentage. Respondents had to confirm that they had access to the gender breakdown of professionals recognized as having acoustics expertise at their institution, as a percentage, in order to respond to this question. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were asked to write in responses.
Approximately what is the racial/ethnic breakdown of professionals identified as having acoustics expertise?
TABLE 20 Academic Respondents (n = 7)
| Race or Ethnicity | Average | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| White (n = 7) | 92.9% | 60% | 100% |
| Asian/Asian American (n = 4) | 5% | 0% | 20% |
| Black/African American (n = 4) | 5% | 0% | 20% |
| Hispanic or Latinx (n = 3) | 3.3% | 0% | 10% |
| Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 3) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| American Indian/Alaskan Native (n = 3) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Biracial or Multiracial (n = 3) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Other (n = 3) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Professionals prefer not to answer (n = 3) | 0% | 0% | 0% |
NOTES: Respondents had to write in a percentage. Respondents had to confirm that they had access to the racial/ethnic breakdown of professionals recognized as having acoustics expertise at their institution, as a percentage, in order to respond to this question. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were asked to write in responses.
Based on your knowledge of your institution, over the past five years (2018–2023), have there been any changes in the number of professionals identified as having acoustics expertise within your institution?
TABLE 21 Academic Respondents (n = 16)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No, the number of professionals with acoustics expertise has remained the same. | 5 | 31.2% |
| Yes, there has been a significant decrease in the number of the professionals with acoustics expertise. | 5 | 31.2% |
| Yes, there has been a slight increase in the number of professionals with acoustics expertise. | 4 | 25% |
| Yes, there has been a significant increase in the number of professionals with acoustics expertise. | 1 | 6.2% |
| Yes, there has been a slight decrease in the number of professionals with acoustics expertise. | 1 | 6.2% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their institution had more than one acoustics expert in order to respond to this question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Open-Ended: To what extent are any such changes unique to acoustics, or part of a series of more profound changes in other disciplines (e.g., decline in enrollment in all physical sciences)?”
EXHIBIT 1
Academic Respondents (n = 11)
Respondents were asked, “To what extent are any such changes unique to acoustics, or part of a series of more profound changes in other disciplines (e.g., decline in enrollment in all physical sciences)?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their institution had more than one acoustics expert and that there have been changes in the number of professionals identified as having acoustics expertise within their institution in order to respond to this question.
Please rate the extent to which your institution would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)
TABLE 22 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Institution/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The current racial/ethnic composition of students in acoustics is diverse. | 10 (16.9%) |
13 (22%) |
7 (11.9%) |
6 (10.2%) |
1 (1.7%) |
9 (15.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current gender composition of students in acoustics is diverse. | 5 (8.5%) |
9 (15.3%) |
10 (16.9%) |
11 (18.6%) |
4 (6.8%) |
7 (11.9%) |
13 (22%) |
| Students in acoustics represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 1 (1.7%) |
6 (10.2%) |
10 (16.9%) |
15 (25.4%) |
4 (6.8%) |
10 (16.9%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current composition of national and international (non-U.S. citizens) students in acoustics is diverse. | 4 (6.8%) |
10 (16.9%) |
8 (13.6%) |
13 (22%) |
2 (3.4%) |
9 (15.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution has effective recruitment strategies that increase student diversity in acoustics. | 7 (11.9%) |
15 (25.4%) |
11 (18.6%) |
4 (6.8%) |
2 (3.4%) |
7 (11.9%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution has effective retention strategies that increase student diversity in acoustics. | 6 (10.2%) |
9 (15.3%) |
16 (27.1%) |
7 (11.9%) |
0 (0%) |
8 (13.6%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution is actively seeking to recruit more students that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics. | 5 (8.5%) |
11 (18.6%) |
9 (15.3%) |
14 (23.7%) |
3 (5.1%) |
4 (6.8%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current racial/ethnic composition of faculty in acoustics is diverse. | 12 (20.3%) |
20 (33.9%) |
1 (1.7%) |
4 (6.8%) |
1 (1.7%) |
8 (13.6%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current gender composition of faculty in acoustics is diverse. | 5 (8.5%) |
19 (32.2%) |
6 (10.2%) |
7 (11.9%) |
2 (3.4%) |
7 (11.9%) |
13 (22%) |
| Faculty in acoustics represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 2 (3.4%) |
10 (16.9%) |
6 (10.2%) |
16 (27.1%) |
2 (3.4%) |
10 (16.9%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current composition of national and international (non-U.S. citizens) faculty in acoustics is diverse. | 6 (10.2%) |
10 (16.9%) |
6 (10.2%) |
12 (20.3%) |
3 (5.1%) |
9 (15.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution has effective hiring practices and policies that increase faculty diversity in the field of acoustics. | 5 (8.5%) |
9 (15.3%) |
13 (22%) |
9 (15.3%) |
1 (1.7%) |
9 (15.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution is actively seeking to increase gender diversity in the faculty and administration supporting the field of acoustics. | 6 (10.2%) |
6 (10.2%) |
10 (16.9%) |
14 (23.7%) |
1 (1.7%) |
9 (15.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Institution/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| My institution is actively seeking to increase racial and ethnic diversity in the faculty and administration supporting the field of acoustics. | 6 (10.2%) |
6 (10.2%) |
8 (13.6%) |
16 (27.1%) |
2 (3.4%) |
8 (13.6%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current racial/ethnic composition of students in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 3 (5.1%) |
13 (22%) |
7 (11.9%) |
10 (16.9%) |
1 (1.7%) |
12 (20.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current gender composition of students in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 3 (5.1%) |
12 (20.3%) |
7 (11.9%) |
12 (20.3%) |
1 (1.7%) |
11 (18.6%) |
13 (22%) |
| Students in acoustics supporting disciplines represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 2 (3.4%) |
4 (6.8%) |
7 (11.9%) |
17 (28.8%) |
3 (5.1%) |
13 (22%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current composition of national and international (non-U.S. citizens) students in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 1 (1.7%) |
3 (5.1%) |
13 (22%) |
14 (23.7%) |
2 (3.4%) |
13 (22%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution has effective recruitment strategies that increase student diversity in acoustics supporting disciplines. | 2 (3.4%) |
9 (15.3%) |
14 (23.7%) |
7 (11.9%) |
1 (1.7%) |
13 (22%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution has effective retention strategies that increase student diversity in acoustics supporting disciplines. | 1 (1.7%) |
8 (13.6%) |
13 (22%) |
8 (13.6%) |
2 (3.4%) |
14 (23.7%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution is actively seeking to recruit more students that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 2 (3.4%) |
4 (6.8%) |
11 (18.6%) |
14 (23.7%) |
3 (5.1%) |
12 (20.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current racial/ethnic composition of faculty in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 4 (6.8%) |
13 (22%) |
8 (13.6%) |
7 (11.9%) |
1 (1.7%) |
13 (22%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current gender composition of faculty in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 1 (1.7%) |
20 (33.9%) |
7 (11.9%) |
5 (8.5%) |
1 (1.7%) |
12 (20.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| Faculty in acoustics supporting disciplines represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 1 (1.7%) |
4 (6.8%) |
10 (16.9%) |
17 (28.8%) |
2 (3.4%) |
12 (20.3%) |
13 (22%) |
| The current composition of national and international (non-U.S. citizens) faculty in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 2 (3.4%) |
6 (10.2%) |
9 (15.3%) |
12 (20.3%) |
3 (5.1%) |
14 (23.7%) |
13 (22%) |
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Institution/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| My institution has effective hiring practices and policies that increase faculty diversity in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 2 (3.4%) |
6 (10.2%) |
9 (15.3%) |
13 (22%) |
1 (1.7%) |
15 (25.4%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution is actively seeking to increase gender diversity in the faculty and administration supporting the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
5 (8.5%) |
10 (16.9%) |
15 (25.4%) |
2 (3.4%) |
14 (23.7%) |
13 (22%) |
| My institution is actively seeking to increase racial and ethnic diversity in the faculty and administration supporting the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
4 (6.8%) |
7 (11.9%) |
17 (28.8%) |
3 (5.1%) |
15 (25.4%) |
13 (22%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What competencies are needed to fulfill the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise over the next decade? How can the field of academia (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, training, etc.) help meet the industry’s needs?
This section of the survey asked academic respondents about the state of mentorships, internships, apprenticeships, and competencies. This included asking about the opportunities available for students interested in acoustics, the names of programs and organizations that offer supports to students, the critical skills and competencies students need to be successful, and more.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following opportunities are available for students from your institution interested in acoustics to practice/grow their skills? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 23 Academic Respondents (n = 40)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Research opportunities in a lab at my institution | 34 | 85.0% |
| Research opportunities in a federal/government lab | 26 | 65.0% |
| Fellowship | 17 | 42.5% |
| Teaching assistant opportunities | 16 | 40.0% |
| Research opportunities in a lab at a different institution | 15 | 37.5% |
| Formal workshops | 13 | 32.5% |
| Internships in an industry-related organization | 12 | 30.0% |
| Short courses (less than a full semester/quarter) | 8 | 20.0% |
| Work study | 7 | 17.5% |
| None of the above | 2 | 5.0% |
| Other | 2a | 5.0% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: introductory course; research my lab.
What are the names of the top five programs (internships, apprenticeships, fellowships, short courses, etc.) related to acoustics in which students from your institution participate? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 24 Academic Respondents (n = 53)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Research assistantships/opportunities | 16a | 30.2% |
| Fellowships | 9b | 17.0% |
| ARL | 8c | 15.1% |
| Internships | 7d | 13.2% |
| SeaBASS | 7 | 13.2% |
| Summer activity | 6e | 11.3% |
| Short course | 4f | 7.5% |
| Teaching assistantships | 3 | 5.7% |
| Workshops | 2g | 3.8% |
| NOAA | 2h | 3.8% |
| Aquatics and fisheries sciences | 1 | 1.9% |
| Boeing undergraduate scholarship | 1 | 1.9% |
| DINO-SIP | 1 | 1.9% |
| DOSITS webinars | 1 | 1.9% |
| Earth sciences | 1 | 1.9% |
| Electrical engineering | 1 | 1.9% |
| Larson Davis | 1 | 1.9% |
| Los Alamos National Laboratory | 1 | 1.9% |
| Marine tech camp | 1 | 1.9% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical engineering | 1 | 1.9% |
| NASA | 1 | 1.9% |
| NMC Center | 1 | 1.9% |
| NREIP | 1 | 1.9% |
| NSF GRFP | 1 | 1.9% |
| OET | 1 | 1.9% |
| ONR support | 1 | 1.9% |
| Oceanography | 1 | 1.9% |
| SNAP course in Denmark | 1 | 1.9% |
| SOI | 1 | 1.9% |
| Starkey Hearing Aids | 1 | 1.9% |
NOTES: Respondents had to write in responses. Respondents had to select that their institution offers a formal program in acoustics, courses in acoustics, or courses that included content on ocean acoustics in order to respond to this question. They also had to indicate that their institution provided opportunities (e.g., fellowships, formal workshops, internships, research opportunities, and short courses) for students to grow their skills in acoustics. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to write in multiple responses. ARL: Applied Research Laboratory; DINO-SIP: Diverse + Inclusive Naval Oceanographic Summer Internship Program; DOSITS: Discovery of Sound in the Sea; NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NMC: Northwestern Michigan College; NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NREIP: Naval Research Enterprise Internship Program; NSF GRFP: National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program; OET: Operations Engineering and Technician; ONR: Office of Naval Research; SeaBASS: BioAcoustic Summer School; SNAP: Systemic Noise Analysis Procedure; SOI: Schmidt Ocean Institute
a Research assistantship and opportunities included in federal/government labs, university labs, undergraduate research assistantships, graduate research assistantships, academic research on campus.
b Fellowships included: Acoustics Society travel fellowships; engineering school fellowship; National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship; NSF GRFP; graduate fellowships; Strong Fellowship.
c ARL responses included: ARL GRA positions; ARL McKinney fellowship; ARL UT Honors Scholar Program; ARL UT Post Doc Program; ARL UT Science and Engineering Apprentice Program; Applied Research Laboratory Student Opportunities in Applied Research Internship; Applied Research Laboratory Walker Fellowship.
d Internships included: in industry; with consumer audio or other acoustics-related industrial companies; with government/federal labs; Naval Research Enterprise Internship.
e Summer activities included: on-campus summer research; Penn State summer school; REU Summer internship–Undergraduate; summer school for undergraduates; Marine Bioacoustics Summer School; FRI Summer internship.
f Short courses included: UNH Marine Acoustics; Sonar Systems and Signal Processing Short Course; Underwater Short Course; University of New Hampshire short course; Marine Acoustics; Sonar Systems and Signal Processing Short Course.
g Workshops included: GOSE workshop.
h NOAA responses included: Hollings Scholarship; Nancy Foster Scholarship.
What are the names of the top five private companies, foundations, government entities, or other organizations that offer or support graduate research assistantship, apprenticeship, fellowship, and/or internship opportunities for students from your institution in the field of acoustics? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 25 Academic Respondents (n = 49)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Office of Naval Research (ONR) | 11 | 22.4% |
| National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) | 7 | 14.3% |
| National Science Foundation (NSF) | 4 | 8.2% |
| NASA | 3 | 6.1% |
| ARL | 2 | 4.1% |
| NAVSEA | 2 | 4.1% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| NIH | 2 | 4.1% |
| NUWC Newport | 2 | 4.1% |
| SMART Scholarship Government | 2 | 4.1% |
| U.S. Navy | 2 | 4.1% |
| Acoustical Society of America | 1 | 2.0% |
| Amazon | 1 | 2.0% |
| Apple | 1 | 2.0% |
| Applied Physical Sciences | 1 | 2.0% |
| BTech Acoustics | 1 | 2.0% |
| Blue Ridge Consulting | 1 | 2.0% |
| Bose | 1 | 2.0% |
| CIE Center for Innovation | 1 | 2.0% |
| Charles Rivers Associates | 1 | 2.0% |
| DoD | 1 | 2.0% |
| Electric Boat | 1 | 2.0% |
| Fugro | 1 | 2.0% |
| 1 | 2.0% | |
| Hibbard Inshore | 1 | 2.0% |
| Los Alamos National Laboratory | 1 | 2.0% |
| MIT Lincoln Labs | 1 | 2.0% |
| Meta | 1 | 2.0% |
| Metron Inc. | 1 | 2.0% |
| Michels | 1 | 2.0% |
| NDIA | 1 | 2.0% |
| NPS | 1 | 2.0% |
| Naval Research Laboratory | 1 | 2.0% |
| Naval Underwater Warfare Center | 1 | 2.0% |
| Navy labs | 1 | 2.0% |
| Nippon Foundation | 1 | 2.0% |
| Oceaneering | 1 | 2.0% |
| Other defense contractors in area | 1 | 2.0% |
| PNNL | 1 | 2.0% |
| Raytheon | 1 | 2.0% |
| Sandia National Laboratories | 1 | 2.0% |
| Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program | 1 | 2.0% |
| USDA-ARS | 1 | 2.0% |
| Vineyard Wind | 1 | 2.0% |
| eTrac | 1 | 2.0% |
NOTES: Respondents had to write in responses. Respondents had to select that their institution offers a formal program in acoustics, courses in acoustics, or courses that included content on ocean acoustics in order to respond to this question. They also had to indicate that their institution provided opportunities (e.g., fellowships, formal workshops, internships, research opportunities, and short courses) for students to grow their skills in acoustics. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to write in multiple responses. ARL: Applied Research Laboratory; DoD: U.S. Department of Defense: MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NAVSEA: Naval Sea Systems Command; NDIA: National Defense Industrial Association; NIH: National Institutes of Health; NOAA: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; NPS: Naval Postgraduate School; NSF: National Science Foundation; NUWC: U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center; ONR: Office of Naval Research; PNNL: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; SMART: Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation; USDA-ARS: U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service
Please rate the extent to which your institution would agree with the following statements related to opportunities for students with a focus/interest in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics). If you are unable to answer on behalf of your institution/organization, please respond based on your own experience the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines.
TABLE 26 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Institution/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Students are easily able to participate in research opportunities related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines. | 1 (1.7%) |
5 (8.5%) |
1 (1.7%) |
17 (28.8%) |
15 (25.4%) |
0 (0%) |
20 (34.5%) |
| Students are easily able to participate in teaching assistant opportunities in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines. | 7 (11.9%) |
15 (25.4) |
4 (6.8%) |
7 (11.9%) |
3 (5.2%) |
3 (5.1%) |
20 (34.5%) |
| Faculty meet with students to discuss their research interests related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
1 (1.7%) |
5 (8.5%) |
15 (25.4%) |
18 (30.5%) |
0 (0%) |
20 (33.9%) |
| Faculty help students access professional networks in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
2 (3.4%) |
3 (5.1%) |
16 (27.1%) |
19 (32.2%) |
0 (0%) |
19 (32.2%) |
| Faculty present with students at conferences in topics related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
1 (1.7%) |
2 (3.4%) |
14 (23.7%) |
21 (35.6%) |
1 (1.7%) |
19 (32.2%) |
| Faculty include students in research grant writing related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines. | 1 (1.7%) |
8 (13.6%) |
7 (11.9%) |
13 (22%) |
8 (13.6%) |
3 (5.1%) |
19 (32.2%) |
| Internships, assistantships, and fellowships related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines are advertised to students on campus. | 2 (3.4%) |
7 (11.9%) |
11 (18.6%) |
9 (15.3%) |
8 (13.6%) |
3 (5.1%) |
19 (32.2%) |
| Internships, assistantships, and fellowships related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines are accessible to students from my institution. | 1 (1.7%) |
3 (5.1%) |
8 (13.6%) |
16 (27.1%) |
10 (16.9%) |
2 (3.4%) |
19 (32.2%) |
| The existing internships, assistantships, and fellowships related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines advance the knowledge students learn in the classroom. | 0 (0%) |
3 (5.1%) |
5 (8.5%) |
18 (30.5%) |
12 (20.3%) |
2 (3.4%) |
19 (32.2%) |
| The existing internships, assistantships, and fellowships related to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines advance student’s field skills. | 0 (0%) |
3 (5.1%) |
9 (15.3%) |
12 (20.3%) |
16 (27.1%) |
0 (0%) |
19 (32.2%) |
| There are sufficient internships, assistantships, and fellowships opportunities available for students interested in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines. | 6 (10.2%) |
13 (22%) |
10 (16.9%) |
3 (5.1%) |
5 (8.5%) |
2 (3.4%) |
20 (33.9%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of your graduates go on to pursue advanced degrees within the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics) each year? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 27 Academic Respondents (n = 6)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1%–10% | 3 | 50% |
| 51%–75% | 1 | 16.7% |
| 91%–100% | 2 | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information on post-graduation data on student graduates from their institution in order to respond to this question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of your graduates are hired within the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting discipline (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics) each year? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 28 Academic Respondents (n = 6)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 11%–25% | 1 | 16.7% |
| 76%–90% | 2 | 33.3% |
| 91%–100% | 3 | 50% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information on post-graduation data on student graduates from their institution in order to respond to this question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What sector(s) in the field of acoustics are graduates from your institution most likely to enter after completing your program? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 29 Academic Respondents (n = 6)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Defense/military | 5 | 83.3% |
| Industry/business organization (for-profit) | 5 | 83.3% |
| Academia (to work within an institution) | 4 | 66.7% |
| Government (non-military) | 4 | 66.7% |
| Non-profit (not including academic institution) | 1 | 16.7% |
| Other | 1a | 16.7% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information on post-graduation data on student graduates from their institution in order to respond to this question. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: consulting firms.
OPEN ENDED: What resources does your academic institution need to better prepare students interested in pursuing acoustics and/or ocean acoustics? (i.e., support from government entities or foundations, access to equipment or materials, additional testing facilities, etc.)
EXHIBIT 2
Academic Respondents (n = 32)
Respondents were asked, “What resources does your academic institution need to better prepare students interested in pursuing acoustics and/or ocean acoustics? (i.e., support from government entities or foundations, access to equipment or materials, additional testing facilities, etc.).” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
What are the most important critical skills and competencies that students from your institution need to be successful in their role related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics? (Select all that apply.)
and
What are the top skills or competences related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that your institution helps students develop through its curriculum or other opportunities?
TABLE 30 Academic Respondents (n = 40)
| Skills and Competencies | Skills Needed | Skills Developed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Data analysis (time series analysis, machine learning, etc.) | 39 | 97.5% | 37 | 92.5% |
| Fundamentals of acoustics (physics behind acoustics) | 35 | 87.5% | 28 | 70.0% |
| Digital signal processing | 33 | 82.5% | 29 | 72.5% |
| Acoustic propagation/soundscape modeling | 32 | 80.0% | 18 | 45.0% |
| At-sea or field experience in data collection | 26 | 65.0% | 20 | 50.0% |
| Field skills | 23 | 57.5% | 16 | 40.0% |
| Remote sensing with acoustic technology (integration/deployment with other technologies) | 22 | 55.0% | 17 | 42.5% |
| Understanding the effects of sound on the environment | 21 | 52.5% | 9 | 22.5% |
| Sound propagation (differences in air vs. water) | 20 | 50.0% | 14 | 35.0% |
| Marine bioacoustics (marine mammal, fish, and invertebrate sound reception and production; animals’ use of sound underwater; effects of sound on marine life) | 16 | 40.0% | 16 | 40.0% |
| Expertise in calibrating acoustic systems | 16 | 40.0% | 15 | 37.5% |
| Ocean noise variability and sound budgets | 15 | 37.5% | 13 | 32.5% |
| Understanding of metadata needed to support acoustic measurements and recordings | 15 | 37.5% | 9 | 22.5% |
| People’s use of sound underwater and related technologies | 14 | 35.0% | 9 | 22.5% |
| Archiving large acoustic datasets | 14 | 35.0% | 6 | 15.0% |
| Soundscape analysis | 12 | 30.0% | 11 | 27.5% |
| Marine policy related to underwater sound | 3 | 7.5% | 5 | 12.5% |
| Other | 10a | 25.0% | 5b | 12.5% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses for skills needed included: application to national defense; data presentation; experience designing experiments; mob/demob; project applications; scientific methods in acoustics; sediment acoustics; ultrasound technology; vibration and radiation of sound; and knowledge of transducers, properties.
b Other responses for skills developed included: applications to national defense; medical ultrasonics; none of the above; sediment acoustics; and transduction, transducers.
What recruitment and retention strategies, if any, are currently being implemented by the field of ocean acoustics and related fields to raise the profile of careers related to ocean acoustics?
This following section asked academic respondents questions about recruitment and retention strategies, including methods for recruiting potential students in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines, challenges their institution faces when attempting to recruit potential students, and partnerships their institution plans to pursue to support student enrollment and faculty/staff hiring.
Based on your knowledge, what methods does your institution use to recruit potential students in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting discipline (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 31 Academic Respondents (n = 38)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Offering partial to full financial aid support to cover expenses | 21 | 55.3% |
| Conducting outreach events on and off your campus | 18 | 47.4% |
| Creating social media content | 14 | 36.8% |
| Developing and providing online content that can be understood by non-experts | 10 | 26.3% |
| Presenting about ocean acoustics job opportunities | 10 | 26.3% |
| Attending college fairs at high schools | 7 | 18.4% |
| Attending high school competitions in related disciplines | 2 | 5.3% |
| None of the above | 12 | 31.6% |
| Other | 2a | 5.3% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: advertising fellowship and recruiting on campus for summer undergraduate programs and utilizing alumni networks.
OPEN-ENDED: What methods, if any, does your institution use to ensure a diverse student body (e.g., age, race, gender, etc.) within the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
EXHIBIT 3
Academic Respondents (n = 23)
Respondents were asked, “What methods, if any, does your institution use to ensure a diverse student body (e.g., age, race, gender, etc.) within the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following does your institution use to recruit students in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? Please answer this question based on the program (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) where you spend the most time.
TABLE 32 Academic Respondents (n = 38)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates | 14 | 36.8% |
| NSF Graduate Fellowship | 13 | 34.2% |
| ASA SURIEA program | 10 | 26.3% |
| ROV Competitions | 5 | 13.2% |
| NOAA Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship | 5 | 13.2% |
| National Ocean Sciences Bowl | 5 | 13.2% |
| NOAA Undergraduate Scholarship Program | 2 | 5.3% |
| Student Conservation Association | 1 | 2.6% |
| None of the above | 12 | 31.6% |
| Other | 6a | 15.8% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: DoD SMART scholarships; ONR Graduate Fellowships; SACNAS; Undergrad program and research to recruit into grad program; We require all of our students to do research.
Based on your knowledge, what are the top 3 challenges your institution faces when attempting to recruit potential students to acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
TABLE 33 Academic Respondents (n = 38)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Difficulty recruiting students from out of state | 11 | 28.9% |
| Lack of flexibility in course offerings | 10 | 26.3% |
| Lack of financial aid | 9 | 23.7% |
| Disconnectedness (i.e., lack of connection with department, classmates, etc.) | 7 | 18.4% |
| Lack of diversity in faculty | 6 | 15.8% |
| Lack of diversity in student body | 5 | 13.2% |
| Location is not desirable | 2 | 5.3% |
| Application process is complex | 1 | 2.63 |
| None of the above | 4 | 10.5% |
| Other | 15a | 39.5% |
NOTES: Respondents could select a maximum of three responses. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select a maximum of three responses.
a Other responses include: admission to NPS is essentially limited to DoD-affiliated students; because we work in national security, we often cannot describe our most interesting work to students; difficulty; lack of student high school preparation; housing affordability; lack of “visibility” of acoustics as a viable field; lack of breadth of program; limited acoustics curriculum; majors are perceived as very difficult; no clear line between most staff that do acoustics research and the academic departments that recruit students, no real curriculum; our institution should probably have a more unified approach to ocean acoustics, instead of the somewhat scattershot approach that we have now; students typically don’t know about acoustics and are not interested in applying; the opportunity is widely misunderstood; there are several 100 jobs related to hydrography at any one time, [and] potential students are not aware, parents are not aware; very few applicants requesting to work in this area, [and] if any, they are international students that will likely have a hard time finding employment in the U.S. after graduating; weak STEM classes in local public high schools; decreasing student pool.
OPEN-ENDED: Please describe any partnerships your institution plans to pursue in the coming year to support student enrollment and faculty/staff hiring efforts in ocean acoustics, acoustics, or supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).
EXHIBIT 4
Academic Respondents (n = 14)
Respondents were asked, “Please describe any partnerships your institution plans to pursue in the coming year to support student enrollment and faculty/staff hiring efforts in ocean acoustics, acoustics, or supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
What is the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise and supporting discipline expertise (e.g., signal processing, sound propagation modeling, marine technology) over the next decade?
This section summarizes academic respondents’ perception of the future needs of ocean acoustics, including potential ways to address shortfalls and increase funding for this field of study.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following identified future needs within ocean acoustics does your institution intend to focus on?
TABLE 34 Academic Respondents (n = 38)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Marine animal bioacoustics | 16 | 42.1% |
| Boundary interactions | 10 | 26.3% |
| Specialized training in acoustical oceanography | 9 | 23.7% |
| Phase-coherent acoustics | 8 | 21.1% |
| Global-spanning multipurpose ocean acoustics network | 7 | 18.4% |
| Nonmammalian marine bioacoustics | 6 | 15.8% |
| Coupled structure/acoustic interaction | 5 | 13.2% |
| Noise control courses | 5 | 13.2% |
| Marine policy and management related to acoustics | 4 | 10.5% |
| Stochastic propagation | 2 | 5.3% |
| I am unable to answer this question on behalf of my institution | 9 | 23.7% |
| Other | 12a | 31.6% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: computational acoustics; national defense applications, i.e., sonar, passive surveillance; propagation phenomena; signal processing for DCLT; sonar signal processing; transducer design; machine learning for sound propagation modeling; seabed acoustics and machine learning for seabed characterization; sensor integration and data processing; and wind energy impacts (noise, construction, etc.).
OPEN-ENDED: What is a growing need in the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that is currently not being met?
EXHIBIT 5
Academic Respondents (n = 27)
Respondents were asked, “What is a growing need in the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that is currently not being met?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
Based on your knowledge, to what extent would your institution agree with the following statements regarding the field of ocean acoustics? If you are unable to answer on behalf of your institution/organization, please respond based on your own perspective
TABLE 35 Academic Respondents (n = 59)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 years from now, the US supply of ocean acousticians will satisfy the demand. | 13 (22%) |
18 (30.5%) |
1 (1.7%) |
2 (3.4%) |
0 (0.0%) |
4 (6.8%) |
21 (35.6%) |
| The U.S. is on track to satisfy its future requirements for ocean acousticians. | 16 (27.1%) |
15 (25.4%) |
2 (3.4%) |
1 (1.7%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (6.8%) |
21 (35.6%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
OPEN-ENDED: How might any projected shortfalls in the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its future requirements for acoustics and/or ocean acousticians be resolved?
EXHIBIT 6
Academic Respondents (n = 28)
Respondents were asked, “How might any projected shortfalls in the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its future requirements for acoustics and/or ocean acousticians be resolved?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
OPEN-ENDED: Please provide any suggestions on how to attract more funding to the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics.
EXHIBIT 7
Academic Respondents (n = 22)
Respondents were asked, “Please provide any suggestions on how to attract more funding to the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics.” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
This section of the report summarizes the survey responses for 19 industry respondents, defined as individuals who work for for-profit, non-profit, or other organizations. Of the total industry respondents, 89.5% completed the survey with the remaining having partially completed the survey. Additionally, though respondents were asked to respond to the survey on behalf of their institution, 63.2% indicated they would complete the survey as an individual based on their own experiences in their field.
This section is divided into five subsections: Background; State of Acoustics Education; Mentorships, Internships, Apprenticeships, & Competencies; Recruitment Strategies; and Future of Acoustics. Each subsection starts with summary bullet points followed by descriptive statistics for each survey question.
This section summarizes background information for 19 industry respondents and their institution/organization including their institution/organization name, sector, region, and respondent tenure.
Institution/Organization Name
TABLE 36 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Ocean Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| JASCO Applied Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin | 1 | 5% |
| ARiA | 1 | 5% |
| ASL Environmental Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| EnerGeo Alliance | 1 | 5% |
| ExxonMobil | 1 | 5% |
| Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory | 1 | 5% |
| Kongsberg Discovery | 1 | 5% |
| Kraken Robotics | 1 | 5% |
| Luna Innovations | 1 | 5% |
| MBARI | 1 | 5% |
| Mote Marine Laboratory | 1 | 5% |
| National Marine Mammal Foundation | 1 | 5% |
| Ocean Science Analytics | 1 | 5% |
| RWE | 1 | 5% |
| Tremology Lab/Center for Cellular Construction | 1 | 5% |
NOTES: This is a fill-in question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Which of the following best describes your institution’s/organization’s sector?
TABLE 37 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Industry/business organization (for-profit) | 12 | 63.2% |
| Non-profit (not including academic institutions) | 4 | 21.1% |
| Other | 3a | 15.8% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Other responses include: arts/science collaboration; not-for-profit university-affiliated research center (UARC); and NAVY UARC at public university.
Which of the following best describes the discipline-related field(s) to which your organization is related?
TABLE 38 Industry Respondents (n = 16)
| Survey Item | Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry/business organization (for-profit) (n = 12) |
Marine technology | 3 | 25.0% |
| Research | 3 | 25.0% | |
| Acoustic consulting | 2 | 16.7% | |
| Other | 2a | 16.7% | |
| Energy | 1 | 8.3% | |
| Manufacturing | 1 | 8.3% | |
| Non-profit (not including academic institution) (n = 4) |
Research | 3 | 75.0% |
| Policy | 1 | 25.0% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Respondents shared additional discipline-related fields that their institutions/organizations are involved in including: fiber optic sensing and offshore wind.
Which of the following best describes your role within your organization?
TABLE 39 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Senior staff member (e.g., Program Officer, Manager, etc.) | 8 | 42.1% |
| Executive leadership team member (e.g., President, Vice President, CEO) | 6 | 31.6% |
| Technical staff member (e.g., Engineer, Data Analyst, etc.) | 4 | 21.1% |
| Other | 1a | 5.3% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Other responses include: Technical Sales Manager.
How long have you been in this role?
TABLE 40 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 5 | 26.3% |
| 1–3 years | 2 | 10.5% |
| 4–6 years | 6 | 31.6% |
| More than 9 years | 6 | 31.6% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately how large is your organization?
TABLE 41 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Fewer than 10 employees | 3 | 15.8% |
| 10–49 employees | 4 | 21.1% |
| 100–249 employees | 5 | 26.3% |
| 250–499 employees | 2 | 10.5% |
| 500–999 employees | 1 | 5.3% |
| More than 1,000 employees | 4 | 21.1% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
In which region is your institution/organization based?
TABLE 42 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| International—Please specify the country | 6a | 31.6% |
| National—Please specify the headquarters location | 4b | 21.1% |
| West (includes California, Oregon, Washington) | 4 | 21.1% |
| South Atlantic (includes Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) | 4 | 21.1% |
| West South Central (includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) | 1 | 5.3% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Respondents that indicated their organization/institution was internationally based noted that they were based out of Canada, United States, Germany, Norway, and one respondent noted that they are based out of the United States Canada, Australia, and Europe.
b Respondents that indicated their organization/institution was nationally based, noted that their headquarters were located in Washington, DC; Dallas, TX; Rhode Island; and Virginia.
What is the current state and presence of education (e.g., degree programs, short courses, training programs, etc.) for acoustics and supporting disciplines that eventually lead into ocean acoustics in the United States?
This section of the survey asked industry respondents about the state of acoustics education. Below we share key takeaways that help describe the current state and presence of acoustics education and supporting disciplines including findings on the educational background of employees as well as DEI, recruitment, and retention.
Which of the following statements apply to your organization?
TABLE 43 Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| My organization has employees who formally studied a supporting discipline related to acoustics or ocean acoustics (engineering, physics, oceanography, etc.). | 17 | 100% |
| My organization has employees who have been identified as having ocean acoustics expertise. | 14 | 82.4% |
| My organization has employees who formally studied acoustics (e.g., course, training, certificate program, or formal degree). | 14 | 82.4% |
| My organization has employees who have been identified as having acoustics expertise (e.g., knowledge from formal programs or field experience). | 14 | 82.4% |
| My organization has employees who formally studied ocean acoustics (e.g., course, training, certificate program, or formal degree). | 13 | 76.5% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
Approximately what percentage of employees are considered acousticians?
TABLE 44 Industry Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1%–10% | 3 | 60.0% |
| 26%–50% | 1 | 20.0% |
| 51%–75% | 1 | 20.0% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied acoustics. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on considered acousticians at their organization. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Identify the academic institutions from which the highest number of your technical staff with acoustics expertise received their terminal degrees (up to 5).
TABLE 45 Industry Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Duke | 1 |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 1 |
| Most did not receive advanced degree in acoustics (either biology or ecology, or undergrad is highest degree with varied majors) | 1 |
| Naval Postgraduate School | 1 |
| Portland State University | 1 |
| Rice | 1 |
| Scripps Institution of Oceanography—UCSD | 1 |
| Stanford University | 1 |
| University of California | 1 |
| University of Hawaii | 1 |
| University of Rhode Island | 1 |
| University of St. Andrews | 1 |
NOTES: Respondents had to write in responses. Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied acoustics. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on considered acousticians at their organization.
Approximately what percentage of employees are considered ocean acousticians?
TABLE 46 Industry Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1%–10% | 2 | 66.7% |
| 26%–50% | 1 | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied ocean acoustics or have ocean acoustics expertise. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on those considered ocean acousticians at their organization. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of your technical staff whose job relates to acoustics are expected to retire within the next five years?
TABLE 47 Industry Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 2 | 40% |
| 1%–10% | 3 | 60% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information that can help identify an approximate percentage of staff whose job relates to acoustics that their organization expects to retire or pursue higher education in the next 5 years. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of your technical staff whose job relates to acoustics are expected to pursue higher education over the next five years?
TABLE 48 Industry Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 3 | 60% |
| 1%–10% | 2 | 40% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information that can help identify an approximate percentage of staff whose job relates to acoustics that their organization expects to retire or pursue higher education in the next 5 years. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Please rate the extent to which your organization would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)
TABLE 49 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The current racial/ethnic composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics is diverse. | 3 (15.8%) |
8 (42.1%) |
1 (5.3%) |
1 (5.3%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (21.1%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| The current gender composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics is diverse. | 2 (10.5%) |
4 (21.1%) |
2 (10.5%) |
5 (26.3%) |
1 (5.3%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| Prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 2 (10.5%) |
3 (15.8%) |
1 (5.3%) |
5 (26.3%) |
2 (10.5%) |
4 (21.1%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| My organization has effective recruitment strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics. | 1 (5.3%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
4 (21.1%) |
0 (0%) |
7 (36.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| My organization has effective retention strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics. | 1 (5.3%) |
2 (10.5%) |
1 (5.3%) |
5 (26.3%) |
1 (5.3%) |
7 (36.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| My organization is actively seeking to recruit more prospective employees that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics. | 1 (5.3%) |
1 (5.3%) |
0 (0%) |
6 (31.6%) |
2 (10.5%) |
7 (36.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| The current racial/ethnic composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 5 (26.3%) |
4 (21.1%) |
2 (10.5%) |
2 (10.5%) |
1 (5.3%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| The current gender composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 2 (10.5%) |
3 (15.8%) |
4 (21.1%) |
5 (26.3%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| Prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 1 (5.3%) |
2 (10.5%) |
2 (10.5%) |
7 (36.8%) |
1 (5.3%) |
4 (21.1%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| My organization has effective recruitment strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics supporting disciplines. | 1 (5.3%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
4 (21.1%) |
0 (0%) |
7 (36.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| My organization has effective retention strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics supporting disciplines. | 1 (5.3%) |
2 (10.5%) |
1 (5.3%) |
5 (26.3%) |
1 (5.3%) |
7 (36.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| My organization is actively seeking to recruit more prospective employees that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 1 (5.3%) |
1 (5.3%) |
1 (5.3%) |
7 (36.8%) |
0 (0%) |
7 (36.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What competencies are needed to fulfill the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise over the next decade? How can the field of academia (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, training, etc.) help meet the industry’s needs?
This section covers responses from industry respondents with regards to mentorships, internships, apprenticeships, and competencies needed to fulfill anticipated demand for ocean acoustics. The following includes opportunities that respondents’ organizations offer to employees for growing their skills, whether graduates have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform their job successfully, and skills and competencies needed to be successful.
Which of the following opportunities does your organization offer to employees interested in practicing/growing their skills related to acoustics?
TABLE 50 Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Responses | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Conferences/workshop attendance | 15 | 88.2% |
| Mentorship opportunity with a staff member from my organization | 11 | 64.7% |
| Summer internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 8 | 47.1% |
| Intensive internal training for new hires | 7 | 41.2% |
| Short-term courses or trainings | 7 | 41.2% |
| Research opportunities in a lab within my organization or within a nearby partner (university or federal/government lab) | 6 | 35.3% |
| Semester-long internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 5 | 29.4% |
| Year-long internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 4 | 23.5% |
| None of the above | 1 | 5.9% |
| Other | 2a | 11.8% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: flexibility to clock-in for overhead to attend virtual seminars; support pursuit of graduate education/degrees at nearby universities.
OPEN-ENDED: Please describe the focus/topic of the selected opportunities that your organization offers.
EXHIBIT 8
Industry Respondents (n = 12)
Respondents were asked, “Please describe the focus/topic of the selected opportunities that your organization offers.” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization offered opportunities to employees interested in practicing/growing their skills related to acoustics in order to have the option to write in a response.
Approximately what percentage of employees who participate in the selected opportunities does your organization promote based on the expertise acquired in professional development opportunities?
TABLE 51 Industry Respondents (n = 16)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 3 | 18.8% |
| 1%–10% | 1 | 6.3% |
| 11%–25% | 1 | 6.3% |
| 26%–50% | 1 | 6.3% |
| I am unable to answer this question on behalf of my organization. | 10 | 62.5% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization offers employees conferences/workshops, intensive internal training for new hires, mentorship, research opportunities, internship/apprenticeship/fellowship, and/or short-term courses or training in order to respond to this question. Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.
OPEN-ENDED: Please describe the type of training(s) or support(s) that your organization provides or recommends to employees in order for them to strengthen the competencies selected above.
EXHIBIT 9
Industry Respondents (n = 11)
Respondents were asked, “Please describe the type of training(s) or support(s) that your organization provides or recommends to employees in order for them to strengthen the competencies selected above.” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
Please rate the extent to which your organization would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics). If you are unable to answer on behalf of your organization, please respond based on your own experience in the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines.
TABLE 52 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with knowledge to perform their job successfully. | 0 (0%) |
1 (5.3%) |
2 (10.5%) |
11 (57.9%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with sufficient field skills to perform their job successfully. | 0 (0%) |
2 (10.5%) |
4 (21.1%) |
6 (31.6%) |
2 (10.5%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with sufficient research experience to perform their job successfully. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (15.8%) |
9 (47.4%) |
2 (10.5%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What are the most important critical skills and competencies that employees from your organization need to be successful in their role related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics? (Select all that apply.)
and
What are the top skills or competencies related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that your organization finds itself needing to support its employees to strengthen through on-the-job training or external training?
TABLE 53 Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Skills and Competencies | Skills Needed | Skills Developed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Data analysis (time series analysis, machine learning, etc.) | 15 | 88.2% | 9 | 52.9% |
| Marine bioacoustics (marine mammal, fish, and invertebrate sound reception and production; animals’ use of sound underwater; effects of sound on marine life) | 12 | 70.6% | 10 | 58.8% |
| Remote sensing with acoustic technology (integration/deployment with other technologies) | 12 | 70.6% | 6 | 35.3% |
| Acoustic propagation/soundscape modeling | 11 | 64.7% | 13 | 76.5% |
| Digital signal processing | 11 | 64.7% | 6 | 35.3% |
| Understanding the effects of sound on the environment | 11 | 64.7% | 4 | 23.5% |
| At-sea or field experience in data collection | 10 | 58.8% | 8 | 47.1% |
| Fundamentals of acoustics (physics behind acoustics) | 10 | 58.8% | 6 | 35.3% |
| Understanding of metadata needed to support acoustic measurements and recordings | 9 | 52.9% | 3 | 17.6% |
| Archiving large acoustic datasets | 8 | 47.1% | 5 | 29.4% |
| Marine policy related to underwater sound | 7 | 41.2% | 7 | 41.2% |
| Expertise in calibrating acoustic systems | 7 | 41.2% | 5 | 29.4% |
| Soundscape analysis | 7 | 41.2% | 4 | 23.5% |
| People’s use of sound underwater and related technologies | 6 | 35.3% | 3 | 17.6% |
| Sound propagation (differences in air vs. water) | 6 | 35.3% | 3 | 17.6% |
| Other | 9a | 52.9% | 5b | 29.4% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: acoustic monitoring technologies; general capability in operating software and data management skills; global regulatory issues; new technology development for safeguarding marine mammals, turtles, fish during operations (note that not one person needs all these skills, we just have projects across several PIs that include these skills); sound mitigation measures during operations; sound-structure interaction; basic transduction principles and differences; physical oceanography.
b Other responses include: acoustic mitigation/attenuation; acoustic monitoring technology; experimental design; received levels and potential impacts on marine life; statistics & statistical validity.
OPEN-ENDED: Are there any non-technical skills (i.e. ability to work in teams, adaptability, self-reliance, etc.) that your organization perceives potential employees lack for jobs in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? Potential employees refers to candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization.
EXHIBIT 10
Industry Respondents (n = 10)
Respondents were asked, “Are there any non-technical skills (i.e., ability to work in teams, adaptability, self-reliance, etc.) that your organization perceives potential employees lack for jobs in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
What recruitment and retention strategies, if any, are currently being implemented by the field of ocean acoustics and related fields to raise the profile of careers related to ocean acoustics?
This section summarizes findings from industry respondents with regards to recruitment and retention strategies and programs used, diversity strategies, as well as challenges.
Based on your knowledge, what methods does your organization use to recruit potential employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
TABLE 54 Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Networking with potential candidates at conferences | 13 | 76.5% |
| Offering employment to interns/fellows | 12 | 70.6% |
| Attending career fairs at institutions | 6 | 35.3% |
| None of the above | 2 | 11.8% |
| Other | 15a | 88.2% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: advertisements; apprenticeship program (going on 2nd year) has been invaluable. Funded by local organization for 150 hours of analyst time; campus visits and guest lectures; direct academic support (data/funding); directly reaching out on social media; employee referrals; job postings; marketing/workshop presentations; online technical training; professor referrals; recruitment firm; planning to go to an HBCU job fair but it hasn’t happened yet; from universities – job advertisements, open searches, social media – LinkedIn.
OPEN-ENDED: What methods, if any, does your organization use to ensure a diverse workforce (e.g., age, race, gender, nationality, etc.) in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
EXHIBIT 11
Industry Respondents (n = 15)
Respondents were asked, “What methods, if any, does your organization use to ensure a diverse workforce (e.g., age, race, gender, nationality, etc.) in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization utilized some method to recruit potential employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines in order to have the option to write in a response.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following programs does your organization use to recruit prospective employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? (Select all that apply.)
TABLE 55 Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Survey Option | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| MTS/IEEE-OES OCEANS Conferences (OCEANS) | 6 | 35.3% |
| Community college programs | 3 | 17.6% |
| UNH Acoustics Career Workshop | 2 | 11.8% |
| Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) | 2 | 11.8% |
| NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates | 1 | 5.9% |
| None of the above | 6 | 35.3% |
| Other | 12a | 70.6% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: ASA conferences; Acoustical Society of America; Acoustical Society of America conferences and job postings; Acoustical Society of America student papers; from close work with and funding of ocean science centers; grant-based post-doctoral positions; other conferences; PSU graduate program in acoustics; recruitment firms; select universities; summer internship programs; university visits including guest lectures.
Based on your knowledge, what are the top 3 current challenges your organization faces when attempting to attract potential candidates to the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? (Select up to 3.)
TABLE 56 Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Budget for hiring is limiting | 4 | 23.5% |
| Non-competitive income or salary | 3 | 17.6% |
| Lack of upward mobility | 3 | 17.6% |
| Generational differences | 3 | 17.6% |
| Benefits are not competitive or substantial for candidates | 2 | 11.8% |
| Lack of diversity in the workforce | 2 | 11.8% |
| Location is not appealing to candidates | 1 | 5.9% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Burnout (emotional, physical, and/or mental exhaustion caused by excessive work-related stress) | 1 | 5.9% |
| Disconnectedness (i.e., lack of connection with organization, colleagues, etc.) | 1 | 5.9% |
| Lack of flexibility in employment opportunity (i.e., no hybrid workplace option) | 1 | 5.9% |
| None of the above | 2 | 11.8% |
| Othera | 11 | 64.7% |
NOTES: Respondents could select a maximum of three responses. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
a Other responses include: generational differences; difficulty finding qualified candidates; lack of qualified candidates; too much required travel; very few qualified candidates in the pool—we reject 90+%; we do not hire this specific expertise although we should; eligibility requirements (e.g., citizenship, ability to pass background checks, etc.); high cost-of-living area and traffic; interdisciplinary expertise; local cost of living increasing rapidly; low turnover of existing internal groups.
What support, if any, does your organization provide employees to support them as they grow their acoustics and/or ocean acoustics skills?
EXHIBIT 12
Industry Respondents (n = 12)
Respondents were asked, “What support, if any, does your organization provide employees to support them as they grow their acoustics and/or ocean acoustics skills?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
Please describe any partnerships or strategies your organization plans to pursue in the coming year to support hiring efforts in the field of ocean acoustics, acoustics, or supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).
EXHIBIT 13
Industry Respondents (n = 8)
Respondents were asked, “Please describe any partnerships or strategies your organization plans to pursue in the coming year to support hiring efforts in the field of ocean acoustics, acoustics, or supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
What is the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise and supporting discipline expertise (e.g., signal processing, sound propagation modeling, marine technology) over the next decade?
This section summarizes industry respondents’ perception of the future needs of ocean acoustics, including potential ways to address shortfalls and increase funding for this field of study.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following identified future needs within ocean acoustics does your organization intend to focus on? (Select all that apply.)
TABLE 57 Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Survey Option | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Marine animal bioacoustics | 10 | 58.8% |
| Marine policy and management related to acoustics | 8 | 47.1% |
| Global-spanning multipurpose ocean acoustic network | 7 | 41.2% |
| Coupled structure–acoustic interaction | 6 | 35.3% |
| Specialized training in acoustical oceanography | 5 | 29.4% |
| Nonmammalian marine bioacoustics | 4 | 23.5% |
| Phase-coherent acoustics | 4 | 23.5% |
| Noise control courses | 3 | 17.6% |
| Boundary interactions | 2 | 11.8% |
| Stochastic propagation | 2 | 11.8% |
| I am unable to answer this question on behalf of my organization | 1 | 5.9% |
| Other | 8a | 47.1% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a Other responses include: applications of machine learning in propagation, noise modeling, and sensing; Next-Generation Technology Development (e.g. Marine Vibroseis); Next-generation low-viz IR camera technology; Sonar Signal Processing; Still identifying directions; acoustic communications; active/passive sonar development; and passive acoustic monitoring.
OPEN-ENDED: What is a growing need in the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that is currently not being met?
EXHIBIT 14
Industry Respondents (n = 12)
Respondents were asked, “What is a growing need in the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that is currently not being met?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
Based on your knowledge, to what extent would your organization agree with the following statements regarding the field of ocean acoustics? If you are unable to answer on behalf of your organization, please respond based on your own perspective.
TABLE 58 Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within my organization’s sector, the number of ocean acousticians will satisfy the demands of the field 10 years from now. | 3 (15.8%) |
9 (47.4%) |
2 (10.5%) |
1 (5.3%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (10.5%) |
2 (10.5%) |
| Within my organization’s sector, the U.S. is on track to satisfy its future requirements for ocean acousticians. | 4 (21.1%) |
8 (42.1%) |
2 (10.5%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
OPEN-ENDED: How might any projected shortfalls in the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its future requirements for acoustics and/or ocean acousticians be resolved?
EXHIBIT 15
Industry Respondents (n = 10)
Respondents were asked, “How might any projected shortfalls in the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its future requirements for acoustics and/or ocean acousticians be resolved?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
OPEN-ENDED: Please provide any suggestions on how to attract more funding to the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics.
EXHIBIT 16
Industry Respondents (n = 10)
Respondents were asked, “Please provide any suggestions on how to attract more funding to the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics.” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
This section of the report summarizes the survey responses for 29 federal respondents, defined as individuals who work for government (non-military), military, and defense organizations. Of the total federal respondents, 75.9% completed the survey with the remaining having partially completed the survey. Additionally, though respondents were asked to respond to the survey on behalf of their institution, 69% indicated they would complete the survey as an individual based on their own experiences in their field.
This section is divided into five subsections: Background; State of Acoustics Education; Mentorships, Internships, Apprenticeships, & Competencies; Recruitment Strategies; and Future of Acoustics. Each subsection starts with summary bullet points followed by descriptive statistics for each survey question.
This section summarizes background information for 29 federal respondents and their institution/organization including their institution/organization name, sector, region, and respondent time in role.
Institution/Organization Name
TABLE 59 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) | 4 | 13.8% |
| Office of Naval Research | 3 | 10.3% |
| National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) | 2 | 6.9% |
| Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) | 2 | 6.9% |
| U.S. Naval Research Laboratory | 2 | 6.9% |
| Areté Associates | 1 | 3.4% |
| BAE Systems and URI affiliate | 1 | 3.4% |
| Department of Defense | 1 | 3.4% |
| Department of the Navy | 1 | 3.4% |
| JHU/APL | 1 | 3.4% |
| Marine Mammal Commission | 1 | 3.4% |
| Naval Oceanographic Office | 1 | 3.4% |
| NIWC Pacific | 1 | 3.4% |
| NOAA Fisheries | 1 | 3.4% |
| NOAA/NEFSC | 1 | 3.4% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Ocean Associates Inc, contracted to NOAA PIFSC | 1 | 3.4% |
| RDA Inc. | 1 | 3.4% |
| Sea Grant/Department of Energy | 1 | 3.4% |
| United States Navy/Naval Oceanographic Office | 1 | 3.4% |
| Applied Research Laboratories—University of Texas | 1 | 3.4% |
| University of Colorado Boulder/NOAA NCEI | 1 | 3.4% |
NOTES: This is a fill-in question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding. BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; JHU/APL: Johns Hopkins University Applied Research Laboratory; NEFSC: Northeast Fisheries Science Center; NCEI: National Centers for Environmental Information; NIWC: Naval Information Warfare Center; NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NPS: Naval Postgraduate School; PIFSC: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center; URI: University of Rhode Island.
Which of the following best describes your institution’s/organization’s sector?
TABLE 60 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Defense/military | 16 | 55.2% |
| Government (non-military) | 13 | 44.8% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Which of the following best describe the discipline-related field(s) to which your organization is related?
TABLE 61 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Survey Item | Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defense/military (n = 16) |
Defense | 8 | 50.0% |
| Research | 6 | 37.5% | |
| Policy | 1 | 6.3% | |
| Technology | 1 | 6.3% | |
| Government (non-military) (n = 13) |
Research | 6 | 46.2% |
| Other | 3a | 23.1% | |
| Regulation | 3 | 23.1% | |
| Policy | 1 | 7.7% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Respondents shared additional discipline-related fields that their institution/organizations are involved in, including: data stewardship; independent, science-based oversight of domestic and international policies and actions of federal agencies addressing human impacts on marine mammals and their ecosystems; and government-non-military.
Which of the following best describes your role within your organization?
TABLE 62 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Senior staff member (e.g., Program Officer, Manager, etc.) | 11 | 37.9% |
| Technical staff member (e.g., Engineer, Data Analyst, etc.) | 8 | 27.6% |
| Other | 4a | 13.8% |
| Executive leadership team member (e.g., President, Vice President, CEO) | 3 | 10.3% |
| Supporting staff member (e.g., Assistant) | 3 | 10.3% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Other responses include: Research Scientist; Professor; Scientific Program Officer, but not senior staff.
How long have you been in this role?
TABLE 63 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 2 | 6.9% |
| 1–3 years | 10 | 34.5% |
| 4–6 years | 3 | 10.3% |
| 7–9 years | 2 | 6.9% |
| More than 9 years | 12 | 41.4% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately how large is your organization?
TABLE 64 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Fewer than 10 employees | 1 | 3.4% |
| 10–49 employees | 2 | 6.9% |
| 250–499 employees | 3 | 10.3% |
| 500–999 employees | 8 | 27.6% |
| More than 1,000 employees | 15 | 51.7% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
In which region is your institution/organization based?
TABLE 65 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| National—Please specify the headquarters location | 10a | 34.5% |
| South Atlantic (includes Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) | 8 | 27.6% |
| West (includes California, Oregon, Washington) | 3 | 10.3% |
| Pacific (includes Alaska and Hawaii) | 2 | 6.9% |
| New England (includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) | 2 | 6.9% |
| Mountain (includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) | 2 | 6.9% |
| East South Central (includes Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee) | 1 | 3.4% |
| West South Central (includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) | 1 | 3.4% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Respondents that indicated their organization/institution was nationally based noted that their headquarters were located in Washington, DC; Arlington, VA; Stennis Space Center, MS; Sterling, VA; both Washington, DC and Sterling; and multiple places across the United States.
What is the current state and presence of education (e.g., degree programs, short courses, training programs, etc.) for acoustics and supporting disciplines that eventually lead into ocean acoustics in the United States?
This section of the survey asked federal respondents about the state of acoustics education. Below we share the key takeaways that help describe the current state and presence of acoustics education and supporting disciplines including findings on the educational background of employees as well as DEI, recruitment, and retention.
Which of the following statements apply to your organization?
TABLE 66 Federal Respondents (n = 27)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| My organization has employees who formally studied a supporting discipline related to acoustics or ocean acoustics (engineering, physics, oceanography, etc.). | 24 | 88.9% |
| My organization has employees who have been identified as having ocean acoustics expertise. | 24 | 88.9% |
| My organization has employees who formally studied acoustics (e.g., course, training, certificate program, or formal degree). | 23 | 85.2% |
| My organization has employees who formally studied ocean acoustics (e.g., course, training, certificate program, or formal degree). | 23 | 85.2% |
| My organization has employees who have been identified as having acoustics expertise (e.g., knowledge from formal programs or field experience). | 22 | 81.5% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
Approximately what percentage of employees are considered acousticians?
TABLE 67 Federal Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 1 | 33.3% |
| 1%–10% | 1 | 33.3% |
| 11%–25% | 1 | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied acoustics. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on considered acousticians at their organization. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of employees are considered ocean acousticians?
TABLE 68 Federal Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1%–10% | 2 | 66.7% |
| 11%–25% | 1 | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied ocean acoustics or have ocean acoustics expertise. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on those considered ocean acousticians at their organization. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Identify the academic institutions from which the highest number of your technical staff with ocean acoustics expertise received their terminal degrees.
TABLE 69 Federal Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Penn State | 2 |
| Catholic University of America | 1 |
| MIT | 1 |
| University of New Hampshire | 1 |
| University of Miami | 1 |
| University of Michigan | 1 |
NOTES: Respondents could name up to five responses. Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied ocean acoustics. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on those considered ocean acousticians at their organization.
Approximately what percentage of your technical staff whose job relates to acoustics are expected to retire within the next 5 years?
TABLE 70 Federal Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1%–10% | 4 | 80% |
| 11%–25% | 1 | 20% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information that can help identify an approximate percentage of staff, whose job relates to acoustics, that their organization expects to retire or pursue higher education in the next 5 years. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of your technical staff whose job relates to acoustics are expected to pursue higher education over the next 5 years?
TABLE 71 Federal Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 3 | 60% |
| 1%–10% | 2 | 40% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information that can help identify an approximate percentage of staff, whose job relates to acoustics, that their organization expects to retire or pursue higher education in the next 5 years. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Please rate the extent to which your organization would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).
TABLE 72 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The current racial/ethnic composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics is diverse. | 6 (20.7%) |
10 (34.5%) |
4 (13.8%) |
1 (3.4%) |
1 (3.4%) |
5 (17.2%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| The current gender composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics is diverse. | 0 (0%) |
9 (31%) |
4 (13.8%) |
7 (24.1%) |
2 (6.9%) |
5 (17.2%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| Prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 1 (3.4%) |
4 (13.8%) |
3 (10.3%) |
12 (41.4%) |
2 (6.9%) |
5 (17.2%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| My organization has effective recruitment strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics. | 4 (13.8%) |
11 (37.9%) |
1 (3.4%) |
4 (13.8%) |
1 (3.4%) |
6 (20.7%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| My organization has effective retention strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics. | 2 (6.9%) |
8 (27.6%) |
6 (20.7%) |
4 (13.8%) |
1 (3.4%) |
6 (20.7%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| My organization is actively seeking to recruit more prospective employees that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics. | 1 (3.4%) |
5 (17.2%) |
3 (10.3%) |
8 (27.6%) |
3 (10.3%) |
7 (24.1%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| The current racial/ethnic composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 3 (10.3%) |
11 (37.9%) |
6 (20.7%) |
2 (6.9%) |
1 (3.4%) |
4 (13.8%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| The current gender composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | 0 (0%) |
9 (31%) |
3 (10.3%) |
9 (31%) |
2 (6.9%) |
4 (13.8%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| Prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 1 (3.4%) |
3 (10.3%) |
5 (17.2%) |
11 (37.9%) |
1 (3.4%) |
6 (20.7%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| My organization has effective recruitment strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics supporting disciplines. | 3 (10.3%) |
9 (31%) |
0 (0%) |
5 (17.2%) |
1 (3.4%) |
9 (31%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| My organization has effective retention strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics supporting disciplines. | 2 (6.9%) |
8 (27.6%) |
2 (6.9%) |
6 (20.7%) |
1 (3.4%) |
8 (27.6%) |
2 (6.9%) |
| My organization is actively seeking to recruit more prospective employees that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 1 (3.4%) |
5 (17.2%) |
1 (3.4%) |
6 (20.7%) |
5 (17.2%) |
9 (31%) |
2 (6.9%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What competencies are needed to fulfill the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise over the next decade? How can the field of academia (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, training, etc.) help meet the industry’s needs?
This section covers responses from federal respondents with regards to mentorships, internships, apprenticeships, and competencies needed to fulfill anticipated demand for ocean acoustic. The following sections include opportunities that respondents’ organizations offer to employees for growing their skills; whether graduates have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform their job successfully; and skills and competencies needed to be successful.
Which of the following opportunities does your organization offer to employees interested in practicing/growing their skills related to acoustics?
TABLE 73 Federal Respondents (n = 25)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Conference/workshop attendance | 23 | 92.0% |
| Research opportunities in a lab within my organization or within a nearby partner (university or federal/government lab) | 14 | 56.0% |
| Short-term courses or trainings | 14 | 56.0% |
| Mentorship opportunity with a staff member from my organization | 13 | 52.0% |
| Intensive internal training for new hires | 5 | 20.0% |
| Year-long internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 4 | 16.0% |
| Semester-long internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 3 | 12.0% |
| Summer internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 2 | 8.0% |
| Other | 8a | 32.0% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a Other responses include: applied training opportunities, support for graduate school, acoustics certification, graduate school scholarships while working at the lab, master’s degree from UNH, pay for advanced degrees, sponsored academic work, summer internship program offered to non-employes/current university students.
Please describe the focus/topic of the selected opportunities that your organization offers.
EXHIBIT 17
Federal Respondents (n = 22)
Respondents were asked, “Please describe the focus/topic of the selected opportunities that your organization offers.” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization offered opportunities to employees interested in practicing/growing their skills related to acoustics in order to have the option to write in a response.
Approximately what percentage of employees who participate in the selected opportunities does your organization promote based on the expertise acquired in professional development?
TABLE 74 Federal Respondents (n = 24)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 3 | 12.5% |
| 1%–10% | 3 | 12.5% |
| 51%–75% | 1 | 4.2% |
| 91%–100% | 1 | 4.2% |
| I am unable to answer this question on behalf of my organization. | 16 | 66.7% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization offers employees conferences/workshops, intensive internal training for new hires, mentorship, research opportunities, internship/apprenticeship/fellowship, and/or short-term courses or training. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
OPEN-ENDED: Please describe the type of training(s) or support(s) that your organization provides or recommends to employees in order for them to strengthen the competencies selected above.
EXHIBIT 18
Federal Respondents (n = 16)
Respondents were asked, “Please describe the type of training(s) or support(s) that your organization provides or recommends to employees in order for them to strengthen the competencies selected above.” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
Please rate the extent to which your organization would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics). If you are unable to answer on behalf of your organization, please respond based on your own experience in the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines.
TABLE 75 Federal Respondents (n = 25)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with knowledge to perform their job successfully. | 1 (3.4%) |
2 (6.9%) |
2 (6.9%) |
9 (31.0%) |
5 (17.2%) |
6 (20.7%) |
4 (13.8%) |
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with sufficient field skills to perform their job successfully. | 1 (3.4%) |
1 (3.4%) |
4 (13.8%) |
7 (24.1%) |
4 (13.8%) |
8 (27.6%) |
4 (13.8%) |
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with sufficient research experience to perform their job successfully. | 1 (3.4%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (3.4%) |
15 (51.7%) |
3 (10.3%) |
5 (17.2%) |
4 (13.8%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What are the most important critical skills and competencies that employees from your organization need to be successful in their role related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics? (Select all that apply.)
and
What are the top skills or competencies related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that your organization finds itself needing to support its employees to strengthen through on-the-job training or external training?
TABLE 76 Federal Respondents (n = 24)
| Skills and Competencies | Skills Needed | Skills Developed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Data analysis (time series analysis, machine learning, etc.) | 20 | 83.3% | 12 | 50.0% |
| At-sea or field experience in data collection | 18 | 75.0% | 12 | 50.0% |
| Acoustic propagation/soundscape modeling | 16 | 66.7% | 11 | 45.8% |
| Fundamentals of acoustics (physics behind acoustics) | 16 | 66.7% | 9 | 37.5% |
| Understanding of metadata needed to support acoustic measurements and recordings | 15 | 62.5% | 7 | 29.2% |
| Digital signal processing | 13 | 54.2% | 10 | 41.7% |
| Marine policy related to underwater sound | 12 | 50.0% | 9 | 37.5% |
| Ocean noise variability and sound budgets | 12 | 50.0% | 9 | 37.5% |
| Sound propagation (differences in air vs. water) | 11 | 45.8% | 8 | 33.3% |
| Marine bioacoustics (marine mammal, fish, and invertebrate sound reception and production; animals’ use of sound underwater; effects of sound on marine life) | 11 | 45.8% | 7 | 29.2% |
| Archiving large acoustic datasets | 11 | 45.8% | 6 | 25.0% |
| Remote sensing with acoustic technology (integration/deployment with other technologies) | 11 | 45.8% | 4 | 16.7% |
| Expertise in calibrating acoustic systems | 10 | 41.7% | 8 | 33.3% |
| Soundscape analysis | 10 | 41.7% | 7 | 29.2% |
| Expertise in calibrating acoustic systems | 10 | 41.7% | 8 | 33.3% |
| Understanding the effects of sound on the environment | 10 | 41.7% | 5 | 20.8% |
| People’s use of sound underwater and related technologies | 5 | 20.8% | 4 | 16.7% |
| None of the above | 0 | 0% | 3 | 12.5% |
| Other (please describe) | 3a | 12.5% | 1b | 4.2% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a Other responses include: Technical knowledge and experience: Understanding Oceanographic Impacts on Acoustic Propagation (with and without modeling).
b Other responses include: Technical knowledge and experience.
Are there any non-technical skills (i.e. ability to work in teams, adaptability, self-reliance, etc.) that your organization perceives potential employees lack for jobs in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? Potential employees refer to candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization.
EXHIBIT 19
Federal Respondents (n = 15)
Respondents were asked, “Are there any non-technical skills (i.e., ability to work in teams, adaptability, self-reliance, etc.) that your organization perceives potential employees lack for jobs in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
What recruitment and retention strategies, if any, are currently being implemented by the field of ocean acoustics and related fields to raise the profile of careers related to ocean acoustics?
This section summarizes findings from federal respondents with regards to recruitment and retention strategies and programs used, diversity strategies, as well as challenges.
Based on your knowledge, what methods does your organization use to recruit potential employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
TABLE 77 Federal Respondents (n = 24)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Networking with potential candidates at conferences | 19 | 79.2% |
| Offering employment to interns/fellows | 14 | 58.3% |
| Attending career fairs at institutions | 8 | 33.3% |
| Other | 18a | 75.0% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a Other responses include: bringing on details from other Navy organizations that eventual come on board full time; bringing on Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) employees that can transition to federal service; collaborations with some of the graduate programs; contract employees are a large pool of potential permanent employees; networking across agencies and facilities; networking at universities, including mentoring students; social network; USAJOBS; bioacoustics listservs; details, IPA; direct hire; job advertisements; listservs; reaching out to graduate program mentors at universities; recommendations from colleagues.
OPEN-ENDED: What methods, if any, does your organization use to ensure a diverse workforce (e.g., age, race, gender, nationality, etc.) in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
EXHIBIT 20
Federal Respondents (n = 22)
Respondents were asked, “What methods, if any, does your organization use to ensure a diverse workforce (e.g., age, race, gender, nationality, etc.) in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization utilized some method to recruit potential employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines in order to have the option to write in a response.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following programs does your organization use to recruit prospective employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? (Select all that apply)
TABLE 78 Federal Respondents (n = 24)
| Survey Option | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| MTS/IEEE-OES OCEANS conferences | 6 | 25.0% |
| NOAA Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship | 4 | 16.7% |
| NOAA Undergraduate Scholarship Program | 4 | 16.7% |
| NSF Graduate Fellowship | 2 | 8.3% |
| UNH Acoustics Career Workshop | 2 | 8.3% |
| Community college programs | 1 | 4.2% |
| NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates | 1 | 4.2% |
| ROV Competitions | 1 | 4.2% |
| None of the above | 10 | 41.7% |
| Other | 8a | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: Acoustical Society of America; direct knowledge of academic programs and students; SMART Fellowship; students/colleagues at research institutions (e.g., WHOI, Scripps); USAJOBS; university graduates (e.g., UNH, University of Washington, Florida International).
Based on your knowledge, what are the top 3 current challenges your organization faces when attempting to attract potential candidates to the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)? (Select up to 3.)
TABLE 79 Federal Respondents (n = 24)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Non-competitive income or salary | 9 | 37.5% |
| Budget for hiring is limiting | 8 | 33.3% |
| Hiring process is complex or strenuous | 7 | 29.2% |
| Lack of diversity in the workforce | 5 | 20.8% |
| Location is not appealing to candidates | 4 | 16.7% |
| Lack of upward mobility | 2 | 8.3% |
| Burnout (emotional, physical, and/or mental exhaustion caused by excessive work-related stress) | 2 | 8.3% |
| Disconnectedness (i.e., lack of connection with organization, colleagues, etc.) | 2 | 8.3% |
| Lack of flexibility in employment opportunity (i.e., no hybrid workplace option) | 2 | 8.3% |
| Benefits are not competitive or substantial for candidates | 1 | 4.2% |
| None of the above | 1 | 4.2% |
| Other | 8a | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents could select a maximum of three responses. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
a Other responses include: applied research is not appealing to candidates; candidates must have a strong GPA and be excited about scientific discovery; cost of living at many facilities make it difficult to attract young candidates; data management in acoustics can be a hard sell; few people have the desired background; knowledge of profession; since the acoustician job is niche and there is not a high demand (nor a large number of candidates) this is a difficult position to fill successfully.
OPEN-ENDED: What support, if any, does your organization provide employees to support them as they grow their acoustics and/or ocean acoustics skills?
EXHIBIT 21
Federal Respondents (n = 12)
Respondents were asked, “What support, if any, does your organization provide employees to support them as they grow their acoustics and/or ocean acoustics skills?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
OPEN-ENDED: Please describe any partnerships or strategies your organization plans to pursue in the coming year to support hiring efforts in the field of ocean acoustics, acoustics, or supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).
EXHIBIT 22
Federal Respondents (n = 13)
Respondents were asked, “Please describe any partnerships or strategies your organization plans to pursue in the coming year to support hiring efforts in the field of ocean acoustics, acoustics, or supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
What is the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise and supporting discipline expertise (e.g., signal processing, sound propagation modeling, marine technology) over the next decade?
This section summarizes federal respondents’ perception on the future needs of ocean acoustics, including potential ways to address shortfalls and increase funding for this field of study.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following identified future needs within ocean acoustics does your organization intend to focus on?
OPEN-ENDED: What is a growing need in the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that is currently not being met?
EXHIBIT 23
Federal Respondents (n = 13)
Respondents were asked, “What is a growing need in the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that is currently not being met?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
TABLE 80 Federal Respondents (n = 23)
| Survey Option | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Marine policy and management related to acoustics | 9 | 39.1% |
| Marine animal bioacoustics | 8 | 34.8% |
| Boundary interactions | 6 | 26.1% |
| Coupled structure/acoustic interaction | 5 | 21.7% |
| Phase-coherent acoustics | 5 | 21.7% |
| Specialized training in acoustical oceanography | 4 | 17.4% |
| Stochastic propagation | 4 | 17.4% |
| Global-spanning multipurpose ocean acoustics network | 3 | 13.0% |
| Nonmammalian marine bioacoustics | 3 | 13.0% |
| Noise control courses | 2 | 8.3% |
| I am unable to answer this question on behalf of my organization | 7 | 30.4% |
| Other | 6a | 26.1% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: Automatic target recognition (ATR); complex scattering fields from small targets; dsp; data analytics; fisheries and plankton acoustics; and all areas of ocean acoustics including education and training.
OPEN-ENDED: How might any projected shortfalls in the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its future requirements for acoustics and/or ocean acousticians be resolved?
EXHIBIT 24
Federal Respondents (n = 11)
Respondents were asked, “How might any projected shortfalls in the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its future requirements for acoustics and/or ocean acousticians be resolved?” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
Based on your knowledge, to what extent would your organization agree with the following statements regarding the field of ocean acoustics? If you are unable to answer on behalf of your organization, please respond based on your own perspective.
TABLE 81 Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within my organization’s sector, the number of ocean acousticians will satisfy the demands of the field 10 years from now. | 3 (10.3%) |
9 (31%) |
4 (13.8%) |
1 (3.4%) |
1 (3.4%) |
5 (17.2%) |
6 (20.7%) |
| Within my organization’s sector, the U.S. is on track to satisfy its future requirements for ocean acousticians. | 2 (6.9%) |
9 (31%) |
5 (17.2%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (3.4%) |
6 (20.7%) |
6 (20.7%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
OPEN-ENDED: Please provide any suggestions on how to attract more funding to the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics.
EXHIBIT 25
Federal Respondents (n = 12)
Respondents were asked, “Please provide any suggestions on how to attract more funding to the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics.” Below is a list of all of the open-ended responses, listed in alphabetical order.
This section of the report summarizes the survey responses for three professional society respondents. Of the total professional society respondents, two of the three completed the survey with the remaining having partially completed the survey. Additionally, though respondents were asked to respond to the survey on behalf of their institution, one respondent indicated they would complete the survey as an individual based on their own experiences in their field.
This section is divided into five subsections: Background; State of Acoustics Education; Mentorships, Internships, Apprenticeships, & Competencies; Recruitment Strategies; and Future of Acoustics. Each subsection starts with summary bullet points followed by descriptive statistics for each survey question.
This section summarizes background information for three professional society respondents and their institution/organization including their institution/organization name, sector, region, and respondent tenure.
Institution/Organization Name
TABLE 82 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Acoustical Society of America | 1 | 33.3% |
| Marine Technology Society | 1 | 33.3% |
| UNOLS | 1 | 33.3% |
NOTES: This is a fill-in question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Institution/Organization’s Sector?
TABLE 83 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Professional Society (e.g., ASA, AGU, MTS, THSOA) | 3 | 100% |
NOTE: Acoustical Society of America (ASA); American Geophysical Union (AGU); Marine Technology Society (MTS); and The Hydrographic Society of America (THSOA).
Which of the following best describes your role?
TABLE 84 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Professional society staff | 3 | 100% |
How long have you been in this role?
TABLE 85 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1–3 years | 1 | 33.3% |
| 4–6 years | 2 | 66.6% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately how many total members are part of your professional society?
TABLE 86 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| More than 1,000 members | 3 | 100% |
In which region is your institution/organization based?
TABLE 87 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| National—Please specify the headquarters location | 1a | 33.3% |
| Middle Atlantic (includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) | 1 | 33.3% |
| International—Please specify the country | 1b | 33.3% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a The respondent that indicated their organization/institution was nationally based noted that their headquarters were located in Washington.
b The respondent that indicated their organization/institution was internationally based noted that they were based out of the United States.
What is the current state and presence of education (e.g., degree programs, short courses, training programs, etc.) for acoustics and supporting disciplines that eventually lead into ocean acoustics in the United States?
This section of the survey asked professional society respondents about the state of acoustics education. Due to the low response rate and respondents unable to confirm access to information to complete portions of the survey, our findings on the state of education from the professional society perspective are limited.
Which of the following statements apply to your professional society?
TABLE 88 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| My professional society offers courses and/or short courses in acoustics | 1 | 33.3% |
| My professional society offers courses and/or short courses that include content on ocean acoustics | 1 | 33.3% |
| My professional society offers educational opportunities in supporting disciplines that inform acoustics content | 1 | 33.3% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| My professional society offers professional development opportunities in acoustics (conference workshops, dedicated conference spaces, online modules, tutorials, etc.). | 1 | 33.3% |
| None of the above. | 2 | 66.7% |
NOTE: Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
Please rate the extent to which your professional society would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).
TABLE 89 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Professional Society/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The current racial/ethnic composition of student members who participate in professional societies is diverse. | 0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| The current gender composition of student members who participate in professional societies is diverse. | 0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| Student members who participate in professional societies represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| My professional society is actively seeking to recruit more student members that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
1 (33.3%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| My professional society is actively seeking to recruit more student members that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (66.7%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| The current racial/ethnic composition of professional members (non-students) is diverse. | 1 (33.3%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| The current gender composition of professional members (non-students) is diverse. | 0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| Professional members (non-students) represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (66.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| My professional society is actively seeking to increase the gender diversity of professional members (non-students) in the field of acoustics. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (66.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| My professional society is actively seeking to increase the gender diversity of professional members (non-students) in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (67.7%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Professional Society/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| My professional society is actively seeking to increase the racial/ethnic diversity of professional members (non-students) in the field of acoustics. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
1 (33.3%) |
1 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
| My professional society is actively seeking to increase the racial/ethnic diversity of professional members (non-students) in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (33.3%) |
2 (67.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What competencies are needed to fulfill the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise over the next decade? How can the field of academia (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, training, etc.) help meet the industry’s needs?
This section asked professional society respondents about mentorships, internships, apprenticeships, and competencies as they relate to ocean acoustics expertise. Due to the low response rate and respondents unable to confirm access to information to complete portions of the survey, findings from the professional society perspective are limited.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following opportunities are available for members from your professional society interested in acoustics to practice/grow their skills?
TABLE 90 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Mentorship opportunities with experienced professors/researchers | 2 | 66.7% |
| Fellowships | 1 | 33.3% |
| Internships in an industry-related organization | 1 | 33.3% |
| Research opportunities in a lab (with a partner university or government) | 1 | 33.3% |
| Tutorials related to acoustic topics | 1 | 33.3% |
| None of the above | 1 | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
What are the most important critical skills and competencies that someone interested in acoustics and/or ocean acoustics needs to be successful in the field?
and
What are the top skills or competencies related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that your professional society helps student members develop and master through its activities, programs, and other opportunities?
TABLE 91 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Skills and Competencies | Skills Needed | Skills Developed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Fundamentals of acoustics (physics behind acoustics) | 3 | 100.0% | 1 | 33.3% |
| People’s use of sound underwater and related technologies | 2 | 66.7% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Acoustic propagation/soundscape modeling | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| At-sea or field experience in data collection | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Data analysis (time series analysis, machine learning, etc.) | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Digital signal processing | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Field skills | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Marine policy related to underwater sound | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Ocean noise variability and sound budgets | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Understanding of metadata needed to support acoustic measurements and recordings | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| None of the above | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 66.7% |
| Other (please describe) | 1a | 33.3% | 1b | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that apply.
a Other responses include: completely dependent on field of acoustics.
b Other responses include: science communication.
What recruitment and retention strategies, if any, are currently being implemented by the field of ocean acoustics and related fields to raise the profile of careers related to ocean acoustics?
This section summarizes findings from professional society respondents regarding recruitment and retention strategies. Due to the low response rate and respondents unable to confirm access to information to complete portions of the survey, findings from the professional society perspective are limited.
Based on your knowledge, what are the top 3 challenges your professional society faces when attempting to recruit potential members to acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
TABLE 92 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Survey Option | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of membership diversity | 3 | 100.0% |
| Disconnectedness (i.e., lack of connection with other members, etc.) | 2 | 66.7% |
| Costs associated with membership | 1 | 33.3% |
| Lack of professional society staff diversity | 1 | 33.3% |
| Other | 2a | 66.7% |
NOTES: Respondents could select a maximum of three responses. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
a Other responses include: too many competing societies; unfamiliar with the field of acoustics.
What is the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise and supporting discipline expertise (e.g., signal processing, sound propagation modeling, marine technology) over the next decade?
This section summarizes professional society respondents’ perception on the future needs of ocean acoustics. Unfortunately, there were too few responses that did not meet the data sharing threshold. These included questions pertaining to the future needs of ocean acoustics that professional societies intend to focus on, the growing needs in the field that are not currently being met, the potential solutions to shortfalls in acoustic/ocean acoustics, and the potential ways to attract more funding in acoustics/ocean acoustics. As noted below, the only question that did meet the data sharing threshold shows that professional society respondents were primarily unable to answer statements related to the future of ocean acoustics.
Based on your knowledge, to what extent would your professional society agree with the following statements regarding the field of ocean acoustics? If you are unable to answer on behalf of your professional society, please respond based on your own perspective.
TABLE 93 Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within my organization’s sector, the number of ocean acousticians will satisfy the demands of the field 10 years from now. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (66.7%) |
1 (33.3%) |
| Within my organization’s sector, the U.S. is on track to satisfy its future requirements for ocean acousticians. | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (66.7%) |
1 (33.3%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
This section of the report summarizes the survey responses to comparable questions that were answered by two or more respondent types. This can allow for easier analysis across the respondent types to understand similar or different perspectives that professionals in the field may share. It should be noted that there are varying sample sizes across the respondent types, which should be factored in when making comparative observations.
Similar to the sections above, this section is divided into five subsections: Background; State of Acoustics Education; Mentorships, Internships, Apprenticeships, & Competencies; Recruitment Strategies; and Future of Acoustics. Each subsection starts with summary bullet points followed by descriptive statistics for each survey question that two or more respondent types answered.
This section summarizes background information for respondents and their institution/organization including their institution/organization name, sector, region, and respondent tenure. This section includes combined responses from the academic, industry, federal, and professional society survey takers.
Institution/Organization Name
TABLE 94 Academic Respondents (n = 59), Industry Respondents (n = 19), Federal Respondents (29), Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Research Laboratories at the University of Texas at Austin | 6 | 5.5% |
| Brigham Young University | 4 | 3.6% |
| Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) | 4 | 3.6% |
| Naval Postgraduate School | 4 | 3.6% |
| Office of Naval Research | 3 | 2.7% |
| University of New Hampshire | 3 | 2.7% |
| University of Washington | 3 | 2.7% |
| Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington | 3 | 2.7% |
| Applied Ocean Sciences | 2 | 1.8% |
| JASCO Applied Sciences | 2 | 1.8% |
| National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) | 2 | 1.8% |
| Oregon State University | 2 | 1.8% |
| University of Massachusetts Dartmouth | 2 | 1.8% |
| University of Michigan | 2 | 1.8% |
| Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) | 2 | 1.8% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania State University | 2 | 1.8% |
| University of Victoria | 2 | 1.8% |
| Acoustical Society of America | 1 | 0.9% |
| Areté Associates | 1 | 0.9% |
| ARiA | 1 | 0.9% |
| ARL, Penn State University | 1 | 0.9% |
| ASL Environmental Sciences | 1 | 0.9% |
| BAE Systems and URI affiliate | 1 | 0.9% |
| Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping, UNH | 1 | 0.9% |
| Cornell University | 1 | 0.9% |
| Department of Defense | 1 | 0.9% |
| Department of the Navy | 1 | 0.9% |
| Duke University | 1 | 0.9% |
| EnerGeo Alliance | 1 | 0.9% |
| ExxonMobil | 1 | 0.9% |
| George Mason University | 1 | 0.9% |
| Georgia Tech | 1 | 0.9% |
| Great Lakes Water Studies Institute | 1 | 0.9% |
| Institute of Oceanography, National Taiwan University | 1 | 0.9% |
| Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory | 2 | 1.8% |
| Joliet Junior College | 1 | 0.9% |
| Kongsberg Discovery | 1 | 0.9% |
| Kraken Robotics | 1 | 0.9% |
| Luna Innovations | 1 | 0.9% |
| Marine Mammal Commission | 1 | 0.9% |
| Marine Technology Society | 1 | 0.9% |
| MBARI | 1 | 0.9% |
| Mote Marine Laboratory | 1 | 0.9% |
| National Marine Mammal Foundation | 1 | 0.9% |
| Naval Oceanographic Office | 1 | 0.9% |
| NCPA, University of Mississippi | 1 | 0.9% |
| New Jersey Institute of Technology | 1 | 0.9% |
| NIWC Pacific | 1 | 0.9% |
| NOAA Fisheries | 1 | 0.9% |
| NOAA/NEFSC | 1 | 0.9% |
| Northeastern University | 1 | 0.9% |
| NPS | 1 | 0.9% |
| Ocean Associates Inc, contracted to NOAA PIFSC | 1 | 0.9% |
| Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Ocean Science Analytics | 1 | 0.9% |
| Penn State Graduate Program in Acoustics | 1 | 0.9% |
| Portland State University | 1 | 0.9% |
| RDA Inc. | 1 | 0.9% |
| RWE | 1 | 0.9% |
| Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego | 1 | 0.9% |
| Sea Grant/Department of Energy | 1 | 0.9% |
| Stony Brook University | 1 | 0.9% |
| Syracuse University | 1 | 0.9% |
| The University of Alabama | 1 | 0.9% |
| The University of Vermont | 1 | 0.9% |
| Tremology Lab/Center for Cellular Construction | 1 | 0.9% |
| UCSD/SIO | 1 | 0.9% |
| United States Navy/Naval Oceanographic Office | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of Miami (retired) | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of Colorado Boulder/NOAA NCEI | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Department of Physics | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of New Orleans | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of Rhode Island | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of South Florida/College of Marine Science | 1 | 0.9% |
| University of Texas at Austin | 1 | 0.9% |
| UNOLS | 1 | 0.9% |
| U.S. Naval Research Laboratory | 2 | 1.8% |
NOTES: This is a fill-in question. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Which of the following best describes your institution/organization’s sector?
TABLE 95 Academic Respondents (n = 59), Industry Respondents (n = 19), Federal Respondents (n = 29), Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Survey Type | Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic | Academic Institution (public) | 39 | 35.5% |
| Academic Institution (private) | 13 | 11.8% | |
| Other (academic) | 7a | 6.4% | |
| Academic Total | 59 | 53.6% | |
| Industry | Industry/business organization (for-profit) | 12 | 10.9% |
| Non-profit (not including academic institution) | 4 | 3.6% | |
| Other | 3b | 2.7% | |
| Industry Total | 19 | 17.3% |
| Survey Type | Response | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal | Defense/military | 16 | 14.5% |
| Government (non-military) | 13 | 11.8% | |
| Federal total | 29 | 26.4% | |
| Professional | Professional society (e.g., ASA, AGU, MTS, THSOA) | 3 | 2.7% |
| Society | Professional society total | 3 | 2.7% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Other academic responses included: University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) and Defense Graduate Institution.
b Other industry responses included: Arts/Science Collaboration; not-for-profit university-affiliated research center (UARC); and Navy UARC at public university.
Which of the following best describes your role within your organization?
TABLE 96 Industry Respondents (n = 19), Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Industry | Federal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Senior staff member (e.g., Program Officer, Manager, etc.) | 8 | 16.7% | 11 | 22.9% |
| Technical staff member (e.g., Engineer, Data Analyst, etc.) | 4 | 8.3% | 8 | 16.7% |
| Executive leadership team member (e.g., President, Vice President, CEO) | 6 | 12.5% | 3 | 6.3% |
| Supporting staff member (e.g., Assistant) | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 6.3% |
| Other | 1a | 2.1% | 4b | 8.3% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
a Other industry responses included: Technical Sales Manager
b Other federal responses included: Research Scientist; Professor; Scientific Program Officer, but not senior staff.
How long have you been in this role?
TABLE 97 Academic Respondents (n = 59), Industry Respondents (n = 19), Federal Respondents (n = 29) Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Academic | Industry | Federal | Professional Society |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| 1–3 years | 12 | 2 | 10 | 1 |
| 4–6 years | 8 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| 7–9 years | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| More than 9 years | 33 | 6 | 12 | 0 |
Approximately how large is your organization?
TABLE 98 Industry Respondents (n = 19), Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Response | Industry | Federal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Fewer than 10 employees | 3 | 15.8% | 1 | 3.4% |
| 10–49 employees | 4 | 21.1% | 2 | 6.9% |
| 100–249 employees | 5 | 26.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 250–499 employees | 2 | 10.5% | 3 | 10.3% |
| 500–999 employees | 1 | 5.3% | 8 | 27.6% |
| More than 1,000 employees | 4 | 21% | 15 | 51.7% |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
In which region is your institution/organization based?
TABLE 99 Academic Respondents (n = 59), Industry Respondents (n = 19), Federal Respondents (n = 29), Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Academic | Industry | Federal | Professional Society |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| East North Central (includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| East South Central (includes Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee) | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| International—Please specify the country | 3a | 6b | 0 | 1c |
| Middle Atlantic (includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mountain (includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| National—Please specify the headquarters location | 0 | 4d | 10e | 1 |
| New England (includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) | 11 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Pacific (includes Alaska and Hawaii) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| South Atlantic (includes Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) | 5 | 4 | 8 | 0 |
| West (includes California, Oregon, Washington) | 14 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| West South Central (includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
a Academic respondents that indicated their organization/institution was internationally based noted that they were based out of Canada, and Taiwan.
b Industry respondents that indicated their organization/institution was internationally based noted that they were based out of Canada, United States, Germany, and Norway; and one respondent noted that they are based out of the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe.
c Professional Society respondents that indicated their organization/institution was internationally based noted that they were based out of the United States.
d Industry respondents that indicated their organization/institution was nationally based, noted that their headquarters were located in Washington, DC; Dallas; TX, Rhode Island; and Virginia.
e Federal respondents that indicated their organization/institution was nationally based, noted that their headquarters were located in Washington, DC; Arlington, VA; Stennis Space Center, MS; Sterling, VA; both Washington, DC and Sterling; and multiple places across the United States.
What is the current state and presence of education (e.g., degree programs, short courses, training programs, etc.) for acoustics and supporting disciplines that eventually lead into ocean acoustics in the United States?
This section of the report compares federal and industry responses about the state of acoustics education, including findings related to the educational background of employees, DEI, recruitment, and retention, where applicable. Because academic and professional society respondents answered different sets of questions related to the state of acoustics education, their responses are not comparable and are therefore not included in this section.
Which of the following statements apply to your organization?
TABLE 100 Industry Respondents (n = 17), Federal Respondents (n = 27)
| Response | Industry | Federal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| My organization has employees who formally studied a supporting discipline related to acoustics or ocean acoustics (engineering, physics, oceanography, etc.). | 17 | 100% | 24 | 88.9% |
| My organization has employees who have been identified as having ocean acoustics expertise. | 14 | 82.4% | 24 | 88.9% |
| My organization has employees who formally studied acoustics (e.g., course, training, certificate program, or formal degree). | 14 | 82.4% | 23 | 85.2% |
| My organization has employees who formally studied ocean acoustics (e.g., course, training, certificate program, or formal degree). | 13 | 76.5% | 23 | 85.2% |
| My organization has employees who have been identified as having acoustics expertise (e.g., knowledge from formal programs or field experience). | 14 | 82.4% | 22 | 81.5% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
Approximately what percentage of employees are considered acousticians?
TABLE 101 Industry Respondents (n = 3), Federal Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Industry | Federal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| 0% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 33.3% |
| 1%–10% | 2 | 66.7% | 1 | 33.3% |
| 11%–25% | 1 | 33.3% | 1 | 33.3% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied acoustics. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on considered acousticians at their organization. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of employees are considered ocean acousticians?
TABLE 102 Industry Respondents (n = 3), Federal Respondents (n = 3)
| Response | Industry | Federal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| 1%–10% | 2 | 66.7% | 2 | 66.7% |
| 11%–25% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 33.3% |
| 26%–50% | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization has employees that formally studied ocean acoustics or has ocean acoustics expertise. They also had to confirm that they had access to information on those considered ocean acousticians at their organization. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of your technical staff whose job relates to acoustics are expected to retire within the next five years?
TABLE 103 Industry Respondents (n = 5), Federal Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Industry | Federal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| 0% | 2 | 40% | 0 | 0% |
| 1%–10% | 3 | 60% | 4 | 80% |
| 11%–25% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 20% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information that can help identify an approximate percentage of staff, whose job relates to acoustics, that their organization expects to retire or pursue higher education in the next 5 years. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Approximately what percentage of your technical staff whose job relates to acoustics are expected to pursue higher education over the next five years?
TABLE 104 Industry Respondents (n = 5), Federal Respondents (n = 5)
| Response | Industry | Federal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| 0% | 3 | 60% | 3 | 60% |
| 1%–10% | 2 | 40% | 2 | 40% |
NOTES: Respondents had to confirm that they had access to information that can help identify an approximate percentage of staff, whose job relates to acoustics, that their organization expects to retire or pursue higher education in the next 5 years. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Please rate the extent to which your organization would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).
TABLE 105 Industry Respondents (n = 19), Federal Respondents (n = 29)
| Survey Statement | Survey Type | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The current racial/ethnic composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics is diverse. | Federal | 6 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 |
| (20.7%) | (34.5%) | (13.8%) | (3.4%) | (3.4%) | (17.2%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 3 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | |
| (15.8%) | (42.1%) | (5.3%) | (5.3%) | (0%) | (21.1%) | (10.5%) | ||
| The current gender composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics is diverse. | Federal | 0 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| (0%) | (31%) | (13.8%) | (24.1%) | (6.9%) | (17.2%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| (10.5%) | (21.1%) | (10.5%) | (26.3%) | (5.3%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| Prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | Federal | 1 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| (3.4%) | (13.8%) | (10.3%) | (41.4%) | (6.9%) | (17.2%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |
| (10.5%) | (15.8%) | (5.3%) | (26.3%) | (10.5%) | (21.1%) | (10.5%) | ||
| My organization has effective recruitment strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics. | Federal | 4 | 11 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 2 |
| (13.8%) | (37.9%) | (3.4%) | (13.8%) | (3.4%) | (20.7%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |
| (5.3%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) | (21.1%) | (0%) | (36.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| My organization has effective retention strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics. | Federal | 2 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 2 |
| (6.9%) | (27.6%) | (20.7%) | (13.8%) | (3.4%) | (20.7%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 2 | |
| (5.3%) | (10.5%) | (5.3%) | (26.3%) | (5.3%) | (36.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| My organization is actively seeking to recruit more prospective employees that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics. | Federal | 1 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 2 |
| (3.4%) | (17.2%) | (10.3%) | (27.6%) | (10.3%) | (24.1%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 2 | |
| (5.3%) | (5.3%) | (0%) | (31.6%) | (10.5%) | (36.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| The current racial/ethnic composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | Federal | 3 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| (10.3%) | (37.9%) | (20.7%) | (6.9%) | (3.4%) | (13.8%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| (26.3%) | (21.1%) | (10.5%) | (10.5%) | (5.3%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) |
| Survey Statement | Survey Type | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The current gender composition of prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines is diverse. | Federal | 0 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| (0%) | (31%) | (10.3%) | (31%) | (6.9%) | (13.8%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | |
| (10.5%) | (15.8%) | (21.1%) | (26.3%) | (0%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| Prospective employees (candidates that submit a resume or interview with your organization) in acoustics supporting disciplines represent a broad range of regions from the United States. | Federal | 1 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 2 |
| (3.4%) | (10.3%) | (17.2%) | (37.9%) | (3.4%) | (20.7%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | |
| (5.3%) | (10.5%) | (10.5%) | (36.8%) | (5.3%) | (21.1%) | (10.5%) | ||
| My organization has effective recruitment strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics supporting disciplines. | Federal | 3 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 2 |
| (10.3%) | (31%) | (0%) | (17.2%) | (3.4%) | (31%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |
| (5.3%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) | (21.1%) | (0%) | (36.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| My organization has effective retention strategies aimed at increasing the diversity of prospective employees in acoustics supporting disciplines. | Federal | 2 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 2 |
| (6.9%) | (27.6%) | (6.9%) | (20.7%) | (3.4%) | (27.6%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 2 | |
| (5.3%) | (10.5%) | (5.3%) | (26.3%) | (5.3%) | (36.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| My organization is actively seeking to recruit more prospective employees that are underrepresented in the field of acoustics supporting disciplines. | Federal | 1 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 2 |
| (3.4%) | (17.2%) | (3.4%) | (20.7%) | (17.2%) | (31%) | (6.9%) | ||
| Industry | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |
| (5.3%) | (5.3%) | (5.3%) | (36.8%) | (0%) | (36.8%) | (10.5%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What competencies are needed to fulfill the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise over the next decade? How can the field of academia (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, training, etc.) help meet the industry’s needs?
This section of the report comparatively reflects on the opportunities for mentorship, internships, and apprenticeships related to ocean acoustics, as well as the knowledge and skills needed to be successful in the field, as reported by federal, industry, academic, and professional society respondents. Below we share the key takeaways from this comparison.
Which of the following opportunities does your organization offer to employees interested in practicing/growing their skills related to acoustics?
TABLE 106 Federal Respondents (n = 25); Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Responses | Federal | Industry | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Conferences/workshop attendance | 23 | 92.0% | 15 | 88.2% |
| Research opportunities in a lab within my organization or within a nearby partner (university or federal/government lab) | 14 | 56.0% | 6 | 35.3% |
| Short-term courses or trainings | 14 | 56.0% | 7 | 41.2% |
| Mentorship opportunity with a staff member from my organization | 13 | 52.0% | 11 | 64.7% |
| Intensive internal training for new hires | 5 | 20.0% | 7 | 41.2% |
| Year-long internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 4 | 16.0% | 4 | 23.5% |
| Semester-long internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 3 | 12.0% | 5 | 29.4% |
| Summer internship/apprenticeship/fellowship | 2 | 8.0% | 8 | 47.1% |
| Other | 8a | 32.0% | 2b | 11.8% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a Other responses include: applied training opportunities; Support for graduate school; acoustics certification; graduate school scholarships while working at the lab; master’s degree from UNH; pay for advanced degrees; sponsored academic work; summer internship program offered to non-employes/current university students.
b Other responses include: flexibility to clock in for overhead to attend virtual seminars; support pursuit of graduate education/degrees at nearby universities.
Approximately what percentage of employees who participate in the selected opportunities does your organization promote based on the expertise acquired in professional development opportunities?
TABLE 107 Federal Respondents (n = 24); Industry Respondents (n = 16)
| Response | Federal | Industry | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| 0% | 3 | 12.5% | 3 | 18.8% |
| 1%–10% | 3 | 12.5% | 1 | 6.2% |
| 11%–25% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 6.2% |
| 26%–50% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 6.2% |
| 51%–75% | 1 | 4.2% | 0 | 0% |
| 91%–100% | 1 | 4.2% | 0 | 0% |
| I am unable to answer this question on behalf of my organization. | 16 | 66.7% | 10 | 62.5% |
NOTES: Respondents had to indicate that their organization offers employees conferences/workshops, intensive internal training for new hires, mentorship, research opportunities, internship/apprenticeship/fellowship, and/or short-term courses or training. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
Please rate the extent to which your organization would agree with the following statements regarding the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics). If you are unable to answer on behalf of your organization, please respond based on your own experience the field of acoustics and acoustics supporting disciplines.
TABLE 108 Federal Respondents (n = 29); Industry Respondents (n = 19)
| Statement | Survey Type | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Unable to Answer on Behalf of My Organization/Prefer Not to Answer | No Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with knowledge to perform their job successfully. | Federal | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| (3.4%) | (6.9%) | (6.9%) | (31.0%) | (17.2%) | (20.7%) | (13.8%) | ||
| Industry | 0 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 3 | 2 | |
| (0.0%) | (5.3%) | (10.5%) | (57.9%) | (0.0%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with sufficient field skills to perform their job successfully. | Federal | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 4 |
| (3.4%) | (3.4%) | (13.8%) | (24.1%) | (13.8%) | (27.6%) | (13.8%) | ||
| Industry | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| (0.0%) | (10.5%) | (21.1%) | (31.6%) | (10.5%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
| Graduates with a degree in acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines arrive on the job with sufficient research experience to perform their job successfully. | Federal | 1 | 0 | 1 | 15 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| (3.4%) | (0.0%) | (3.4%) | (51.7%) | (10.3%) | (17.2%) | (13.8%) | ||
| Industry | 0 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| (0.0%) | (0.0%) | (15.8%) | (47.4%) | (10.5%) | (15.8%) | (10.5%) | ||
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
What are the most important critical skills and competencies that employees from your organization need to be successful in their role related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics? (select all that apply.) And what are the top skills or competencies related to acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that your organization finds itself needing to support its employees to strengthen through on-the-job training or external training?
TABLE 109 Academic Respondents (n = 40); Federal Respondents (n = 24); Industry Respondents (n = 17); Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Skills and Competencies | Academic | Federal | Industry | Professional Society | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | |
| Acoustic propagation/soundscape modeling | 32 | 18 | 16 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 1 | 0 |
| Archiving large acoustic datasets | 14 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| At-sea or field experience in data collection | 26 | 20 | 18 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Data analysis (time series analysis, machine learning, etc.) | 39 | 37 | 20 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
| Digital signal processing | 33 | 29 | 13 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| Expertise in calibrating acoustic systems | 16 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Field skills | 23 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Fundamentals of acoustics (physics behind acoustics) | 35 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Marine bioacoustics (marine mammal, fish, and invertebrate sound reception and production; animals’ use of sound underwater; effects of sound on marine life) | 16 | 16 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Marine policy related to underwater sound | 3 | 5 | 12 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| Ocean noise variability and sound budgets | 15 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| People’s use of sound underwater and related technologies | 14 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| Skills and Competencies | Academic | Federal | Industry | Professional Society | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | Skills Needed Frequency | Skills Developed Frequency | |
| Remote sensing with acoustic technology (integration/deployment with other technologies) | 22 | 17 | 11 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Soundscape analysis | 12 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Sound propagation (differences in air vs. water) | 20 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Understanding of metadata needed to support acoustic measurements and recordings | 15 | 9 | 15 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Understanding the effects of sound on the environment | 21 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| None of the above | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| No response | 19 | 19 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other (please describe) | 10a | 5b | 3c | 1d | 8e | 5f | 1g | 1h |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses.
a Other responses for skills needed included: application to national defense; data presentation; experience designing experiments; mob/demob; project applications; scientific methods in acoustics; sediment acoustics; ultrasound technology; vibration and radiation of sound; and knowledge of transducers’ properties.
b Other responses for skills developed included: applications to national defense; medical ultrasonics; none of the above; sediment acoustics; and transduction, transducers
c Other responses include: technical knowledge and experience: understanding oceanographic impacts on acoustic propagation (with and without modeling); basic transduction principles and differences; physical oceanography.
d Other responses include: technical knowledge and experience.
e Other responses include: acoustic monitoring technologies; general capability in operating software and data management skills; global regulatory issues; new technology development for safeguarding marine mammals, turtles, fish during operations; note that not one person needs all these skills, we just have projects across several PIs that include these skills; sound mitigation measures during operations; sound-structure interaction.
f Other responses include: acoustic mitigation/attenuation; acoustic monitoring technology; experimental design; received levels and potential impacts on marine life; statistics & statistical validity.
g Other responses include: completely dependent on field of acoustics.
h Other responses include: science communication.
What recruitment and retention strategies, if any, are currently being implemented by the field of ocean acoustics and related fields to raise the profile of careers related to ocean acoustics?
This section shares high-level takeaways related to recruitment methods and programs and challenges faced in recruiting, as reported by federal and industry respondents.
Based on your knowledge, what methods does your organization use to recruit potential employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
TABLE 110 Federal Respondents (n = 24); Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Response | Federal | Industry | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Networking with potential candidates at conferences | 19 | 79.2% | 13 | 76.5% |
| Offering employment to interns/fellows | 14 | 58.3% | 12 | 70.6% |
| Attending career fairs at institutions | 8 | 33.3% | 6 | 35.3% |
| None of the above | 0 | 0% | 2 | 11.8% |
| Other | 18a | 75% | 15b | 88.2% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a Other responses include: bringing on details from other Navy organizations that eventually come on board full time; bringing on Intergovernmental Personnel Act [employees] (IPAs) that can transition to federal service; collaborations with some of the graduate programs; contract employees are a large pool of potential permanent employees; networking across agencies and facilities; networking at universities, including mentoring students; not sure probably some of all of these; social network; USA JOBS postings; USAJobs; bioacoustics listservs; details, IPA; direct hire; job advertisements; listservs; reaching out to graduate program mentors at universities; recommendations from colleagues.
b Other responses include: advertisements; apprenticeship program (going on 2nd year) has been invaluable. Funded by local organization for 150 hours of analyst time; campus visits and guest lectures; direct academic support (data/funding); directly reaching out on social media; employee referrals; job postings; marketing/workshop presentations; online technical training; professor referrals; recruitment firm; we plan to go to an HBCU job fair but it hasn’t happened yet; from universities; job advertisements; open searches; social media—LinkedIn.
OPEN-ENDED: What methods, if any, does your organization use to ensure a diverse workforce (e.g., age, race, gender, nationality, etc.) in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
EXHIBIT 26
Federal Respondents (n = 22); Industry Respondents (n = 15)
| Federal Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses |
|---|---|
|
|
Based on your knowledge, which of the following programs does your organization use to recruit prospective employees in the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
TABLE 111 Federal Respondents (n = 24); Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Response | Federal | Industry | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Frequency | |
| MTS/IEEE-OES OCEANS Conferences | 6 | 25% | 6 | 35.3% |
| NOAA Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship | 4 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% |
| NOAA Undergraduate Scholarship Program | 4 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% |
| UNH Acoustics Career Workshop | 2 | 8.3% | 2 | 11.8% |
| NSF Graduate Fellowship | 2 | 8.3% | 0 | 0% |
| Community college programs | 1 | 4.2% | 3 | 17.6% |
| NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates | 1 | 4.2% | 1 | 5.9% |
| ROV Competitions | 1 | 4.2% | 0 | 0% |
| Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) | 0 | 0% | 2 | 11.8% |
| Other | 8a | 33.3% | 12b | 70.6% |
| None of the above | 10 | 41.7% | 6 | 35.3% |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a Other responses include: Acoustical Society of America; direct knowledge of academic programs and students; not sure; SMART Fellowship; students/colleagues at research institutions (e.g., WHOL, Scripps); USAJobs; university graduates (e.g., UNH, University of Washington, Florida International).
b Other responses include: ASA Conferences; Acoustical Society of America; Acoustical Society of America Conferences and Job Postings; Acoustical Society of America Student Papers; from close work with and funding of ocean science centers; grant-based postdoctoral positions; other conferences; PSU graduate program in acoustics; recruitment firms; select universities; summer internship programs; university visits including guest lectures.
Based on your knowledge, what are the top 3 current challenges your organization faces when attempting to attract potential candidates to the field of acoustics or acoustics supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics)?
TABLE 112 Federal Respondents (n = 24); Industry Respondents (n = 17)
| Response | Federal | Industry | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Non-competitive income or salary | 9 | 37.5% | 3 | 17.6% |
| Budget for hiring is limiting | 8 | 33.3% | 4 | 23.5% |
| Hiring process is complex or strenuous | 7 | 29.2% | 0 | 0% |
| Lack of diversity in the workforce | 5 | 20.8% | 2 | 11.8% |
| Location is not appealing to candidates | 4 | 16.7% | 1 | 5.9% |
| Lack of upward mobility | 2 | 8.3% | 3 | 17.6% |
| Lack of flexibility in employment opportunity (i.e., no | 2 | 8.3% | 1 | 5.9% |
| hybrid workplace option) | ||||
| Burnout (emotional, physical, and/or mental exhaustion | 2 | 8.3% | 1 | 5.9% |
| caused by excessive work-related stress) | ||||
| Disconnectedness (i.e., lack of connection with | 2 | 8.3% | 1 | 5.9% |
| organization, colleagues, etc.) | ||||
| Benefits are not competitive or substantial for candidates | 1 | 4.2% | 2 | 11.8% |
| Response | Federal | Industry | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Generational differences | 0 | 0% | 3 | 17.6% |
| None of the above | 1 | 4.2% | 2 | 11.8% |
| Other | 8a | 33.3% | 11b | 64.7% |
NOTES: Respondents could select a maximum of three responses. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
a Other responses include: applied research is not appealing to candidates; candidates must have a strong GPA and be excited about scientific discovery; cost of living at many facilities make it difficult to attract young candidates; data management in acoustics can be a hard sell; few people have the desired background; unknown, we are not hiring; knowledge of profession; since the acoustician job is niche and there is not a high demand (nor a large number of candidates) this is a difficult position to fill successfully.
b Other responses include: generational differences; difficulty finding qualified candidates; lack of qualified candidates; too much required travel; very few qualified candidates in the pool—we reject 90+%; we do not hire this specific expertise although we should; eligibility requirements (e.g., citizenship, ability to pass background checks, etc.); high cost-of-living area and traffic; interdisciplinary expertise; local cost of living increasing rapidly; low turnover of existing internal groups.
OPEN-ENDED: What support, if any, does your organization provide employees to support them as they grow their acoustics and/or ocean acoustics skills?
EXHIBIT 27
Federal Government Respondents (n = 12); Industry Respondents (n = 12)
| Federal Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses |
|---|---|
|
|
OPEN-ENDED: Please describe any partnerships or strategies your organization plans to pursue in the coming year to support hiring efforts in the field of ocean acoustics, acoustics, or supporting disciplines (e.g., physics, engineering, oceanography, geophysics).
EXHIBIT 28
Federal Respondents (n = 13); Industry Respondents (n = 7)
| Federal Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses |
|---|---|
|
|
What is the anticipated demand for ocean acoustics expertise and supporting discipline expertise (e.g., signal processing, sound propagation modeling, marine technology) over the next decade?
This section summarizes respondents’ perception on the future needs of ocean acoustics across academic, industry, federal, and professional society respondents in instances where the data threshold was met.
Based on your knowledge, which of the following identified future needs within ocean acoustics does your institution/organization intend to focus on?
TABLE 113 Academic Respondents (n = 38), Industry Respondents (n = 17), Federal Respondents (n = 23), Professional Society Respondents (n = 2)a
| Response | Academic | Industry | Federal | Professional Society | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Boundary interactions | 10 | 26.3% | 2 | 11.8% | 6 | 26.1% | N/A | N/A |
| Coupled structure–acoustic interaction | 5 | 13.2% | 6 | 35.3% | 5 | 21.7% | N/A | N/A |
| Global-spanning multipurpose ocean acoustics network | 7 | 18.4% | 7 | 41.2% | 3 | 13.0% | N/A | N/A |
| Marine animal bioacoustics | 16 | 42.1% | 10 | 58.8% | 8 | 34.8% | N/A | N/A |
| Marine policy and management related to acoustics | 4 | 10.5% | 8 | 47.1% | 9 | 39.1% | N/A | N/A |
| Noise control courses | 5 | 13.2% | 3 | 17.6% | 2 | 6.9% | N/A | N/A |
| Nonmammalian marine bioacoustics | 6 | 15.8% | 4 | 23.5% | 3 | 13.0% | N/A | N/A |
| Phase-coherent acoustics | 8 | 21.1% | 4 | 23.5% | 5 | 21.7% | N/A | N/A |
| Specialized training in acoustical oceanography | 9 | 23.7% | 5 | 29.4% | 4 | 17.4% | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic propagation | 2 | 5.3% | 2 | 11.8% | 4 | 17.4% | N/A | N/A |
| I am unable to answer this question on behalf of my institution | 9 | 23.7% | 1 | 5.9% | 7 | 30.4% | N/A | N/A |
| Other | 12b | 31.6% | 8c | 47.1% | 6d | 26.1% | N/A | N/A |
NOTES: Respondents could select all that applied. They could also write in responses. Percentages will not necessarily add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select all that applied.
a There were 2 responses for this question which is below the data sharing threshold.
b Other responses for Academic respondents include: computational acoustics; national defense applications, i.e. sonar, passive surveillance; propagation phenomena; signal processing for DCLT; sonar signal processing; transducer design; machine learning for sound propagation modeling; seabed acoustics and machine learning for seabed characterization; sensor integration and data processing; and wind energy impacts (noise, construction, etc).
c Other responses for Industry respondents include: applications of machine learning in propagation, noise modeling, and sensing; next generation technology development (e.g. marine vibroseis); next generation low viz IR camera technology; sonar signal processing; still identifying directions; acoustic communications; active/passive sonar development; and passive acoustic monitoring.
d Other responses for Federal respondents include: ATR; complex scattering fields from small targets; DSP; data analytics; fisheries and plankton acoustics; and all areas of ocean acoustics including education and training.
Based on your knowledge, to what extent would your institution/organization agree with the following statements regarding the field of ocean acoustics? If you are unable to answer on behalf of your institution/organization, please respond based on your own perspective.
TABLE 114 Academic Respondents (n = 38), Industry Respondents (n = 17), Federal Respondents (n = 23), Professional Society Respondents (n = 3)
| Statement | Survey Type | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | Prefer Not to Answer | No Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ten years from now, the U.S. supply of ocean acousticians will satisfy the demand. | Academic | 13 (22%) |
18 (30.5%) |
1 (1.7%) |
2 (3.4%) |
0 (0.0%) |
4 (6.8%) |
21 (35.6%) |
| Industry | 3 (15.8%) |
9 (47.4%) |
2 (10.5%) |
1 (5.3%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (10.5%) |
2 (10.5%) |
|
| Federal | 3 (10.3%) |
9 (31%) |
4 (13.8%) |
1 (3.4%) |
1 (3.4%) |
5 (17.2%) |
6 (20.7%) |
|
| Professional Society | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (66.7%) |
1 (33.3%) |
|
| The U.S. is on track to satisfy its future requirements for ocean acousticians. | Academic | 16 (27.1%) |
15 (25.4%) |
2 (3.4%) |
1 (1.7%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (6.8%) |
21 (35.6%) |
| Industry | 4 (21.1%) |
8 (42.1%) |
2 (10.5%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (15.8%) |
2 (10.5%) |
|
| Federal | 2 (6.9%) |
9 (31%) |
5 (17.2%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (3.4%) |
6 (20.7%) |
6 (20.7%) |
|
| Professional Society | 0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (66.7%) |
1 (33.3%) |
NOTE: Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
OPEN-ENDED: What is a growing need in the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics that is currently not being met?
EXHIBIT 29
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Federal Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Federal Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Federal Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
OPEN-ENDED: How might any projected shortfalls in the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its future requirements for acoustics and/or ocean acousticians be resolved?
EXHIBIT 30
Academic Respondents (n = 28), Industry Respondents (n = 10), Federal Respondents (n = 11), Professional Society Respondents (n = 0)
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
OPEN-ENDED: Please provide any suggestions on how to attract more funding to the field of acoustics and/or ocean acoustics.
EXHIBIT 31
Academic Respondents (n = 17), Industry Respondents (n = 10), Federal Respondents (n = 12), Professional Society Respondents (n = 0)
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Federal Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Academic Respondent Responses | Industry Respondent Responses | Federal Respondent Responses |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|