Humanities doctorates in the United States: 1991 Profile

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

i

HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES 1991 PROFILE

Prudence Brown Research Associate Susan Mitchell Project Manager Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1994

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ii

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The survey project is part of the program of the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel (OSEP). This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This report is based on research conducted by OSEP with the support of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) under NSF Contract No. SRS-9121891. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of OSEP and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NEH. Recommended Citation: Brown, P., and S. Mitchell. 1994. Humanities Doctorates in the United States: 1991 Profile. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. (The report gives the results of data collected in the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities and conducted by the National Research Council.) Available from Survey of Humanities Doctorates National Research Council OSEP--Room TJ 2006 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Material in this publication is in the public domain and, with appropriate credit, may be reproduced without permission. Printed in the United States of America

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iii

OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING PERSONNEL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Linda S. Wilson (Chair), Radcliffe College David Breneman, Harvard University Lester A. Hoel, University of Virginia Ernest Jaworski, Monsanto Company Juanita Kreps, Duke University Don Langenberg, University of Maryland System Barry Munitz, The California State University Bruce Smith, The Brookings Institution

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The conduct of the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates, the maintenance of the resulting data file, and the publication of this report were funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Jeffrey Thomas, who serves as project officer for NEH, assisted the project staff of the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel (OSEP) in developing an outline for the report; he also provided helpful advice about revisions to the draft report. The 1991 survey was conducted under the administrative supervision of Susan Mitchell, who collaborated with Prudence Brown on the development of this report. Prudence Brown analyzed the survey results and drafted the text of the report; Susan Mitchell drafted the technical notes and edited the manuscript. Ramal Moonesinghe, survey statistician, verified the accuracy of the analysis and technical notes. Martha Bohman and Dan Pasquini prepared the tables and graphics and finalized the manuscript for publication. Special appreciation is expressed to Eileen Milner, who supervised the coding and editing of the data, and to her staff--Gedamu Abraha, Dan Fulwiler, Joyce Hendrickson, Mary Waynoike, and Kevin Williams--who provided excellent support in the processing of the data. Thanks are also extended to George Boyce, manager of OSEP's Data Processing Section, and to Cindy Woods, research programmer, who were responsible for the computer programming and processing. In addition, thanks are expressed to Geraldine Mooney and Anne Ciemnecki at Mathematica Policy Research for directing the telephone interviewing portion of the survey. The work of this project was overseen by the Advisory Committee of the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, which is concerned with the activities of the National Research Council that contribute to the effective development and utilization of the nation's scholars and research personnel. During the development of this report, Alan E. Fechter, Executive Director of OSEP, provided useful guidance, as did Marilyn Baker, Associate Director. Suggestions for improvement of the report's content and format or other comments and questions are welcome and may be directed to the Project Manager, Susan Mitchell. Finally, we would like to thank all of the doctorate recipients who have completed the survey over the years. Without their continuing cooperation, this survey project would not be possible. Linda Wilson, Chair Advisory Committee Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

IMPORTANT NOTICE OF METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES

v

IMPORTANT NOTICE OF METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES

In order to improve the quality and utility of data from the surveys in this series, important changes were made to the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates. These changes affect comparability with data from the biennial surveys for the years 1977 to 1989. The changes included redefining the sampling frame; redesigning the sample and reducing the sample size; increasing the response rate; changing the reference date; and changing the definition of degree field by which humanities doctorates are counted. The changes were made to improve the quality of the survey estimates by reducing the potential for nonsampling error and to address current analytic needs better. Although they resulted in a break with survey data from past years, the changes had a positive effect on the precision and reliability of 1991 data that will carry over to time-trend analysis in future years. A detailed explanation of the changes is provided in Appendix A. Because of the changes, data published in earlier Profile reports are not comparable with the data presented in this report. To avoid misleading and anomalous results, readers are cautioned against forming trend lines by combining 1977-1989 published data with 1991 data. Instead, readers are referred to the time-series tables in Appendix D, which examine changes in the humanities population over time. These tables, designed to bridge the differences in methodology across survey years, show rates of change in the size of the humanities population by such variables as degree field, gender, and employment sector. Although they are not as detailed as time-series tables published in earlier reports, they preserve the capability of doing some trend analysis--an important feature of this survey series.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

IMPORTANT NOTICE OF METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES vi

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

vii

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This report, the eighth in a biennial series, is based on findings from the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates, a longitudinal employment survey conducted by the National Research Council since 1977 and sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The report presents data on the demographic and employment characteristics of humanities doctorates who earned their degrees from U.S. institutions between January 1942 and June 1990, and who were 75 years of age or younger and residing in the United States in September 1991. Survey data are widely used for policy purposes by planners in government and academic institutions, among others, and by students who are making career choices. The major findings of the report are summarized below. THE U.S. POPULATION OF HUMANITIES DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS • The estimated population of humanities doctorates residing in the United States in 1991 was 100,300, of which approximately one-fourth were doctorates in English and American languages and literature, another one-fourth were in fields of history, one-sixth were in modern languages and literature, and the remainder were spread across music, speech/theater, philosophy, and “other humanities.” • Approximately one-third of the population of humanities doctorates was female. Minorities, however, constituted only a small fraction of the population: 2.4 percent were black, 3.3 percent were Hispanic, and 2.0 percent were of another minority group. • Slightly more than one-half of the humanities doctoral population was between the ages of 50 and 75 in 1991. • Only 3.3 percent of humanists were foreign citizens. Modern languages and literature had the highest percentage of foreign citizens (9.2 percent), while the fields of American history and speech/theater each had less than 1 percent. EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS • Approximately 86 percent of humanities doctorates were employed in 1991: 77.7 percent were employed fulltime and 8.4 percent part-time. About 22.7 percent were employed in a nonhumanities discipline; the majority of these were in education or professional fields. • Of the humanities Ph.D. labor force, about 1.7 percent were unemployed but seeking employment.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

viii

• Humanities doctorates were most likely to be employed by educational institutions (77.5 percent), followed by business/industry (11.8 percent), and nonprofit organizations (5.7 percent). The remaining 5.0 percent were employed by the government or other sectors. • Humanities doctorates who had earned their degrees within the 5 years prior to 1991 had the highest proportion employed by educational institutions (82.5 percent), followed by those with 16 to 35 years since award of degree (80.0 percent). Those in the middle group--with 6 to 15 years since award of degree--had the lowest proportion employed by educational institutions (72.4 percent). More of the middle group were employed by business/industry (14.7 percent) than of the other two groups. • Teaching was the primary work activity of the majority of humanities doctorates in 1991 (60.4 percent), corresponding to the high proportion employed by educational institutions. Another 13.1 percent were engaged primarily in management and administration, 5.6 percent were in writing or editing, and 5.1 percent were involved primarily in research. • In 1991, the median annual salary of all humanities doctorates was $48,200. Doctorates in American history, “other history,” and speech/theater all had median salaries over $50,000. The lowest median salary was that of doctorates in music, at $42,700. • By years since the award of the doctorate, the salary range across fields was fairly low for the newest group ($35,000 to $38,500). The range across fields was considerably more for both the middle group ($40,200 to $48,900) and the oldest group ($54,500 to $62,400). • On average, women earned less than men in each field. The median salary for male humanities doctorates was $50,200; for females it was $43,800 (based on those reporting full-time employment). By gender and years since award of doctorate, median salaries were nearly equal for men and women in the newest group; median salaries exhibited the largest difference ($6,400) in the oldest group. ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS • The majority of humanities doctorates employed by academic institutions held faculty positions in 1991. The distribution of faculty ranks varied considerably across fields: the percentage of full professors ranged from a high of 50.1 percent in “other history” to a low of 22.3 percent in art history. • Men were much more likely than women to be full professors (45.2 percent compared with 21.7 percent); the percentages of men and women who were associate professors were approximately the same; and the lowerranking positions of assistant

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ix

professor, instructor, and lecturer had higher concentrations of women. Men were more likely to be full professors than women even when years since award of doctorate were taken into account. • In 1991, 61.5 percent of humanities doctorates in academe were tenured. The proportion was highest for doctorates in “other history” and speech/theater (66.7 and 66.3 percent, respectively) and lowest for those in art history and “other humanities” (50.7 and 49.2 percent, respectively).

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS x

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xi

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1

1

THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES Distribution by Field Demographic Characteristics Gender Racial/Ethnic Groups Age in 1991 Year of Doctorate Citizenship Status

3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5

2

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES Employment Status Labor Force Status Labor Force Status by Gender Geographic Differences in Labor Force Status Field Mobility Employment Sector Years Since Award of Doctorate Primary Work Activity Years Since Award of Doctorate Median Annual Salaries by Field, Gender, and Years Since Award of Doctorate Median Annual Salaries by Employment Sector and Gender Government Support Status Job Satisfaction Type of Employer and Years Since Award of Doctorate

7 7 7 10 10 10 13 15 15 17 20 22 23 25 25

3

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS Academic Rank Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate Tenure Status Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate Primary Work Activity Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate Number of Publications

29 29 29 29 32 35 35 35

APPENDIXES A

1991 SURVEY CHANGES

39

B

1991 COVER LETTER AND SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

43

C

1991 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

53

D

TIME-SERIES TABLES

67

E

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HUMANITIES PH.D.S, BY FINE FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT, 1991

75

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

xii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Distribution of Humanities Doctorates in the United States, by Field of Degree and Field of Employment, 1991 Demographic Characteristics of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Employment Status of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Employment and Unemployment of Humanities Ph.D.s in the United States Labor Force, by Gender and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Labor Force Status of Humanities Ph.D.s in the United States, by Region, 1991 (in percent) Field Retention and Mobility of Employed Humanities Doctorates, 1991 (in percent) Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Median Annual Salaries of Full-Time Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Gender, Years Since Award of Doctorate, and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in thousands of dollars) Median Annual Salaries of Full-Time Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Gender and Type of Employer, 1991 (in thousands of dollars) Government Support Status of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Job Satisfaction of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Job Satisfaction of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Type of Employer and Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Academic Rank and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Academic Rank, Years Since Award of Doctorate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Tenure Status and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent)

4 6 8 9 11 12 14 16 18 19 21 22 24 26 27 30 31 33

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

19 20 21 22 A-1 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 E-1

Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Tenure Status, Years Since Award of Doctorate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Primary Work Activity and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Primary Work Activity, Years Since Award of Doctorate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Publications of Humanities Ph.D.s Employed in Academe, by Field of Doctorate and Tenure Status, 1991 (in percent) Changes in the Humanities Population, Caused by Methodological Differences, by Field of Doctorate (1977-1991) Response Rates by Summary Strata (Field, Cohort, and Gender) 1991 Listing of a and b Parameters (Select Groups in Humanities Fields), 1991 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers of Humanities Doctorates, by Field, 1991 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers of Female Humanities Doctorates, by Field, 1991 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Humanities Doctorates, 1991 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Female Humanities Doctorates, 1991 Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) Demographic Characteristics of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) Employment Status of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) Estimated Number of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Fine Field of Employment, 1991

xiii

34 36 37 38 41 61 62 63 64 65 65 69 70 71 72 73 75

FIGURES 1 2 3 4 5 6

Humanities Ph.D. population, percentage by field of doctorate, 1991. Distribution of humanities Ph.D.s employed in nonhumanities fields, 1991. Employment sector of humanities doctorates, by years since doctorate, 1991. Median annual salaries of humanities Ph.D.s employed full-time, by field of doctorate and gender, 1991. Government support of humanities doctorates, by federal agency, 1991. Faculty rank of academically employed doctorates, by gender, 1991.

3 13 17 20 23 32

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES xiv

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

1

INTRODUCTION

The following report presents information collected from the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates. This survey is the tenth in a series initiated in 1973 by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to the needs of the federal government for demographic and employment information on individuals trained to the doctoral level. This series--called the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) project--originally included only doctoral scientists and engineers, but was expanded in 1977 to include humanities doctorates.1 The purpose of the SDR has been, since its inception, to generate estimates of the number of holders of research doctorates who reside in the United States and to characterize their employment patterns. The sampling frame for the SDR is the Doctorate Records File (DRF), a census of all research doctorates earned in the United States since 1920.2 Estimates in this report are based on a sample of 8,894 humanities doctorates, drawn from a DRF population of 105,715. Data were collected through a self-administered mail questionnaire (see Appendix B for a copy of the survey materials), followed by telephone interviewing with a sample of about 60 percent of the individuals who did not respond to the mail survey. The mail survey was conducted between October 1991 and January 1992; telephone followup took place between March and July 1992. Appendix C discusses the survey methods and outcomes, including response rates, sampling and nonsampling error, and weighting procedures. This report focuses on those doctorates who earned their degrees in a humanities field from a U.S. institution between January 1942 and June 1990 and were less than 76 years of age in 1991. Chapter 1 describes the size and composition of this population, including such characteristics as gender, racial/ethnic identification, age, and citizenship. Chapter 2 presents an employment profile of the humanities population in 1991 and includes data on employment status, type of employer, primary work activity, and median annual salary. For selected variables, data are presented to allow comparisons by gender or by years since award of doctorate. Chapter 3 presents characteristics of humanists employed in the academic sector (including 4-year colleges, universities, medical schools, and junior colleges). Because of changes in the survey methodology in 1991, only limited time-series tables are included in this report (see Appendix D). These were produced by applying the 1991 changes to data from earlier years and limiting the 1991 data to mail responses only

1The

doctoral degree categories that define the humanities include American history; “other history” (history and philosophy of science, European history, history of other countries, and unspecified history); art history; music; speech/theater; philosophy; English and American languages and literature; classical languages and literature; modern languages and literature; and “other humanities” (linguistics, archeology, American studies, religious studies, and unspecified other humanities). 2The

DRF is maintained by the National Research Council under contract to the National Science Foundation.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION 2

in order to control for the effects of the higher response rate (mail and telephone combined). Readers are cautioned against making comparisons between data in this report and data presented in earlier Profile reports; only the indexed tables in Appendix D are valid for this purpose.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES

3

1 THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES

DISTRIBUTION BY FIELD The estimated population of humanities doctorates in 1991 was 100,300. For this project, the population was defined to include Ph.D.s who earned their degrees in a humanities field from a U.S. institution between January 1942 and June 1990, who were age 75 or younger, and who were residing in the United States in September 1991. Doctorates in English and American languages and literature constituted approximately onefourth of the humanities population, and another one-fourth was composed of doctorates in fields of history (See Figure 1). Table 1 shows the distribution of the humanities population by field of doctorate and field of employment. More than one-fifth of the humanists were employed in a nonhumanities field in 1991, and 13.4 percent were not employed (this figure includes those who were retired).

FIGURE 1. Humanities Ph.D. population, percentage by field of doctorate, 1991.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES

TABLE 1 Distribution of Humanities Doctorates in the United States, by Field of Degree and Field of Employment, 1991 Field of Degree Field of Employment No. % No.* % All Fields 100,300 100.0 100,300 100.0 American History 6,300 6.3 5,900 5.9 “Other History” 15,500 15.5 6,700 6.7 European History 4,300 4.3 3,200 3.2 History of Other Countries 4,400 4.4 2,900 2.9 History and Philosophy of Science 300 0.3 600 0.5 Unspecified History† 6,500 6.5 N/A N/A Art History 3,100 3.1 2,500 2.5 Music 8,700 8.7 6,000 6.0 Speech/Theater 5,400 5.4 2,200 2.2 Philosophy 7,500 7.5 4,400 4.4 English and American Lang/Lit 25,900 25.8 14,900 14.8 Classical Lang/Lit 2,100 2.0 1,200 1.2 Modern Lang/Lit 16,400 16.3 10,100 10.1 “Other Humanities” 9,500 9.4 7,800 7.7 Linguistics 2,900 2.9 1,000 1.0 American Studies 1,300 1.3 300 0.3 Religious Studies 2,500 2.5 1,800 1.8 Unspecified Other Humanities 2,700 2.7 4,700 4.7 Nonhumanities‡ N/A N/A 22,700 22.7 No Report on Employment Field‡ N/A N/A 2,400 2.4 Not Employed‡ N/A N/A 13,400 13.4 N/A N/A 100 0.1 No Report on Employment Status‡ NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to totals.

*Includes postdoctoral appointees as well as doctorates employed full-time and part-time. See Appendix E for a listing of fields. †For some doctorates, the area of study within history was not known. Field of employment is not applicable in this subcategory. ‡Field of degree is not applicable.

4

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES

5

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Gender Women comprised 32.9 percent of the U.S. population of humanities doctorates in 1991 (see Table 2). The fields of art history and modern languages and literature had the highest representation of females (55.1 and 47.2 percent, respectively), while females constituted only 16.4 percent of the doctorates in philosophy. Racial/Ethnic Groups The population of humanities doctorates was 91.7 percent white, 2.4 percent black, 3.3 percent Hispanic, and 2.0 percent other minorities. The highest percentage of blacks (4.3) was in American history, and 12.1 percent of the doctorates in modern languages and literature were of Hispanic origin. Age in 1991 Slightly more than one-half (50.2 percent) of the total humanities population was aged 50 to 75 in 1991. Individuals in this age group comprised 67.6 and 60.7 percent, respectively, of speech/theater and “other history” doctorates. Music doctorates were generally younger; 60.1 percent were under 50 compared with 49.5 percent of humanities doctorates overall. Year of Doctorate Approximately 40 percent of all humanities doctorates in the population were earned in the 1970s. Music, which had the highest proportion of young doctorates, was among those fields with the highest proportion (48.6 percent) of doctorates granted in the 1980-1990 period. Other fields with high proportions of 1980-1990 doctorates were “other humanities” (53.5 percent) and art history (43.3 percent). On the other hand, only 22.5 percent of “other history” doctorates and 23.0 percent of speech/theater doctorates were held by 1980-1990 graduates. Citizenship Status Only 3.3 percent of humanists were foreign citizens, and the distribution across fields varied. Modern languages and literature had the highest percentage of foreign citizens (9.2 percent), while the fields of American history and speech/theater each had less than 1 percent. It should be noted that foreign-earned doctorates were not included in this survey; the foreign citizens tabulated here earned their doctoral degrees in the United States.

*Excludes Ph.D.s awarded from July 1990 to December 1990.

TABLE 2 Demographic Characteristics of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Speech/ Demographic Theater Characteristics 100,300 Total Population 6,300 15,500 3,100 8,700 5,400 (No.) Gender Male 67.1 78.3 80.1 44.9 74.2 74.9 Female 32.9 25.1 21.7 19.9 55.1 25.8 Racial/Ethnic Group White 91.7 94.1 93.3 93.4 93.0 95.0 Minority Group 5.9 7.6 6.4 5.0 5.6 6.1 Hispanic 3.3 2.4 0.8 2.0 2.3 1.2 Black 2.4 0.3 4.3 3.2 1.7 2.8 Asian 1.8 3.2 0.4 1.0 1.9 0.8 American Indian 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 Other 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 No Report 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 Age In 1991 Under 30 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 30-34 3.0 2.2 1.6 6.2 1.4 1.2 35-39 9.7 11.7 9.4 15.6 7.0 7.1 40-49 36.6 23.7 46.0 30.4 43.0 37.8 50-59 29.5 32.7 35.6 30.8 25.4 22.4 60-75 20.7 7.4 29.9 17.6 17.4 34.9 No Report 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 Year of Doctorate 1942-49 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.2 1950-59 6.9 11.5 0.0 13.5 3.8 3.5 1960-69 19.0 35.5 11.0 27.6 16.0 9.9 1970-79 40.3 55.1 35.3 37.0 37.3 29.8 1980-90* 33.2 23.0 33.9 22.5 43.3 48.6 Citizenship U.S. 96.6 99.1 99.3 97.8 97.2 97.9 3.3 0.7 2.2 2.8 2.1 0.9 Foreign NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. Engl/ Amer Lang/ Lit 25,900 61.9 38.1 95.1 4.3 1.1 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.8 8.5 35.5 31.7 20.9 0.5 0.9 7.1 20.9 42.3 28.8 98.1 1.7

7,500 83.6 16.4 92.4 5.4 1.3 2.0 1.9 0.3 0.2 2.1 0.4 4.6 12.1 39.2 24.6 18.8 0.3 1.3 8.1 18.5 42.7 29.4 97.4 2.4

Phil

96.7 3.3

1.1 8.7 28.2 35.9 26.1

0.5 4.4 8.0 32.0 35.0 19.6 0.6

96.3 3.4 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3

70.9 29.1

Class Lang/ Lit 2,100 9,500 59.6 40.4 88.8 10.7 2.0 3.7 4.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 4.3 12.6 48.6 24.1 10.0 0.3 0.1 2.2 6.7 37.5 53.5 95.7 4.3

Modern Lang/ Lit 16,400 52.8 47.2 82.7 16.8 12.1 2.3 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 3.0 9.0 35.6 30.5 21.5 0.2 0.7 5.6 16.8 42.8 34.1 90.8 9.2

“Other Hum”

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES 6

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

7

2 EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

EMPLOYMENT STATUS Of the 100,300 humanities doctorates, 77.7 percent were employed full-time and 8.4 percent were employed part-time3 in September 1991. Less than 1 percent of humanities doctorates were on postdoctoral appointments (including both full-time and part-time appointments). Those not employed made up 13.4 percent of the population; the majority of this group was retired. Table 3 presents the 1991 employment status by field of doctorate. American history doctorates had the highest rate of full-time employment, 88.5 percent. Art history and music had the highest percentages of doctorates employed part-time, 12.8 and 11.9 percent, respectively. Percentages of those retired were highest among “other history” and speech/theater doctorates. As noted earlier, these two fields also had the highest proportion of doctorates in the 50-75 age bracket. LABOR FORCE STATUS For the purposes of this analysis, the labor force consists of those either employed, on postdoctoral appointments,4 or unemployed but seeking employment. By excluding retirees and those not employed and not seeking employment, it is possible to calculate the employment and unemployment rates for the labor force. The labor force of humanities doctorates was estimated at 88,300 in 1991. Of this group, 88.7 percent were employed full-time, 9.6 percent were employed part-time, and 1.7 percent were unemployed but seeking employment (see Table 4). The majority of those employed part-time were not seeking full-time employment. By field, the overall employment rates (total of those employed full- and part-time) were high and varied by less than two percentage points (from 97.6 percent in music to 99.4 percent in classical languages and literature). Part-time employment rates did show variation by field, however, from a high of 14.3 percent in art history to a low of 5.0 percent in American history.

3Retired

individuals working part-time were classified as employed part-time. of the small numbers of humanities doctorates on postdoctoral appointments, this group was subsumed under the categories “employed full-time” or “employed part-time” in Table 4 and in subsequent tables in this report.

4Because

Engl/ Amer Lang/Lit 25,900 78.2 7.7 0.3 13.8 0.9 1.8 10.5 0.6 0.0

7,500 82.3 7.5 0.0 10.1 0.7 1.2 8.0 0.2 0.2

Phil

7.2 0.0 0.6

0.8

8.5 0.5

0.1

7.2

83.5

2,100

Class Lang/Lit

9.5 1.3 0.0

1.5

14.6 2.3

0.3

9.2

75.8

16,400

Modern Lang/Lit

4.6 1.7 0.0

0.9

8.5 1.4

1.2

9.0

81.3

9,500

“Other Hum”

*Percentages are not unemployment rates because they are based on the total population, which includes those retired, those not seeking employment, and those not reporting status; none of these is considered part of the labor force in this report. Unemployment rates are shown in Table 4.

Total Population 100,300 5,400 6,300 15,500 3,100 8,700 (No.) Employed Full77.7 71.3 88.5 73.8 74.2 75.1 Time Employed Part8.4 8.7 4.6 7.7 12.8 11.9 Time Postdoctoral 0.4 0.1 0.4 1.7 0.3 0.0 Appointment 13.4 6.6 Not Employed* 17.9 11.3 12.7 20.0 Seeking 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.5 2.2 Employment Not Seeking 1.8 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.3 Employment 9.3 Retired 2.8 13.5 5.6 7.5 14.7 0.8 Other 1.3 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 No Report NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to total.

TABLE 3 Employment Status of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Art Hist Music Speech/ Employment Hist” Theater Status

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 8

†Includes those who did not report whether they were seeking full-time employment.

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time, postdoctoral appointees, and those seeking employment.

TABLE 4 Employment and Unemployment of Humanities Ph.D. s in the United States Labor Force, by Gender and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Speech/Theater Phil Engl/ Amer Class Lang/ Gender Lang/ Lit Lit Employment Status Total 1991 Ph.D. Labor 88,300 6,800 4,400 5,900 22,600 13,000 1,900 2,800 7,800 Force* (No.) Employed Full-Time 84.1 90.9 88.7 84.0 91.5 90.1 87.4 93.6 88.7 Employed Part9.6 14.3 5.0 8.3 13.6 7.9 9.1 8.8 10.6 Time† Seeking Full-Time 4.0 2.3 3.2 5.1 0.6 2.6 3.2 2.8 3.3 Not Seeking Full5.9 9.8 2.2 5.4 7.5 7.0 5.8 5.8 6.8 Time Unemployed/ 1.7 1.6 1.4 0.8 2.4 0.6 2.2 1.1 2.0 Seeking 59,200 Male (No.) 5,600 3,300 4,700 13,800 10,500 1,300 1,200 5,900 Employed Full-Time 92.7 92.4 92.4 89.7 94.5 94.5 88.6 95.6 90.3 Employed Part6.2 5.5 3.8 7.2 8.3 5.4 7.3 5.2 9.3 Time† Seeking Full-Time 3.6 2.5 2.0 2.6 0.9 1.3 2.9 2.6 1.9 Not Seeking Full1.9 3.9 4.7 4.5 6.0 4.4 1.2 3.4 5.4 Time Unemployed/ 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.4 2.0 0.2 2.4 0.3 2.1 Seeking Female (No) 29,100 1,900 1,200 1,100 600 1,200 8,800 2,500 1,600 Employed Full-Time 77.9 84.1 81.0 66.3 84.4 83.2 83.5 86.3 82.0 Employed Part16.5 13.4 14.8 14.0 9.4 14.5 16.8 20.5 30.1 Time† Seeking Full Time 4.3 1.3 5.7 12.7 0.0 4.6 4.2 3.4 9.0 Not Seeking Full10.0 15.5 6.1 9.9 16.1 13.1 7.2 9.4 9.5 Time 2.5 4.2 1.2 1.5 3.6 1.6 2.6 2.3 1.6 Unemployed/ Seeking NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to total.

“Other Hum”

8,800 88.9 9.7 3.5 5.7 1.5 5,300 94.7 4.1 2.0 1.7 1.2 3,500 79.9 18.2 5.7 11.9 1.9

Modern Lang/ Lit 14,400 86.8 10.6 3.7 6.2 2.6 7,600 91.8 6.3 1.6 4.1 1.9 6,700 81.1 15.5 6.0 8.5 3.4

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 9

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

10

Labor Force Status by Gender When the labor force is shown by gender, differences in employment and unemployment rates emerge. As shown in Table 4, the unemployment rate for female humanities doctorates was 2.5 percent, compared with 1.3 percent for males. Within field, the highest unemployment rates were for women with American history doctorates (4.2 percent), music doctorates (3.6 percent), and modern languages and literature doctorates (3.4 percent); for men the unemployment rate was below 2.5 percent in every field. The part-time employment rate was also higher for females, 16.5 percent compared with 6.2 percent for males. Among both males and females, the majority of those employed part-time were not seeking full-time employment. The reasons for choosing part-time employment were similar for both males and females; the reason selected most frequently was “prefer part-time” (59.0 percent of both groups), followed by “full-time not available” (24.3 percent of males and 23.6 percent of females). GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN LABOR FORCE STATUS By geographic region (Table 5), the unemployment rate ranged from a low of 0.2 percent in the Mountain region (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) to a high of 2.5 percent in the Middle Atlantic region (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania). The Pacific region (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) had the highest part-time employment rate, 14.9 percent, compared to 9.6 percent for humanities doctorates in all regions of the country. The East North Central region (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) had the highest full-time employment rate (92.7 percent). FIELD MOBILITY In this report, the percentage of employed individuals with degrees in a particular field who were also working in that field is called the “retention rate” of the field. In 1991, 56.2 percent of the employed population were working in the same area in which they earned their doctorate. By field, the retention rates ranged from highs of 79.0 percent in art history and 77.7 percent in music to a low of 30.4 percent in the composite field “other humanities” (see Table 6). A review of the specific fields included in “other humanities” (see footnote 1 in the Introduction) showed wide variation in the retention rates of the individual fields, but all were below 40 percent. The majority of humanities doctorates who were not employed in their field of doctorate were employed in a nonhumanities discipline. This group of field switchers constituted 26.2 percent of all employed humanities doctorates; Figure 2 shows their distribution by employment specialty. Education was the field attracting the most humanities doctorates (over 4,700), followed by social sciences (just over 3,000), and

†Includes those located in U.S. territories.

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time, postdoctoral appointees, and those seeking employment.

TABLE 5 Labor Force Status of Humanities Ph.D.s in the United States, by Region, 1991 (in percent) Total Ph.D. Labor Force* (No.) Employed Full-time Employed Part-time Unemployed & Seeking Employment 1991 Location (Region) 88,300 9.6 All Regions† 88.7 1.7 New England 9,200 87.1 10.9 2.1 Middle Atlantic 86.4 11.1 16,900 2.5 East North Central 12,800 92.7 5.8 1.4 West North Central 6,700 91.2 7.4 1.4 South Atlantic 16,200 91.1 7.4 1.5 East South Central 3,700 89.8 9.1 1.1 West South Central 6,900 88.9 9.3 1.7 Mountain 4,000 88.7 11.0 0.2 11,500 83.6 14.9 1.5 Pacific NOTE: States in each region are as follows: New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont); Middle Atlantic (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania); East North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin); West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota); South Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia); East South Central (Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee); West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas); Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming); and Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington).

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 11

TABLE 6 Field Retention and Mobility of Employed Humanities Doctorates, 1991 (in percent) Total Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music 1991 Field of Employed* Employment All Fields (No.) 5,900 86,800 12,700 2,700 7,600 57.5 American History 17.4 1.9 6.8 0.1 “Other History” 5.7 7.7 46.1 2.0 0.4 Art History 0.5 2.8 79.0 0.5 0.0 Music 0.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 77.7 Speech/Theater 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Philosophy 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 English and Amer 0.0 17.1 1.2 0.4 0.4 Lang/Lit Classical Lang/Lit 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Modern Lang/Lit 0.0 0.0 11.7 1.2 0.2 “Other Humanities” 3.1 2.9 9.0 3.5 2.8 31.3 Nonhumanities 28.2 10.3 26.2 15.8 2.8 1.3 2.6 1.8 2.6 No Report *Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees. Engl/ Amer Lang/ Lit 22,300 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 58.2 0.5 1.9 10.8 24.4 3.4

6,700 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.5 0.0 0.4 4.4 29.8 2.1

Speech/ Theater 4,300 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 47.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 40.6 2.3

Phil

51.8 4.1 6.1 22.0 3.6

Class Lang/ Lit 1,900 1.7 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 4.1 0.1 62.5 8.7 20.2 3.4

Modern Lang/ Lit 14,000 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 3.4 0.8 8.1 30.4 39.3 2.6

“Other Hum” 8,700 2.5 1.3 1.8 0.4 0.1 1.3 11.4

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 12

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

13

business management (approximately 2,300). Fields with the highest proportions working in nonhumanities were speech/theater (40.6 percent), “other humanities” (39.3 percent), philosophy (29.8 percent), and “other history” (28.2 percent). There was little mobility among humanities fields. Only the field of classical languages and literature had more doctorates switching to other humanities specialties than were working in a nonhumanities discipline.

Figure 2. Distribution of humanities Ph.D.s employed in nonhumanities fields, 1991. EMPLOYMENT SECTOR In 1991, 77.5 percent of employed humanities doctorates were working in educational institutions, primarily 4-year colleges and universities (see Table 7). Business/industry accounted for 11.8 percent of those employed (approximately one-half of whom were self-employed), followed by nonprofit organizations (5.7 percent). The remainder were employed by government (federal, state, and local) and all other types of employers.

Speech/ Theater 4,300

Phil

Engl/ Amer Lang/ Lit 22,300

Class Lang/ Lit 1,900

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

5,900 86,800 Employed 12,700 6,700 2,700 7,600 Population* (No.) Educational 71.4 77.5 77.6 77.9 84.5 81.7 74.2 74.6 76.3 Institution 4-Year Coll/Univ/ 59.4 68.3 66.3 72.2 74.5 71.5 72.2 64.6 70.6 Med Sch 2-Year College 0.8 6.4 5.6 5.3 8.1 3.2 4.5 0.0 7.1 5.6 3.7 1.2 Elem/Secondary 3.1 2.5 9.9 4.6 3.1 1.2 Schools Business/Industry 7.9 11.8 10.0 13.2 7.9 11.6 9.1 12.4 15.6 Self-Employed 2.2 6.1 5.7 4.5 4.9 3.4 6.3 5.1 11.6 Not Self-Employed 5.7 3.0 6.1 5.5 8.3 4.4 6.1 6.5 4.1 U.S. Government 6.0 1.3 2.3 5.0 1.5 1.2 0.5 1.4 0.0 State/Local 2.7 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.1 2.9 0.3 1.6 Government Nonprofit 11.5 5.7 13.7 5.3 9.7 5.5 4.0 5.3 2.8 Organization 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.9 No Report NOTE: Percentages for those reporting “other” types of employers are not included in this table; therefore, totals may not add to 100 percent.

TABLE 7 Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Total Employed Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Type of Employer “Other Hum” 8,700 71.3 63.1 4.3 4.0 13.7 8.1 5.6 2.2 2.8 8.8 0.7

Modern Lang/ Lit 14,000 78.8 69.6 4.5 4.7 13.0 6.1 6.8 2.2 1.6 3.4 1.0

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 14

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

15

By field, more than 70 percent of the doctorates in every specialty were working in an educational institution. Doctorates in “other history” and English and American languages and literature were more likely than other Ph.D.s to be employed in 2-year colleges (8.1 and 7.1 percent, respectively) and doctorates in classical languages and literature were more likely than other Ph.D.s to work in elementary/secondary schools (9.9 percent). There was also variation by field in the proportions employed in other sectors: 11.6 percent of speech/ theater doctorates were self-employed (compared with 5.7 percent of humanities doctorates overall), and 13.7 and 11.5 percent respectively of art history and American history doctorates: were employed by nonprofit organizations--nearly twice the rate for all humanities doctorates. Years Since Award of Doctorate Table 8 shows the employment sector distribution by years since award of doctorate. The groups shown are 5 or fewer years since award of doctorate (newest group), 6 to 15 years since award of doctorate (middle group), and 16 to 35 years since award of doctorate (oldest group). These groups were chosen because they represent doctorates at three different stages of their careers and were grouped to allow large enough numbers for analysis. The residual group (those who earned their degrees more than 35 years prior to 1991) are not shown in the table because of their small numbers and because most of them were not employed. As shown in Figure 3, humanities doctorates who earned their degrees within the 5 years prior to 1991 had the highest proportion employed by educational institutions (82.5 percent); followed by those with 16 to 35 years since degree award (80.0 percent). Those with 6 to 15 years since degree award had the lowest proportion (72.4 percent) employed by educational institutions. More of the middle group were employed by business/industry (14.7 percent) than of the other two groups (8.2 percent of the newest doctorates and 10.5 percent of the oldest doctorates). PRIMARY WORK ACTIVITY Teaching was the primary work activity of the majority of humanities doctorates in 1991 (60.4 percent), corresponding to the high proportion employed by educational institutions. Another 13.1 percent were engaged primarily in management and administration; 5.6 percent were writing or editing; and 5.1 percent were involved primarily in research and development (see Table 9). While teaching was the primary work activity of the majority of doctorates in each field, there were variations by field in the proportions reporting other major activities. A higher-than-average proportion of American history doctorates was primarily engaged in management and administration (21.0 percent). Between 10 and 11 percent of the doctorates in art history, philosophy, and “other humanities” were engaged primarily in research and development, compared with 5.1 percent in the population overall; approximately 9 percent of music Ph.D.s

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

TABLE 8 Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Total 5 or fewer years 6-15 years 16-35 years Type of Employer 14,700 86,800 32,400 Employed Population* (No.) 38,300 Educational Institution 82.5 77.5 72.4 80.0 4-Year Coll/Univ/Med Sch 73.8 68.3 61.5 71.8 2-Year College 5.3 5.6 6.4 5.0 Elementary/Secondary Schools 3.3 3.7 4.5 3.2 Business/Industry† 8.2 11.8 14.7 10.5 U.S. Government 1.9 2.3 2.9 1.9 State/Local Government 0.9 1.7 2.1 1.7 Nonprofit Organization 5.9 5.7 7.1 4.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.0 No Report NOTE: Those with more than 35 years since doctorate are not shown because of their small numbers; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. Percentages for those reporting “other” types of employers are also not shown; therefore, totals may not add to 100 percent.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 16

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

17

Figure 3. Employment sector of humanities doctorates, by years since doctorate, 1991. reported performing arts as their primary pursuit, compared with 1.0 percent overall; and between 8 and 9 percent of doctorates in American history and English and American languages and literature were primarily writing and editing, compared with 5.6 percent overall. Years Since Award of Doctorate Table 10 presents the primary work activities of humanities doctorates by years since degree award. Teaching was the primary activity of a higher proportion of doctorates from the newest group (69.6 percent) than from either the middle or the oldest groups (57.0 and 59.5 percent, respectively). As noted, humanists in the newest group were also most likely to be working in an educational institution. On the other hand, doctorates from the middle and oldest group were about twice as likely to have reported management and administration as their primary activity.

TABLE 9 Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Speech/ Primary Work Theater Activity 86,800 Employed 5,900 12,700 2,700 7,600 4,300 Population* (No.) Teaching 60.4 60.8 50.4 58.0 59.3 64.1 Management/ 13.1 21.0 13.5 12.6 11.7 16.7 Administration 8.4 Mgmt of Education 5.9 12.5 7.8 8.6 13.0 Programs Mgmt of Other 6.7 4.6 3.9 3.8 8.4 5.0 Programs Research & 5.1 10.6 5.4 0.7 6.1 2.8 Development Writing/Editing 5.0 5.6 1.4 3.1 8.8 5.9 Performing Arts 0.0 1.0 9.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 Consulting/Prof 4.5 1.5 4.1 1.5 5.1 7.1 Services Other Activities 6.3 7.4 8.2 5.2 7.3 8.3 2.8 3.1 3.1 4.6 3.1 1.6 No Report *Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees. Engl/ Amer Lang/ Lit 22,300 61.9 13.3 10.0 3.4 2.7 8.3 0.1 4.3 6.4 2.9

6,700 60.1 8.8 4.3 4.5 10.2 5.0 0.0 6.9 6.4 2.6

Phil

8.9 0.9

7.8 0.0 2.5

3.4

3.2

4.7

68.6 7.8

Class Lang/ Lit 1,900 8,700 54.1 13.3 6.3 7.0 10.6 3.0 0.2 6.6 10.4 1.8

Modern Lang/ Lit 14,000 65.2 11.2 7.4 3.8 4.6 4.6 0.1 3.9 7.1 3.4

“Other Hum”

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 18

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

TABLE 10 Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Total 5 or fewer years 6-15 years Primary Work Activity 14,700 86,800 32,400 Employed Population* (No.) Teaching 69.6 60.4 57.0 Management/Administration 7.1 13.1 13.7 Mgmt of Education Programs 3.8 8.4 8.3 Mgmt of Other Programs 3.3 4.6 5.4 Research & Development 7.9 5.1 5.1 Writing/Editing 4.8 5.6 6.3 Performing Arts 1.7 1.0 1.3 Consulting/Prof Services 2.1 4.5 4.7 Other Activities 5.4 7.4 9.7 2.8 1.5 2.1 No Report NOTE: Those with more than 35 years since doctorate are not shown because of their small numbers; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. 16-35 years 38,300 59.5 14.9 10.3 4.6 4.2 5.4 0.5 5.3 6.2 4.0

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 19

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

20

MEDIAN ANNUAL SALARIES BY FIELD, GENDER, AND YEARS SINCE AWARD OF DOCTORATE In 1991, the median annual salary of all humanities doctorates was $48,200 (see Table 11). Doctorates in American history, “other history,” and speech/theater all had median salaries over $50,000; the lowest median salary was that of doctorates in music, $42,700. By years since award of doctorate, the salary range across fields was fairly low for the newest group ($35,000 to $38,500); the differences across fields were considerably more for both the middle and the oldest groups. On average and in each field, women earned less than men (see Figure 4). The median salary for male humanities doctorates was $50,200, and for females it was

Figure 4. Median annual salaries of humanities Ph.D.s employed full-time, by field of doctorate and gender, 1991.

TABLE 11 Median Annual Salaries of Full-Time Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Gender, Years Since Award of Ph.D.,and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in thousands of dollars) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Speech/Theater Phil Engl/ Amer Class Lang/ Lit Modern Lang/ “Other Hum” Gender and Lang/ Lit Lit Years Since Ph.D. $48.2 Total $49.3 $46.7 $47.0 $53.0 $51.1 $45.1 $47.6 $51.6 $46.0 $42.7 5 or Fewer 36.7 36.2 38.5 36.6 36.4 36.3 36.8 35.0 38.3 36.7 36.8 45.3 6-15 48.8 42.9 48.9 48.2 45.3 40.2 45.6 42.8 42.3 40.8 56.3 16-35 55.4 54.5 55.1 59.8 55.7 54.5 58.6 58.3 57.0 62.4 Male, Total 50.2 44.0 50.6 48.3 50.4 56.5 51.8 45.8 48.8 52.5 53.0 36.6 36.0 5 or Fewer 35.5 39.2 36.8 37.3 36.5 36.5 39.9 45.6 43.0 6-15 50.2 45.9 48.1 46.5 48.5 45.5 42.3 53.9 57.3 57.6 57.6 16-35 58.5 63.3 60.0 55.3 58.9 Female, Total 43.8 40.0 45.5 44.3 42.8 40.8 50.5 42.3 44.3 45.8 40.7 5 or Fewer 37.5 36.4 39.0 36.7 36.5 36.3 34.8 36.4 44.7 6-15 45.1 44.9 41.5 47.2 44.8 51.2 50.9 52.0 48.6 16-35 NOTE: Median salaries were computed only for Ph.D.s employed full-time, excluding those in the U.S. military. Academic salaries were multiplied by 11/9 to adjust for a full-time scale. Medians were not provided for cells with fewer than 40 cases reporting salary.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 21

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

22

$43,800. The difference in median salaries of men and women was smallest in American history ($1,300) and greatest in speech/theater ($15,700). By gender and years since award of doctorate, median salaries were nearly equal for men and women humanities doctorates from the newest group; median salaries of men and women exhibited the largest difference ($6,400) in the oldest group. For the middle group, the spread was $900. MEDIAN ANNUAL SALARIES BY EMPLOYMENT SECTOR AND GENDER Table 12 displays median salaries of humanities doctorates by employment sector and gender. Doctorates employed in business/industry earned the highest median salary ($50,700), and those in nonprofit organizations the lowest ($42,900). A review of median salaries by gender and sector shows that earnings of men and women were nearly equal for those employed in elementary/secondary schools and in government, but that men outearned women in all other types of organizations. TABLE 12 Median Annual Salaries of Full-Time Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Gender and Type of Employer, 1991 (in thousands of dollars) Type of Employer Total Male Female Employed Population $48.2 $50.2 $43.8 Educational Institution 48.2 50.4 43.3 4-Year Coll/Univ/Med School 48.3 50.7 42.8 2-Year College 47.8 48.3 45.6 Elementary/Secondary Schools 46.6 46.7 46.4 Business/Industry 50.7 53.5 50.0 U.S. Government 47.5 47.4 47.8 42.9 44.7 39.7 Nonprofit Organization NOTE: Median salaries were computed only for Ph.D.s employed full-time, excluding those in the U.S. military. Academic salaries were multiplied by 11/9 to adjust for a full-time scale.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

23

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT STATUS About 15.1 percent of humanities doctorates reported being engaged in work supported or sponsored by the federal government in the year preceding the survey. Table 13 shows the distribution by field: about 23 percent of those in American history and art history received support, compared with 11.5 percent and 12.1 percent in philosophy and modern languages and literature, respectively. Of those receiving support, the largest portion came from the National Endowment for the Humanities (35.3 percent), followed by the National Endowment for the Arts (10.4 percent), the Department of Defense (12.4 percent), and the Department of Education (14.7 percent). About 37.5 percent were supported by other agencies (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Government support of humanities doctorates, by federal agency, 1991.

TABLE 13 Government Support Status of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Speech/Theater Phil Government Support Status 86,800 5,900 6,700 Total Employed* 12,700 2,700 7,600 4,300 (No.) Received 15.1 11.5 12.2 23.1 19.4 23.3 12.8 Government Support No Government 79.3 81.8 80.5 72.1 76.5 71.0 79.9 Support Support Status Not 1.7 2.4 2.4 1.6 2.7 1.1 1.9 Known No Report 3.9 2.4 3.0 3.3 4.5 5.5 5.1 *Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees. 76.0 2.5

80.7 1.9

83.4 0.4 2.4

82.7 1.2 3.3

4.1

17.5

12.1

13.8

12.9

5.3

8,700

Modern Lang/ Lit 14,000

Class Lang/ Lit 1,900

Engl/ Amer Lang/ Lit 22,300

“Other Hum”

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 24

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES

25

JOB SATISFACTION Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their principal job on the following scale: very high, high, average, low, or very low. (For the purposes of this analysis, the responses “high” and “very high” were combined, as were “low” and “very low.” See Table 14.) Differences across field were evident, ranging from 77.7 percent in American history reporting high or very high satisfaction to 66.2 percent in modern languages and literature. By gender, males were more likely to be satisfied with their jobs (72.4 percent high/very high) than females (68.4 percent high/very high). Overall, about 20.2 percent of humanities doctorates reported their job satisfaction as average, while 8.7 percent reported it as low or very low. Type of Employer and Years Since Award of Doctorate The type of employer also appeared to influence job satisfaction (see Table 15). Those employed in nonprofit organizations were the most satisfied (78.1 percent high/very high) followed by educational institutions (71.2 percent), business/industry (69.3 percent), and government (65.3 percent). By years since award of doctorate, the oldest group was somewhat more satisfied (72.9 percent) than either the middle group (69.3 percent) or newest group (68.1 percent).

TABLE 14 Job Satisfaction of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Job Satisfaction Field of Doctorate and Gender Total* High/Very high Average Low/Very low Total 71.1 81,500 20.2 8.7 Field of Doctorate American History 77.7 5,800 16.8 5.5 Other History 73.6 12,200 19.0 7.4 Art History 71.0 2,600 19.3 9.7 Music 71.1 7,400 20.4 8.5 Speech/Theater 72.9 4,200 15.6 11.5 Philosophy 69.4 6,500 20.8 9.8 English and Amer Lang/Lit 71.0 21,800 20.2 8.7 Classical Lang/Lit 74.6 1,800 17.1 8.4 Modern Lang/Lit 66.2 13,400 24.6 9.2 Other Humanities 70.8 5,700 19.3 9.9 Gender Male 72.4 55,500 19.5 8.1 26,000 68.4 21.6 10.0 Female *Totals in this table are equal to the number answering the job satisfaction question, not the total sample, and may therefore disagree with totals shown elsewhere in this report.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 26

TABLE 15 Job Satisfaction of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Type of Employer and Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) Job Satisfaction Type of Employer and Years Since Doctorate Total* High/Very high Average Low/Very low Total 81,500 8.7 71.1 20.2 Type of Employer Educational Institution 64,100 8.2 71.2 20.6 4-Year Coll/Univ/Med Sch 8.2 19.7 56,500 72.0 2-Year College 62.5 4,600 8.6 28.9 Elem/Secondary Schools 68.4 3,000 7.1 24.6 Business/Industry 69.3 9,000 11.0 19.7 Government 16.8 65.3 17.9 3,200 Nonprofit Organization 78.1 4,800 6.0 15.9 Years Since Doctorate 5 or Fewer 13,800 11.2 68.1 20.6 6-15 30,400 9.5 69.3 21.1 36,100 72.9 19.8 7.3 16-35 *Totals in this table are equal to the number answering the job satisfaction question, not the total sample, and may therefore disagree with totals shown elsewhere in this report.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 27

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 28

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS

29

3 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS

As the academic sector5 is the most common employer of humanities doctorates, the following characteristics of those academically employed are described below: academic rank, tenure status, and primary work activity. These characteristics are then examined by field of doctorate, gender, and years since award of doctorate. ACADEMIC RANK The majority of humanities doctorates employed in the academic sector, both overall and within each field, held faculty positions6 in 1991 (see Table 16). The distribution among the faculty ranks varied considerably across fields: the percentage of full professors ranged from a high of 50.1 percent in “other history” to a low of 22.3 percent in art history; over 31 percent of the doctorates in art history and modern languages and literature were associate professors compared with 20.2 percent of those in “other history”; and approximately 23 percent of doctorates in art history and “other humanities” were assistant professors compared with only 12.3 percent of those in “other history.” Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate Table 17 shows the academic rank of humanities doctorates by gender and years since award of doctorate. Men were much more likely than women to be full professors (45.2 percent, compared with 21.7 percent, respectively); the percentages of men and women who were associate professors were approximately the same; and the lower-ranking positions of assistant professor, instructor, and lecturer had higher concentrations of women (see Figure 6). Men were more likely than women to be full professors, even when years since award of doctorate were taken into account. The distribution across academic ranks of men and women was most similar for the newest group. TENURE STATUS In 1991, 61.5 percent of humanities doctorates in academe were tenured. As shown in Table 18, the proportion was highest for doctorates in “other history” and

5The

academic sector includes 2-year and 4-year colleges, universities, and medical schools. this report, faculty positions are defined to include the ranks of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor.

6For

TABLE 16 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Academic Rank and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Art Hist Music Speech/ Phil Engl/Amer Academic Rank Hist” Lang/Lit Theater 64,100 3,900 Total Employed* 5,100 9,400 17,500 2,000 5,300 3,200 (No.) 84.2 Faculty 87.8 86.7 82.8 83.3 76.9 86.3 87.2 37.7 Professor 41.9 37.1 50.1 37.9 22.3 36.3 44.5 Associate 26.5 27.5 27.6 27.8 25.3 20.2 31.2 28.8 Professor Assistant 17.7 14.1 21.6 12.3 15.6 23.0 19.3 13.9 Professor 2.3 Instructor 0.4 2.9 1.6 1.9 4.1 0.7 1.2 2.5 Lecturer 1.8 1.0 1.2 2.7 2.7 2.2 1.2 3.6 Adjunct 8.1 2.5 3.2 3.1 4.3 3.9 1.3 Other Faculty 0.8 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.5 2.6 2.3 1.4 Does Not Apply 3.1 3.1 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.2 5.4 5.3 Postdoctoral 0.5 1.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 Appointment 3.2 1.8 3.2 7.6 1.6 4.6 3.1 3.4 No Report NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. Modern Lang/Lit 10,300 86.5 31.2 31.5 22.0 1.8 3.8 2.9 2.0 2.1 0.3 2.3

Class Lang/Lit 1,400 86.7 46.8 21.7 17.2 1.0 0.2 5.5 2.9 1.5 0.0 3.2

4.5

2.4 4.0 3.3 1.5 5.7 1.7

23.3

79.3 26.8 26.7

“Other Hum” 5,800

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 30

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

TABLE 17 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Academic Rank, Years Since Award of Doctorate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Total 5 or Fewer Years 6-15 Years Academic Rank Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Employed* (No.) 43,600 13,300 20,400 8,800 6,200 5,400 77.4 88.5 82.1 77.4 87.4 Faculty 77.6 14.1 27.1 Professor 1.8 5.1 21.7 45.2 39.9 16.7 39.6 27.1 26.2 Associate Professor 13.4 Assistant Professor 63.5 25.0 19.9 14.3 13.1 57.3 3.4 2.4 5.2 3.2 3.6 1.7 Instructor 4.8 2.7 Lecturer 5.2 1.4 4.7 1.5 6.4 3.3 Adjunct 9.0 2.3 6.8 2.1 2.1 2.0 Other Faculty 1.1 1.7 2.1 1.8 4.6 6.3 Does Not Apply 4.4 2.9 5.0 3.7 1.3 0.2 Postdoctoral Appointment 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.3 3.2 3.1 2.5 1.8 3.3 3.4 No Report NOTE: Those with more than 35 years since doctorate are not shown because of their small numbers; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. 16-35 Years Male 23,200 91.0 65.6 22.2 2.3 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.6 2.5 0.1 3.3 Female 6,200 77.5 49.5 21.1 4.3 2.5 3.9 5.4 2.9 6.3 0.2 4.0

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 31

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS

32

Figure 6. Faculty rank of academically employed doctorates, by gender, 1991. speech/theater (66.7 and 66.3 percent, respectively) and lowest for those in art history and “other humanities” (50.7 and 49.2 percent, respectively). Doctorates in classical languages and literature had the highest proportion in nontenure-track positions, 14.8 percent, compared with 7.3 percent of humanities doctorates overall. Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate As with faculty rank, disparities by gender are evident in the tenure status of humanities doctorates (Table 19). While 68.9 percent of academically employed men were tenured, the comparable figure for women was 49.6 percent. Women were also more likely to be in nontenure-track positions (13.5 percent, compared with 4.3 percent for men) and to hold positions where tenure status was not applicable (15.0 percent, compared with 9.4 percent for men). Regardless of group, men were more likely than women to be tenured; the differences were greatest for those from the oldest group and smallest in the newest group.

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

64,100 3,900 Total Employed* 9,400 2,000 5,300 3,200 (No.) Tenured 61.5 66.3 62.8 66.7 50.7 61.4 Not Tenured 39.7 34.4 36.4 29.1 35.4 29.2 Tenure Track 15.9 20.1 16.9 15.5 11.9 21.0 Nontenure Track 9.3 7.3 6.0 4.3 4.6 5.5 Tenure Not 11.2 7.9 15.3 11.7 9.4 10.4 Applicable No Report 4.1 1.8 4.1 9.6 2.2 4.6 NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. 62.2 33.7 13.7 7.2 12.8 4.1

4.0

Engl/ Amer Lang/ Lit 17,500

64.2 31.7 17.5 6.8 7.4

5,100

TABLE 18 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Tenure Status and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Speech/Theater Phil Tenure Status

3.2

59.2 37.7 11.9 14.8 11.0

Class Lang/ Lit 1,400

3.5

62.0 34.5 17.5 7.6 9.5

Modern Lang/ Lit 10,300

6.0

49.2 44.8 20.2 12.0 12.6

5,800

“Other Hum”

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 33

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

TABLE 19 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Tenure Status, Years Since Award of Doctorate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Total 5 or Fewer Years 6-15 Years Tenure Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Employed* (No.) 43,600 13,300 20,400 8,800 6,200 5,400 50.9 16.2 63.9 45.8 68.9 12.6 Tenured Not Tenured 80.2 49.6 27.3 43.8 32.5 83.7 15.9 58.1 14.0 21.1 13.5 49.0 Tenure Track Nontenure Track 12.1 13.5 4.3 14.7 5.9 19.5 Tenure Not Applicable 10.0 15.0 9.4 13.2 12.7 15.2 No Report 3.8 4.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 5.3 NOTE: Those with more than 35 years since doctorate are not shown because of their small numbers; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. 16-35 Years Male 23,200 86.2 10.1 1.8 1.2 7.2 3.7 Female 6,200 67.9 27.8 4.4 6.8 16.6 4.2

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 34

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS

35

PRIMARY WORK ACTIVITY Teaching was the primary work activity of 76.5 percent of humanities doctorates employed in the academic sector (see Table 20), followed by management and administration (11.0 percent), and research and development (5.1 percent). There was some variation in the distribution of work activities across fields: 15.2 percent of the speech/theater doctorates were primarily engaged in management and administration, compared with approximately 6 percent of those in classical languages and literature and art history; between 10 and 11 percent of doctorates in philosophy and “other humanities” were primarily engaged in research and development, compared with only 1.0 percent of the music doctorates. Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate While gender differences have been noted in both the academic positions and tenure status of academically employed humanities doctorates, the distribution of primary work activities was similar for men and women in academe (see Table 21) even when years since award of doctorate are taken into account. NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS In 1991, respondents were asked how many publications they had published or had accepted for publication in the past 2 years. “Publications” were defined as books or monographs (as an author, coauthor, editor, or coeditor), chapters in scholarly books, articles in refereed journals, book reviews in refereed journals, and articles in newspapers or magazines. Table 22 shows that the mean number of publications for those employed in academe was 4.2. (This compares to 2.5 for those employed in business/industry, 2.7 for those employed in nonprofit organizations, and 2.1 for those employed in government.) By field, academically employed doctorates in American history had the highest mean number of publications, 6.1, while doctorates in music and speech/ theater had the lowest (2.1 and 3.6, respectively). The latter finding is not surprising, because doctorates in these fields are more likely to produce other types of creative and scholarly works such as exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts. Those with tenure had the highest mean number of publications, 4.6, followed by those not tenured, but in a tenure track, 4.3. Those not in a tenure track position had a mean number of publications of 3.3.

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

TABLE 20 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Primary Work Activity and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) All Fields Amer Hist “Other Hist” Art Hist Music Speech/ Phil Engl/Amer Primary Work Theater Lang/Lit Activity 64,100 3,900 Total Employed* 5,100 9,400 17,500 2,000 5,300 3,200 (No.) Teaching 76.5 76.7 77.8 72.2 75.3 73.3 79.8 81.7 Management/ 11.0 6.7 14.0 12.7 11.0 6.2 9.9 15.2 Administration 5.1 Research & 5.8 4.8 1.0 6.0 10.1 3.6 3.0 Development Writing/Editing 1.6 2.9 0.2 3.8 0.4 2.9 4.2 4.0 Other Activities 2.2 1.2 3.0 7.2 3.4 2.3 2.9 3.7 No Report 1.5 3.2 2.0 4.5 0.0 0.7 1.5 1.5 NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. 5,800 74.1 11.8 10.7 1.1 2.0 0.3

Modern Lang/ Lit 10,300 80.6 9.6 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.7

Class Lang/ Lit 1,400 77.1 5.9 3.6 6.9 5.7 0.9

“Other Hum”

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 36

*Includes those employed full-time or part-time and postdoctoral appointees.

TABLE 21 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Primary Work Activity, Years Since Award of Doctorate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent) Total 5 or Fewer Years 6-15 Years Primary Work Activity Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Employed* (No.) 43,600 13,300 20,400 8,800 6,200 5,400 76.5 83.3 77.3 76.1 76.7 Teaching 79.6 12.9 11.4 Management 6.5 3.3 12.0 10.5 4.4 4.7 8.1 7.4 5.0 5.2 Research & Development 2.4 2.3 Writing/Editing 2.7 2.2 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.4 3.6 2.7 3.1 Other Activities No Report 1.7 1.2 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.9 NOTE: Those with more than 35 years since doctorate are not shown because of their small numbers; therefore, subcategories may not add to total. 16-35 Years Male 23,200 74.4 12.1 4.8 3.2 3.0 2.5 Female 6,200 72.3 15.6 3.0 4.3 2.8 2.0

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 37

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS

TABLE 22 Publications of Humanities Ph.D.s Employed in Academe, by Field of Doctorate and Tenure Status, 1991 (in percent) Number of Publications Field of Doctorate and Tenure Status Total* (No.) None 1-2 3-5 More Than 5 Mean Total 60,000 31.2 21.7 22.7 24.4 4.2 Field of Doctorate American History 3,800 20.4 20.1 25.4 34.1 6.1 Other History 9,200 26.3 19.5 24.7 29.4 5.0 Art History 1,900 15.4 32.2 29.0 23.4 4.0 Music 5,000 61.0 16.4 10.5 12.1 2.1 Speech/Theater 3,100 43.3 20.1 18.1 18.5 3.6 Philosophy 4,900 26.6 22.7 23.6 27.1 4.2 English and Amer Lang/Lit 17,000 33.2 24.9 21.8 20.1 3.8 Classical Lang/Lit 1,300 29.7 20.5 28.1 21.8 3.5 Modern Lang/Lit 9,900 26.8 20.3 24.8 28.1 4.6 Other Humanities 3,900 21.5 19.9 27.6 30.9 4.9 Tenure Status† Tenured 37,300 28.7 21.0 23.4 26.9 4.6 Not Tenured 20,700 35.3 22.7 21.7 20.2 3.6 Tenure Track 9,600 21.0 23.4 29.6 26.0 4.3 Nontenure Track 4,200 40.3 24.8 20.4 14.5 3.3 6,900 52.3 20.4 11.6 15.7 2.7 Tenure Not Applicable *Totals in this table are equal to the number answering the question on publications, not the total sample, and may therefore disagree with totals shown elsewhere in the report. †Subcategories do not add to total because no reports are not shown.

38

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

39

APPENDIX A 1991 SURVEY CHANGES

In 1991, a number of methodological changes were made to the Survey of Humanities Doctorates. These changes distinguish 1991 data from those collected in earlier years. The changes are described below. 1. Sampling Frame. The 1991 sampling frame was redefined to include only doctorates who were 75 years of age or younger in September 1991. In prior surveys, the frame had excluded individuals on the basis of years since the award of their degree, not on the basis of age. Under that definition, individuals who had earned their degrees more than 42 years prior to the survey year were excluded (or at about age 72). This change was made to accommodate growing interest in retirement issues. 2. Sample Design and Sample Size. Because of budgetary constraints, the initial 1991 sample was cut in half--from 17,716 to 8,894 sample cases. At the same time, it was restratified into fewer sampling cells and greater homogeneity in sampling rates across strata was introduced. These changes were made to reflect current analytic interests. 3. Response Rates. The resources saved as a result of the sample size reduction were redirected toward increasing the response rate, which had fallen to about 55 percent in 1989. The approach was twopronged. First, the mail survey was made more productive through (a) extensive efforts to locate and update addresses for individuals in the sample, (b) reformatting of the survey questionnaire (the content did not change), and (c) the use of personalized mailing techniques. Second, a sample of about 60 percent of the nonrespondents was followed up by telephone. As a result of these efforts, the overall response rate to the 1991 survey increased to 78 percent (unweighted). Most likely, this reduced the effects of nonresponse bias in the 1991 survey estimates.7 4. Reference Period. Due to the Change in the schedule for fielding the survey (traditionally, mailing had commenced in March or April of the survey year), the reference date for survey items was moved from February to September. Thus, 31 months elapsed between the 1989 and 1991 surveys, compared with 24 months between previous surveys.

7A

study conducted on a sample of science and engineering doctorates who were nonrespondents to the 1989 SDR showed bias due to the low response rate in several variables, including location, type of employer, primary work activity, and tenure status. The findings were that the size of the U.S. population of doctorates was being overestimated, as were the numbers of those employed in the academic sector and the numbers of those teaching. To the extent that these biases existed in estimates of the humanities population, they should be minimized by the higher response rate in 1991. For additional information, see S. Mitchell and D. Pasquini, Nonresponse Bias in the 1989 Survey of Doctorate Recipients: An Exploratory Study, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

40

5. Definition of Degree Field. One additional difference between the 1991 survey and earlier surveys needs to be noted. The humanities sample has always been drawn from a population defined by the degree field chosen by the respondent at the time of degree award (and therefore limited to the DRF taxonomy list that had been used to collect data for the population at that time). However, the 1977, 1979, and 1981 surveys gave respondents in the humanities sample the opportunity to reselect their degree field from a revised list. In subsequent Profile reports, these individuals were counted by field on the basis of their revised responses. However, because revised responses had not been collected from every sample member, an inconsistency was introduced between the “field” used in sampling and reporting. Therefore, the decision was made in 1991 to classify humanities doctorates according to the field they selected at the time they earned their degree. As a result, doctorates who had revised their degree fields between 1977 and 1981 reverted to the field in existence when they completed the DRF form. Three fields were particularly affected: American history, “other history,” and speech/theater. In American history, doctorates from the earlier cohorts who had revised their field to American history reverted to the “other history” category, because American history was not on the list when they earned their degrees. This caused a significant drop in the number of doctorates reported in American history in 1991, and a related increase in the number reported in “other history.” In addition, the number of doctorates in speech/theater showed a large increase in 1991 because older doctorates who had earned degrees in audiology and communications, and who had been counted as nonhumanities doctorates in the 1977, 1979, or 1981 reports, reverted to the category “speech.” (This is because audiology and communications were not on the list at the time they earned their degrees.) Table A-1 illustrates how trend lines were affected by the changes mentioned above. The columns labeled 1977 through 1989 show published numbers by field in those years. In general, each field experienced small but steady growth in the number of doctorates reported in each year. In 1991, however, this trend was reversed. Most fields (with the exception of speech/theater and “other history”) show only slight growth, or even a decline in numbers. Thus, as indicated in the Notice of Methodological Changes at the beginning of this report, 1991 estimates are not comparable with estimates shown in earlier reports. Readers are cautioned not to display 1991 data beside published data from earlier years in order to examine trends. Instead, readers are referred to the indexed timeseries tables in Appendix D for information about how the humanities population has changed over time.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

TABLE A-1 Changes in the Humanities Population, by Field of Doctorate, Caused by Methodological Differences (1977-1991) Field of Doctorate 1977 1981 1985 1989 1991* All Fields 66,400 78,600 90,600 100,700 100,300 American History 5,400 8,500 8,800 10,000 6,300 “Other History” 11,400 11,000 12,500 12,700 15,500 Art History 1,500 2,100 2,700 3,100 3,100 Music 3,700 5,200 6,700 8,300 8,700 Speech/Theater 3,200 3,200 3,800 4,200 5,400 Philosophy 5,400 6,200 7,000 7,500 7,500 English and Amer Lang/Lit 18,500 21,700 23,800 26,000 25,900 Classical Lang/Lit 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 Modern Lang/Lit 11,800 14,300 16,000 17,400 16,400 3,800 4,600 7,500 9,600 9,500 “Other Humanities” NOTE: These numbers are for the purpose of illustration only and are not valid indicators of trends in the humanities population. For a listing of the fields in “other history” and “other humanities,” see footnote 1 in the Introduction to this report. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred; therefore, subcategories may not add to totals. *Estimates for 1991 incorporate the methodological changes enumerated in this appendix; they are based on mail and telephone data.

41

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A 42

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 43

APPENDIX B

1991 SURVEY COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B

44

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE WASHINGTON, D. C. 20418 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

October 25, 1991 Dr. NAME Address 1 Address 2 City, State ZIP Dear NAME:

Humanities scholars advance our understanding of the fundamental values that underlie civilized society, both past and present. Reliable information about doctorate recipients in the humanities is vital to national assessments of the health of our society. How do humanities doctorate recipients fare in the labor market? What is the relationship between graduate education and career outcomes? What is the projected supply of humanities scholars by field, age, and work activity? To meet these information needs, the National Research Council conducts a biennial survey of doctorate recipients in the humanities. We ask you to participate, even if you are retired, not working, working in a field unrelated to your doctoral degree, or living in a foreign country. The major findings will be used by the National Endowment for the Humanities (the project's federal sponsor) and educational institutions in policy formulation and program planning. Please complete the enclosed survey form and return it to us in the postage-paid return envelope as soon as possible. The information you provide is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential. Findings will be reported only in the form of statistical summaries for research purposes. To enhance our understanding of the doctoral population in the humanities, we need your cooperation. Thank you for your assistance. Yours sincerely, Frank Press Chairman THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL IS THE PRINCIPAL OPERATING AGENCY OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING TO SERVE GOVERNMENT AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

45

APPENDIX B

OMB No. 3145-0020 Expires: 9-30-93

1991 SURVEY OF HUMANITIES DOCTORATES A. First, we need to check that your name, address, Ph.D. institution, Ph.D. year, and date of birth are correct. If this information is inaccurate or missing, please provide the correct information in the box provided.

CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES This information is solicited under the authority of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, as amended. All information you provide will be treated as confidential, will be safeguarded in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, and will be used for statistical purposes only. Information will be released only in the form of statistical summaries or in a form which does not identify information about any particular person. Your response is entirely voluntary and your failure to provide some or all of the requested information will in no way adversely affect you. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 12 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Susan Daisey, National Endowment for the Humanities, Room 310, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20506; and to the Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB No. 3145-0020), Washington, D.C., 20503.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 46

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 47

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 48

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 49

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 50

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 51

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B 52

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

53

APPENDIX C 1991 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

SAMPLE DESIGN The sampling frame for the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR), comprising the Survey of Humanities Doctorates and the Survey of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers, is compiled from the Doctorate Records File (DRF), an ongoing census of all research doctorates earned in the United States since 1920. For the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates, the sampling frame was selected from the DRF to include individuals who-1. had earned a doctoral degree from a U.S. college or university in a humanities field; 2. were U.S. citizens or, if non-U.S. citizens, indicated they had plans to remain in the United States after degree award; and 3. were under 76 years of age. To develop the frame, graduates who had earned their degrees since the 1989 survey and met the conditions listed above were added to the frame, and those who were carried over from 1989 but had attained the age of 76 (or died) were deleted. A sample of the incoming graduates was selected and added to the panel sample to form the total sample. However, after the 1991 sample had been selected, it became necessary to reduce its size by about 50 percent because of budget constraints (the cost savings were redirected toward obtaining a higher response rate); the humanities sample was reduced from an initial size of 17,716 to 8,894.8 The basic sample design for the 1991 SDR was a stratified random sample with the goal of 70 as the minimum number of cases selected in each sampling cell. This minimum worked to ensure that there were sufficient cases to publish estimates of small subgroups. The variables used for stratification were 11 selected fields of degree, 2 genders, and 2 cohort groupings (year of degree), resulting in 44 sampling cells.9 The sampling rates in each cell were the product of the initial sampling rate (prior to reduction) and the

8Because

a higher response rate was achieved in 1991, the effective sample size was reduced by only 23 percent. initial 1991 sampling frame was stratified into 879 cells according to a different set of variables. The sample reduction goals included restratifying the sample into fewer sampling cells that reflected current analytic needs. 9The

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

54

subsampling rate (applied to achieve the reduction). The population of 105,715 was sampled at an overall rate of 8.2 percent. DATA COLLECTION The goal of the 1991 data collection plan was to maximize the response rate using the most cost-effective measures. These measures related to the two primary causes of nonresponse in the SDR: (1) failure to locate sample members, and (2) failure to gain cooperation from those who were located. Because the SDR as longitudinal--and people change residences and jobs--contact is lost with a certain proportion of sample cases between survey years. At the start of the 1991 survey, this proportion was estimated to be about 5 percent of the sample. However, with assistance from alumni offices and private address vendors, this percentage was reduced to about 2.5 percent prior to the first mailing. Data collection consisted of two phases: a self-administered mail survey, followed by computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) among a sample of the nonrespondents to the mail survey. The mail survey consisted of three mailings of the survey questionnaire, with a reminder postcard between mailings 1 and 2. The first mailing was sent in October 1991, and the other two in December 1991 and January 1992. In order to encourage participation, all survey materials were personalized with the respondent's name and address. In addition, the survey questionnaires were reformatted in a more “respondent friendly” design than that of earlier years. The mail survey achieved a response rate of about 63 percent. Phase 2--telephone interviewing--was conducted with about 60 percent of the nonrespondents to the mail survey. This activity was subcontracted by the National Research Council to Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) in Princeton, New Jersey. Of the nonrespondents, MPR located telephone numbers for about 90 percent and completed interviews with 71 percent. CATI was conducted between March and July 1992. DATA PREPARATION As completed mail questionnaires were received, they were logged into a receipt control system that kept track of the status of all cases. Coders then carried out a variety of checks and prepared the documents for data entry. Specifically, they resolved incomplete or contradictory answers, imputed missing answers if logically appropriate, reviewed “other, specify” responses for possible backcoding to a listed response, and assigned numeric codes to open-ended questions (about employer name, for example). A coding supervisor validated the coders' work. Once cases were coded, they were sent to data entry. The data entry program ensured that only values within allowable ranges were entered and that built-in consistency checks were not violated. For example, a case in which a respondent reported unemployment but later listed an employer's name was flagged for review.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

55

The same consistency and range checks, together with the editing and coding rules, were applied to the CATI data. (Because CATI data are keyed directly to disk during the interview, the data entry step is eliminated.) CATI data were then recoded to match the structure and format of the mail data, and the two files were combined. Further computer checks were performed to test for inconsistent values, corrections were made, and the process was repeated until no inconsistencies remained. WEIGHTING AND ESTIMATION The general purpose of weighting survey data is to compensate for unequal probabilities of selection to the sample and to adjust for the effects of nonresponse (see the section in this appendix on Reliability of the 1991 Survey Estimates for a discussion of nonresponse). Weights are often calculated in two stages. In the first stage, unadjusted weights are calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection, taking into account all stages of the sampling selection process. In the second stage, these weights are adjusted to compensate for nonresponse; such nonresponse adjustments are typically carried out separately within multiple weighting cells. The first step in constructing a basic weight for the 1991 SDR sample cases involved developing a design weight that reflected the selection probabilities for each case. Because the 1991 initial sample was reduced through subsampling, cases selected for the 1991 initial sample were each assigned a 1991 initial design weight (DWGT) based on their probability of selection to the sample. The 1991 initial design weight does not adjust for nonresponse. This weight was then multiplied by the inverse of the case's probability of selection to the 1991 reduced sample; the latter probability took into account the subsampling done to reduce the 1991 initial sample. More formally, the basic weight (BSCWGT) for the ith case is defined as BSCWGTi = DWGTi * (1/Pi), in which Pi represents the probability of selection for the 1991 reduced sample. BSCWGT is the basic weight for the mail respondents. For the mail “nonrespondent” cases, a further subsampling step was done to determine the cases to be followed up by CATI. The subsampling was done in 11 groups of cases. The selection of the nonrespondent subsample was done independently of the 1991 SDR design. Therefore, the basic weight (BSCWGTC) for the ith CATI case can be defined as BSCWGTCi = BSCWGTi * (1/P'i), where P'i represents the probability of selection for the CATI subsample. The next stage was to adjust the 1991 basic weight for nonresponse. Nonresponse adjustment cells were created using poststratification. Within each nonresponse adjustment

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

56

cell, a weighted nonresponse rate, which took into account both mail and CATI nonresponse, was calculated. The nonresponse adjustment factor for each cell is the inverse of this weighted response rate. The initial set of nonresponse adjustment factors was examined and, under certain conditions, some of the cells were collapsed. Let ƒ be the final adjustment factor for a given cell. Then the final weights for the mail and CATI respondents are given by FINWGTM = BSCWGT * (ƒ) and FINWGTC = BSCWGTC * (ƒ), respectively. Because the weights that resulted from this computation process were not always integer weights, respondents in each cell were assigned a weight that was equal to either the integral part of the cell's final weight or the integral part plus one. Allocation of integer weights within a cell was made at random so as to represent the cell population. Estimates in this report were developed by summing the final integer weights of the respondents selected for each analysis. RELIABILITY OF THE 1991 SURVEY ESTIMATES Because the estimates shown in this report are based on a sample, they may vary from those that would have been obtained if all members of the target population had been surveyed (using the same questionnaire and data collection methods). Two types of error are possible when population estimates are derived from measures of a sample: nonsampling error and sampling error. By looking at these errors, it is possible to estimate the accuracy and precision of the survey results. Potential sources of nonsampling error in the 1991 SDR are discussed below, followed by a discussion of sampling error--how it is estimated and how it can be used in interpreting the survey results. Nonsampling Error Nonsampling errors in surveys can arise at many points in the survey process; they take different forms: • Coverage errors can occur when some members of the target population are not identified and therefore do not have a chance to be selected to the sample. • Nonresponse errors can occur when some or all of the survey data are not collected in a survey year.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

57

• Response errors can occur either when the wrong individual completes the survey or when the correct individual cannot accurately recall the events being questioned. Response errors can also arise from deliberate misreporting or poor question wording that leaves room for inconsistent interpretation by respondents. • Processing errors can occur at the point of data editing, coding, or key entry. Little information exists on the magnitude of nonsampling error in the SDR. Coverage errors are likely to be minimal, because the Doctorate Records File (the sampling frame for the SDR) is considered a complete census.10 However, response errors may have occurred during the CATI phase, when respondents were asked in March to recall their work activities the previous September, a full 6 months earlier--although this type of error has never been studied. Likewise, no information exists on the consistency of coding and editing over time or within a survey year. However, the largest potential source of nonsampling error--nonresponse--can be examined by looking at the overall response rate as well as at response rates by subgroups. Nonresponse bias is defined as “the bias or systematic distortion in survey estimates occurring because of the inability to obtain a usable response from some members of the sample.”11 Nonresponse bias is concerned with the “representativeness” of the respondents, that is, with how the respondents' characteristics compare with those of the population from which they were chosen. If the respondents do not accurately represent the population, this would result in inaccurate population estimates. Table C-1 shows the overall response rate and response rates by subgroups (both weighted and unweighted).12 The overall weighted response rate was 87.6 percent, a rate sufficiently high for confidence that the effects of nonresponse bias are minimal, at least on estimates of the total population. By field of degree, weighted response rates ranged from 85.1 (doctorates in “other” modern, languages and literature) to 91.9 percent (doctorates in music). These differences are not extreme, and they suggest that estimates by field are not likely to be biased by nonresponse. Likewise, subgroups defined by cohort and sex are probably not affected by nonresponse bias, as evidenced by the high observed response rates (ranging from 86.7 to 92.1 percent) and the small range in response rates among these subgroups.

10See

P. Ries and D. H. Thurgood, Summary Report 1992: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993), p. v. 11Judith

T. Lessler and William D. Kalsbeek, Nonsampling Error in Surveys (New York: Wiley, 1992), p. 118. rates were calculated by dividing the number of usable responses by the number of in-scope sample cases. Weighted response rates take into account the unequal probabilities of selection to the sample and show what the response rate might have been if everyone in the population had been surveyed. Weighted response rates indicate the potential for nonresponse bias in the survey estimates, and unweighted response rates indicate how successful the data collection protocol was in getting responses. 12Response

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

58

Sampling Error Sampling error is the variation that occurs by chance because a sample, rather than the entire population, is surveyed. The particular sample that was used to estimate the 1991 population of humanities doctorates in the United States was one of a large number of samples that could have been selected using the same sample design and size. Estimates based on each of these samples would have differed. Standard errors indicate the magnitude of the sampling error that occurs by chance because a sample rather than the entire population was surveyed. Standard errors are used in conjunction with a survey estimate to construct confidence intervals--bounds set around the survey estimate in which, with some prescribed probability, the average estimate from all possible samples would lie. For example, approximately 95 percent of the intervals from 1.96 standard errors below the estimate to 1.96 standard errors above the estimate would include the average result of all possible samples.13 With a single survey estimate, the 95 percent confidence limit implies that if the same sample design was used over and over again, with confidence intervals determined each time from each sample, 95 percent of the time the confidence interval would enclose the true population value. The number of survey estimates in the SDR for which standard errors might have been estimated was extremely large because of the number of variables measured, the number of subpopulations, and the values-totals, percentages, and medians--that were estimated. The direct calculation of standard error estimates from the raw data for each estimate was prohibited by time and cost limitations. Instead, a method was used for generalizing standard error values from a subset of survey estimates that characterize the population, allowing application to a wide variety of survey estimates. This method computes the variances associated with selected variables and uses these estimates to develop values of a and b parameters (regression coefficients) for use in generalized variance functions that estimate the standard errors associated with a broader range of totals and percentages.14 Base a and b parameters are shown in Table C-2. These parameters were used to generate tables of approximate standard errors shown on pp. 63-65. The use of these tables is described below, together with an alternative method for approximating the standard errors more directly. Standard Errors of Estimated Totals Table C-3 and Table C-4 show approximate standard errors for the humanities doctoral population overall, for field groupings used in the report (e.g., American history,

13Approximately

90 percent of the intervals from 1.64 standard errors above and below the estimate would include the average result of all possible samples; or, if more precision is required, approximately 99 percent of the intervals from 2.58 standard errors above and below the estimate would include the average result of all possible samples. 14Consideration of the complex sample design and estimation procedure of the 1991 SDR suggested that a balanced replication procedure (with 16 replicates) be used for calculating the a and b parameters.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

59

philosophy), and for gender by field. The standard errors shown in the tables were calculated using the appropriate values of a and b, along with the formula for standard errors of totals:

where x is the total. Resulting values were rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. The illustration below shows how to use the tables to determine the standard errors of estimates shown in the report. Illustration. If the number of speech/theater Ph.D.s employed in academic institutions was reported at 3,200 and one wishes to determine the approximate standard error, one can use the values shown in Table C-3 for estimated numbers of 2,500 and 5,000 in the total (“All Fields”) column (230 and 320, respectively) and, through linear interpolation, calculate 255 as the approximate standard error of the estimate of 3,200 as follows:

can

On the other hand, using the values of a and bfor speech/theater Ph.D.s from Table C-2 and formula (1), one also calculate the approximate standard error more directly:

To develop a 95 percent confidence interval around this estimate of 3,200, one would add and subtract from the estimate the standard error multiplied by 1.96. This means that the average estimate from all possible samples would be expected 95 times out of 100 to fall within the range of 3,200 ± (1.96 × 259) = 2,692 to 3,708 This range of 2,692 to 3,708 represents the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated number of 3,200. Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages Percentages are another type of estimate that are given throughout the report. The standard error of a percentage may be approximated using the formula:

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

60

where x is the numerator of the percentage, y is the denominator of the percentage, p is the percentage (0 < p < 100), and b is the b parameter from Table C-2. Tables of standard errors of estimated percentages were derived using this formula and are shown in Table C-5 and C-6. These tables display each of the broad fields reported in the report and for the female subpopulation within each field to illustrate the differences for subpopulations. Formula (2) may be used to calculate the standard errors of percentages not shown in the tables. Illustration. Suppose the total number of women doctorates in the U.S. labor force was reported as 29,100 and the number of women employed part-time was reported at 4,800. The proportion of women employed parttime would be approximately 16.5 percent. Table C-6 shows the approximate standard error of a 15 percent characteristic on a base of 25,000 to be 1.0. Alternatively, using the appropriate value of b from Table C-2 and formula 2, the standard error of p is determined as follows:

To develop a 95 percent confidence interval around this estimate of 16.5 percent, one would add and subtract from the estimate the standard error multiplied by 1.96. That is, the average estimate from all possible samples would be expected 95 times out of 100 to fall within the range 16.5 ± (1.96 × .949) = 14.6 to 18.4 The range of 14.6 to 18.4 represents the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated percent of 16.5. Limitations of the Standard Error Estimates As mentioned, the standard error estimates provided in this report were derived from generalized functions based upon a limited set of characteristics (or survey estimates). While this method provides good approximation of standard errors associated with most survey results, it may overstate the error associated with estimates drawn from strata with high sampling fractions. However, the only way to avoid this overstatement is to calculate the standard errors directly from the raw data, forgoing the practical, more widely applicable generalized method.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

TABLE C-1 Response Rates by Summary Strata (Field, Cohort, and Gender), 1991 A B C D E Sampling Survey In-Scope Out-of Usable Frame Sample Sample Scope Responses Sample Field of Doctorate Art History 3,383 393 375 18 295 American 6,612 518 505 13 399 History 17,046 1,102 1,023 79 776 “Other History” Music 9,341 801 768 33 605 Speech/ 5,837 621 594 27 463 Theater Philosophy 8,419 794 737 57 569 Engl and 27,548 2,030 1,929 101 1,489 Amer Lang/Lit 8,508 801 748 53 574 French/ Spanish Lang/ Lit Other Modern 8,275 809 738 71 562 Lang/Lit Classical 2,287 323 305 18 234 Lang/Lit “Other 8,459 702 666 36 526 Humanities” Cohort 1985-1990 17,739 2,161 2,044 117 1,656 Doctorates Pre-1985 87,976 6,733 6,344 389 4,836 Doctorates Gender Male/ 71,967 5,579 5,245 334 4,031 Unknown Female 33,749 3,315 3,143 172 2,461 105,715 8,894 8,388 506 6,492 Total

61

F Unweighted Response Rate (%)

G Weighted Response Rate (%)

78.7 79.0

86.3 88.5

75.9

86.7

78.8 77.9

91.9 87.9

77.2 77.2

85.2 87.2

76.7

86.1

76.2

85.1

76.7

87.5

79.0

91.6

81.0

92.1

76.2

86.7

76.9

87.5

78.3 77.4

87.8 87.6

NOTE: Out-of-scope sample cases are those learned to be deceased, living outside the United States, or over the age of 75. The unweighted response rate is the number of usable responses divided by the number of in-scope sample cases. The weighted response rate is the number of usable responses multiplied by their basic weight divided by the in-scope sample multiplied by their basic weight.

TABLE C-2 Listing of a and b Parameters (Select Groups in Humanities Fields), 1991 Parameter Total Women Whites Asians Field of Doctorate -0.000199 Total, All Fields a -0.000519 -0.000199 0.009131 21.6904 b 18.9936 21.8340 17.7057 -0.003591 American History a -0.021731 -0.002012 0.009131* 26.1841 b 29.6630 20.7618 17.7057* -0.000044 -0.000199* 0.012206 “Other History” a -0.000199* 9.9658 21.6904* 4.0585 b 21.8340* -0.004109 Art History a -0.005417 -0.004086 0.009131* 12.9442 b 10.0504 12.5698 17.7057* -0.001105 Music a -0.007003 -0.001055 0.009131* 10.7681 b 16.5488 10.6411 17.7057* 0.009131* -0.004946 -0.000199* Speech/Theater a -0.000199* 7.0627 21.6904* 17.7057* b 21.8340* -0.000986 Philosophy a -0.004594 -0.000947 0.572047 13.6434 b 6.1502 13.8210 0.6616 -0.001281 Engl/Amer Lang/Lit a -0.002500 -0.001473 -0.005534 36.4284 b 31.2660 40.0157 6.2152 -0.003111 Classical Lang/Lit a -0.008243 -0.003423 0.009131* 6.8651 b 5.1673 6.9775 17.7057* -0.000809 Modern Lang/Lit a -0.001167 -0.000791 0.102755 15.0078 b 13.1262 13.1886 28.0732 -0.002498 “Other Humanities” a -0.002667 -0.000519* 0.009131* b 16.1731 18.9936* 16.1484 17.7057* *Direct estimates are not available; data shown are considered useful approximations. Blacks -0.003005 22.3356 0.140529 1.2347 -0.022305 10.2099 -0.003005* 22.3356* 0.022766 22.2600 -0.039070 14.0045 -0.003005* 22.3356* -0.016353 19.4521 -0.003005* 22.3356* -0.014019 24.0491 -0.003005* 22.3356*

Native Americans 0.020942 12.1452 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.730917 0.7462 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.020942* 12.1452* 0.020942* 12.1452*

Minority Combined -0.000833 18.8179 0.119762 2.0103 -0.015350 13.3264 -0.000833* 18.8179* -0.000942 19.6350 0.110617 3.3756 -0.005948 15.3065 -0.016952 17.9575 -0.000833 18.8179 0.032888 16.7345 -0.026912 20.4191

Hispanic -0.001162 12.8045 0.042981 4.2848 -0.056858 32.9098 -0.001162* 12.8045* -0.001162* 12.8045* -0.001162* 12.8045* 0.169559 1.1329 0.054909 7.0489 -0.001162* 12.8045* -0.002798 10.9683 -0.001162* 12.8045*

Foreign -0.004549 17.7517 -0.004549* 17.7517* -0.004549* 17.7517* -0.004549* 17.7517* -0.004549* 17.7517* -0.004549* 17.7517* -0.016053 9.9934 -0.022902 11.8290 -0.004549* 17.7517* -0.008958 19.5433 -0.004549* 17.7517*

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C 62

20 30 30 50 30 30 40 30 50 40 100 50 50 50 50 70 50 200 70 70 70 70 100 70 500 100 100 110 80 120 80 700 120 120 130 100 90 150 150 1,000 150 150 2,500 140 80 230 230 230 210 5,000 160 -320 320 320 200 10,000 ---440 440 -25,000 ----650 -50,000 ----770 -----75,000 710 -420 -----100,000 NOTE: Standard error estimates are not available for numbers that exceed the population of a given field. 30 40 50 80 100 110 170 210 ------

TABLE C-3 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers of Humanities Doctorates, by Field, 1991 All Fields American “Other Art History Music Speech/ Philosophy Estimated History” History Theater Number English/ American Lang/Lit 40 60 90 130 160 190 290 390 490 330 ----

“Other Humanities” 30 40 60 90 100 120 160 140 ------

Modern Lang/Lit 30 40 50 90 100 120 180 230 260 -----

Classical Lang/Lit 40 30 40 50 60 60 --------

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C 63

30 30 20 50 20 20 40 40 40 30 100 30 30 50 60 60 40 200 30 40 70 80 100 60 500 50 70 100 90 110 70 700 50 80 100 100 70 50 100 1,000 140 90 2,500 ---160 210 -5,000 ----290 -10,000 ----370 -390 -----25,000 NOTE: Standard error estimates are not available for numbers that exceed the population of a given field. 20 20 30 40 50 40 -----

TABLE C-4 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers of Female Humanities Doctorates, by Field, 1991 All Fields American “Other Art History Music Speech/ Philosophy Estimated History” History Theater Number English/ American Lang/Lit 40 60 80 120 140 170 -310 250 --

“Other Humanities” 30 40 60 100 110 140 210 ----

Modern Lang/Lit 30 40 50 80 90 110 160 190 ---

Classical Lang/Lit 20 20 30 20 -------

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C 64

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

65

TABLE C-5 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Humanities Doctorates, 1991 Estimated Percents Base Number of Percent 1 OR 99 2 OR 98 5 OR 95 10 OR 90 15 OR 85 50 6.6 9.2 14.4 19.8 23.5 100 4.6 6.5 10.2 14.0 16.6 200 3.3 4.6 7.2 9.9 11.8 500 2.1 2.9 4.5 6.2 7.4 700 1.8 2.5 3.8 5.3 6.3 1,000 1.5 2.1 3.2 4.4 5.3 2,500 0.9 1.3 2.0 2.8 3.3 5,000 0.7 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.4 10,000 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 25,000 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 50,000 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 75,000 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 100,000

25 OR 75 28.5 20.2 14.3 9.0 7.6 6.4 4.0 2.9 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6

50 32.9 23.3 16.5 10.4 8.8 7.4 4.7 3.3 2.3 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.7

Table C-6 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Female Humanities Doctorates, 1991 Estimated Percents Base Number of Percent 1 OR 99 2 OR 98 5 OR 95 10 OR 90 15 OR 85 50 6.1 8.6 13.4 18.5 22.0 100 4.3 6.1 9.5 13.1 15.6 200 3.1 4.3 6.7 9.2 11.0 500 1.9 2.7 4.2 5.8 7.0 700 1.6 2.3 3.6 4.9 5.9 1,000 1.4 1.9 3.0 4.1 4.9 2,500 0.9 1.2 1.9 2.6 3.1 5,000 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 10,000 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25,000

25 OR 75 26.7 18.9 13.3 8.4 7.1 6.0 3.8 2.7 1.9 1.2

50 30.8 21.8 15.4 9.7 8.2 6.9 4.4 3.1 2.2 1.4

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C 66

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

67

APPENDIX D TIME-SERIES TABLES

Table D-1 ,Table D-2 ,Table D-3, Table D-4 through Table D-5 show time-series data for survey years 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989, and 1991 for the variables field of doctorate, selected, demographic variables, employment status, employment sector, and primary work activity. These tables control for the effects of the 1991 methodological changes discussed in Appendix A. The objective of making the data as comparable as possible across survey years was accomplished in two ways: (1) to control for the effects of the higher response rate in 1991, the 1991 estimates were based only on mail respondents, as was the case in years 1977 to 1989; (2) the 1991 changes to the sampling frame regarding eligibility for inclusion were retrofitted to the 1977-1989 respondent group. This means that respondents who were 75 or younger were included in the base for estimation. Further, they were counted according to the degree field they specified at the time of degree award, rather than according to a later revision. The time-series tables do not show estimated totals (or counts), but rather, rates of change between 1977 and subsequent survey years. This is because totals for the years 1977 to 1989 would disagree with those published in earlier years, and totals in 1991 (based only on mail respondents) would disagree with numbers shown earlier in this report, possibly causing confusion and misinterpretation. The rates shown in these tables are indexed to 1977, meaning they show the growth rate in population size between 1977 and a subsequent year. By focusing on relative changes, the index numbers allow the comparison of different populations without regard to their absolute size. Following are examples of how the tables should be interpreted. Table D-1 shows that the total humanities population (labeled “All Fields”) grew by 16.9 percent between 1977 and 1981, and by 54.3 percent between 1977 and 1991. Table D-3 shows the number of humanities doctorates employed full-time grew by 47.4 percent between 1977 and 1991. In comparison, the number employed part-time grew by 154.1 percent (or about one and one-half times) in that period. On the other hand, some populations experienced a decline. Table D-2 shows that the number of humanities doctorates under age 40 declined by 43.1 percent between 1977 and 1991 (calculated by subtracting 56.9 from 100.0). There are limitations to these time-series tables of which the reader should be aware. One is that it was not possible to “bridge” the change in sample design or sample size between 1991 and earlier years. Thus, 1991 estimates are based on a sample comprising 44 strata, compared with about 250 strata in earlier years, and on a different set of stratification variables. This affected the weighting and sometimes produced anomalous results. For example, in Table D-1, the field American history was not used in stratification between 1977 and 1989 and shows a decline in numbers in 1991, when it was used to stratify the sample. Stratification better controlled the variance associated with that field and probably produced a more accurate estimate in 1991. (This decline is separate from that noted in Appendix A, caused by the change in the definition of “field”).

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D 68

Another limitation is that rates of change can be misleading if interpreted in isolation. For example, although the number of Hispanic humanities doctorates more than doubled between 1977 and 1991, they still represented only a small fraction of the total in 1991, about 3.3 percent. Therefore, large growth rates do not necessarily indicate large gains in numbers.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

TABLE D-1 Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 1977 1981 1985 Field of Doctorate All Fields 100.0 116.9 134.0 American History 100.0 134.2 156.9 “Other History” 100.0 108.5 115.3 Art History 100.0 134.5 168.5 Music 100.0 139.2 179.6 Speech/Theater 100.0 104.0 111.0 Philosophy 100.0 112.1 127.7 Eng & Amer Lang/Lit 100.0 115.5 126.5 Classical Lang/Lit 100.0 105.6 107.6 Modern Lang/Lit 100.0 120.8 135.8 100.0 125.2 202.8 “Other Humanities”

69

1989 147.8 182.4 116.7 196.8 222.1 116.8 137.2 136.7 112.6 149.9 255.1

1991 154.3 174.6 121.8 205.0 246.8 123.0 144.1 140.5 113.4 153.2 288.7

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

TABLE D-2 Demographic Characteristics of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 1977 1981 1985 1989 Demographic Characteristics Total Population 100.0 116.9 134.0 147.8 Gender Men 100.0 112.0 123.8 132.5 Women 100.0 133.0 166.7 197.6 Racial/Ethnic Group White 100.0 121.1 137.8 152.0 Minority Group 100.0 148.7 189.2 216.4 Hispanic 100.0 157.7 186.3 224.4 Black 100.0 144.0 196.4 209.4 Asian 100.0 139.7 183.2 202.3 American Indian 100.0 130.9 219.8 290.1 Age in Survey Year Under 40 100.0 96.9 78.6 61.6 40-49 100.0 136.2 179.4 197.2 50-59 100.0 126.5 157.4 197.2 60-69 100.0 129.5 160.1 206.9 100.0 100.9 147.8 194.2 70-75

70

1991 154.3 135.4 215.7 159.2 212.4 233.1 186.3 197.0 279.0 56.9 190.3 230.4 229.9 227.0

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

TABLE D-3 Employment Status of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 1977 1981 1985 Employment Status Total Population 100.0 116.9 134.0 Employed Full-Time 100.0 118.8 134.9 Employed Part-Time 100.0 143.3 193.9 Postdoctoral Appointment 100.0 94.1 49.6 Not Employed 100.0 88.9 110.6 Seeking Employment 100.0 54.6 69.6 Not Seeking Employment 100.0 120.9 131.4 Retired 100.0 100.3 126.8 Other 100.0 55.8 106.4 100.0 221.4 0.0 No Report

71

1989 147.8 143.8 237.2 95.4 147.8 49.0 137.1 207.8 93.6 7.3

1991 154.3 147.4 254.1 69.3 173.8 62.2 127.8 253.6 81.5 55.6

NOTE: The number of humanities doctorates in the categories Postdoctoral Appointment, Not Employed, and No Report is small. Therefore, small changes in absolute numbers may result in large fluctuations in the relative index.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

TABLE D-4 Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 1977 1981 1985 Type of Employer Employed Population 100.0 119.8 137.2 Educational Institution 100.0 114.1 126.1 4-Year Coll/Univ/Med School 100.0 113.3 124.1 2-Year College 100.0 116.0 139.3 Elem/Secondary Schools 100.0 138.3 167.1 Business/Industry 100.0 236.6 358.7 U.S. Government 100.0 148.6 184.5 State/Local Government 100.0 242.3 303.6 Nonprofit Organization 100.0 117.5 167.5 Other 100.0 122.6 345.2 100.0 104.8 28.6 No Report

72

1989 148.4 134.3 132.4 139.1 188.9 438.2 224.9 213.1 196.6 371.0 31.2

1991 152.4 134.9 131.3 156.3 216.3 493.4 191.6 275.5 218.6 358.1 150.4

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

TABLE D-5 Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 1977 1981 1985 Primary Work Activity Employed Population 100.0 119.8 137.2 Teaching 100.0 120.7 126.6 Management/Administration 100.0 149.5 198.9 Research and Development 100.0 101.6 121.5 Writing/Editing 100.0 103.8 159.8 Consulting/Prof Services 100.0 162.2 231.6 Other Activities 100.0 113.8 141.3 100.0 68.6 117.3 No Report

73

1989 148.4 136.3 243.4 148.9 142.7 265.6 177.0 40.9 1991 152.4 137.9 242.4 123.0 146.5 286.2 200.5 101.5

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D 74

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX E 75

APPENDIX E