Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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
OCR for page R2
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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
OCR for page R3
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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
OCR for page R4
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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
OCR for page R5
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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.
OCR for page R6
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R7
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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 full-time 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.
OCR for page R8
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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 lower-ranking positions of assistant
OCR for page R9
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE 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).
OCR for page R10
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1991 PROFILE This page in the original is blank.