humanities doctorates in the united states: 1991 profile
TRANSCRIPT
HUMANITIES DOCTORATES INTHE UNITED STATES
1991 PROFILE
Prudence BrownResearch Associate
Susan MitchellProject Manager
Office of Scientific and Engineering PersonnelNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESSWashington, D.C. 1994
i
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose mem-bers 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 con-sisting 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 andengineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority ofthe charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientificand 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 parallelorganization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the NationalAcademy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-ing 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 ofappropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibilitygiven to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initia-tive, 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 sci-ence and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordancewith general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy ofSciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineeringcommunities. 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 NSFContract No. SRS-9121891. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of OSEP and do notnecessarily 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.: NationalAcademy Press. (The report gives the results of data collected in the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates sponsored by theNational Endowment for the Humanities and conducted by the National Research Council.)
Available fromSurvey of Humanities DoctoratesNational Research CouncilOSEP--Room TJ 20062101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418Material in this publication is in the public domain and, with appropriate credit, may be reproduced without permission.Printed in the United States of America
ii
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING PERSONNEL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Linda S. Wilson (Chair), Radcliffe CollegeDavid Breneman, Harvard UniversityLester A. Hoel, University of VirginiaErnest Jaworski, Monsanto CompanyJuanita Kreps, Duke UniversityDon Langenberg, University of Maryland SystemBarry Munitz, The California State UniversityBruce Smith, The Brookings Institution
iii
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The conduct of the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates, the maintenance of the resulting data file, andthe publication of this report were funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). JeffreyThomas, who serves as project officer for NEH, assisted the project staff of the Office of Scientific andEngineering Personnel (OSEP) in developing an outline for the report; he also provided helpful advice aboutrevisions to the draft report.
The 1991 survey was conducted under the administrative supervision of Susan Mitchell, who collaboratedwith Prudence Brown on the development of this report. Prudence Brown analyzed the survey results and draftedthe 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 Pasquiniprepared 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, andto her staff--Gedamu Abraha, Dan Fulwiler, Joyce Hendrickson, Mary Waynoike, and Kevin Williams--whoprovided excellent support in the processing of the data. Thanks are also extended to George Boyce, manager ofOSEP's Data Processing Section, and to Cindy Woods, research programmer, who were responsible for thecomputer programming and processing. In addition, thanks are expressed to Geraldine Mooney and AnneCiemnecki 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 andEngineering Personnel, which is concerned with the activities of the National Research Council that contribute tothe effective development and utilization of the nation's scholars and research personnel. During thedevelopment of this report, Alan E. Fechter, Executive Director of OSEP, provided useful guidance, as didMarilyn Baker, Associate Director. Suggestions for improvement of the report's content and format or othercomments 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 theyears. Without their continuing cooperation, this survey project would not be possible.
Linda Wilson, ChairAdvisory CommitteeOffice of Scientific and Engineering Personnel
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
IMPORTANT NOTICE OF METHODOLOGICALCHANGES
In order to improve the quality and utility of data from the surveys in this series, important changes weremade to the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates. These changes affect comparability with data from thebiennial surveys for the years 1977 to 1989. The changes included redefining the sampling frame; redesigningthe sample and reducing the sample size; increasing the response rate; changing the reference date; and changingthe definition of degree field by which humanities doctorates are counted. The changes were made to improvethe quality of the survey estimates by reducing the potential for nonsampling error and to address currentanalytic needs better. Although they resulted in a break with survey data from past years, the changes had apositive effect on the precision and reliability of 1991 data that will carry over to time-trend analysis in futureyears.
A detailed explanation of the changes is provided in Appendix A. Because of the changes, data published inearlier Profile reports are not comparable with the data presented in this report. To avoid misleading andanomalous results, readers are cautioned against forming trend lines by combining 1977-1989 published datawith 1991 data.
Instead, readers are referred to the time-series tables in Appendix D, which examine changes in thehumanities population over time. These tables, designed to bridge the differences in methodology across surveyyears, 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, theypreserve the capability of doing some trend analysis--an important feature of this survey series.
IMPORTANT NOTICE OF METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES v
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
IMPORTANT NOTICE OF METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES vi
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report, the eighth in a biennial series, is based on findings from the 1991 Survey of HumanitiesDoctorates, a longitudinal employment survey conducted by the National Research Council since 1977 andsponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The report presents data on the demographic andemployment characteristics of humanities doctorates who earned their degrees from U.S. institutions betweenJanuary 1942 and June 1990, and who were 75 years of age or younger and residing in the United States inSeptember 1991. Survey data are widely used for policy purposes by planners in government and academicinstitutions, among others, and by students who are making career choices. The major findings of the report aresummarized below.
• The estimated population of humanities doctorates residing in the United States in 1991 was 100,300, ofwhich approximately one-fourth were doctorates in English and American languages and literature, anotherone-fourth were in fields of history, one-sixth were in modern languages and literature, and the remainderwere 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 2.0percent 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 hadless than 1 percent.
• 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 majorityof these were in education or professional fields.
• Of the humanities Ph.D. labor force, about 1.7 percent were unemployed but seeking employment.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS vii
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
THE U.S. POPULATION OF HUMANITIES
DOCTORATE
RECIPIENTS
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
• Humanities doctorates were most likely to be employed by educational institutions (77.5 percent), followedby business/industry (11.8 percent), and nonprofit organizations (5.7 percent). The remaining 5.0 percentwere employed by the government or other sectors.
• Humanities doctorates who had earned their degrees within the 5 years prior to 1991 had the highestproportion employed by educational institutions (82.5 percent), followed by those with 16 to 35 years sinceaward of degree (80.0 percent). Those in the middle group--with 6 to 15 years since award of degree--had thelowest proportion employed by educational institutions (72.4 percent). More of the middle group wereemployed 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 wereengaged primarily in management and administration, 5.6 percent were in writing or editing, and 5.1 percentwere 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 thatof 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 yearssince award of doctorate, median salaries were nearly equal for men and women in the newest group; mediansalaries exhibited the largest difference ($6,400) in the oldest group.
• The majority of humanities doctorates employed by academic institutions held faculty positions in 1991. Thedistribution of faculty ranks varied considerably across fields: the percentage of full professors ranged from ahigh 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); thepercentages of men and women who were associate professors were approximately the same; and the lower-ranking positions of assistant
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS viii
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS
professor, instructor, and lecturer had higher concentrations of women. Men were more likely to be fullprofessors 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 fordoctorates in “other history” and speech/theater (66.7 and 66.3 percent, respectively) and lowest for those inart history and “other humanities” (50.7 and 49.2 percent, respectively).
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ix
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS x
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
1 THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES 3 Distribution by Field 3 Demographic Characteristics 5 Gender 5 Racial/Ethnic Groups 5 Age in 1991 5 Year of Doctorate 5 Citizenship Status 5
2 EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 7 Employment Status 7 Labor Force Status 7 Labor Force Status by Gender 10 Geographic Differences in Labor Force Status 10 Field Mobility 10 Employment Sector 13 Years Since Award of Doctorate 15 Primary Work Activity 15 Years Since Award of Doctorate 17 Median Annual Salaries by Field, Gender, and Years Since Award of Doctorate 20 Median Annual Salaries by Employment Sector and Gender 22 Government Support Status 23 Job Satisfaction 25 Type of Employer and Years Since Award of Doctorate 25
3 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 29 Academic Rank 29 Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate 29 Tenure Status 29 Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate 32 Primary Work Activity 35 Gender and Years Since Award of Doctorate 35 Number of Publications 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
CONTENTS xi
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
1 Distribution of Humanities Doctorates in the United States, by Field of Degree and Field ofEmployment, 1991
4
2 Demographic Characteristics of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) 63 Employment Status of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) 84 Employment and Unemployment of Humanities Ph.D.s in the United States Labor Force, by
Gender and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) 9
5 Labor Force Status of Humanities Ph.D.s in the United States, by Region, 1991 (in percent) 116 Field Retention and Mobility of Employed Humanities Doctorates, 1991 (in percent) 127 Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) 148 Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) 169 Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent) 18
10 Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Years Since Award of Doctorate, 1991 (inpercent)
19
11 Median Annual Salaries of Full-Time Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Gender, Years SinceAward of Doctorate, and Field of Doctorate, 1991 (in thousands of dollars)
21
12 Median Annual Salaries of Full-Time Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Gender and Type ofEmployer, 1991 (in thousands of dollars)
22
13 Government Support Status of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1991 (inpercent)
24
14 Job Satisfaction of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate and Gender, 1991 (inpercent)
26
15 Job Satisfaction of Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Type of Employer and Years SinceAward of Doctorate, 1991 (in percent)
27
16 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Academic Rank and Field of Doctorate, 1991(in percent)
30
17 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Academic Rank, Years Since Award of Doc-torate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent)
31
18 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Tenure Status and Field of Doctorate, 1991(in percent)
33
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES xii
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
19 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Tenure Status, Years Since Award of Doctor-ate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent)
34
20 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Primary Work Activity and Field of Doctor-ate, 1991 (in percent)
36
21 Academically Employed Humanities Ph.D.s, by Primary Work Activity, Years Since Awardof Doctorate, and Gender, 1991 (in percent)
37
22 Publications of Humanities Ph.D.s Employed in Academe, by Field of Doctorate and TenureStatus, 1991 (in percent)
38
A-1 Changes in the Humanities Population, Caused by Methodological Differences, by Field ofDoctorate (1977-1991)
41
C-1 Response Rates by Summary Strata (Field, Cohort, and Gender) 1991 61C-2 Listing of a and b Parameters (Select Groups in Humanities Fields), 1991 62C-3 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers of Humanities Doctorates, by Field, 1991 63C-4 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers of Female Humanities Doctorates, by
Field, 1991 64
C-5 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Humanities Doctorates, 1991 65C-6 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Female Humanities Doctorates, 1991 65D-1 Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 69D-2 Demographic Characteristics of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 70D-3 Employment Status of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 71D-4 Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 72D-5 Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977) 73E-1 Estimated Number of Humanities Ph.D.s, by Fine Field of Employment, 1991 75
FIGURES
1 Humanities Ph.D. population, percentage by field of doctorate, 1991. 32 Distribution of humanities Ph.D.s employed in nonhumanities fields, 1991. 133 Employment sector of humanities doctorates, by years since doctorate, 1991. 174 Median annual salaries of humanities Ph.D.s employed full-time, by field of doctorate and
gender, 1991. 20
5 Government support of humanities doctorates, by federal agency, 1991. 236 Faculty rank of academically employed doctorates, by gender, 1991. 32
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES xiii
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES xiv
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
INTRODUCTION
The following report presents information collected from the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates. Thissurvey is the tenth in a series initiated in 1973 by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to the needsof the federal government for demographic and employment information on individuals trained to the doctorallevel. This series--called the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) project--originally included only doctoralscientists and engineers, but was expanded in 1977 to include humanities doctorates.1 The purpose of the SDRhas been, since its inception, to generate estimates of the number of holders of research doctorates who reside inthe 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 doctoratesearned in the United States since 1920.2 Estimates in this report are based on a sample of 8,894 humanitiesdoctorates, drawn from a DRF population of 105,715. Data were collected through a self-administered mailquestionnaire (see Appendix B for a copy of the survey materials), followed by telephone interviewing with asample of about 60 percent of the individuals who did not respond to the mail survey. The mail survey wasconducted between October 1991 and January 1992; telephone followup took place between March and July1992. Appendix C discusses the survey methods and outcomes, including response rates, sampling andnonsampling 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 describesthe 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 andincludes data on employment status, type of employer, primary work activity, and median annual salary. Forselected 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 thisreport (see Appendix D). These were produced by applying the 1991 changes to data from earlier years andlimiting the 1991 data to mail responses only
1The doctoral degree categories that define the humanities include American history; “other history” (history andphilosophy 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, religiousstudies, and unspecified other humanities).
2The DRF is maintained by the National Research Council under contract to the National Science Foundation.
INTRODUCTION 1
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
in order to control for the effects of the higher response rate (mail and telephone combined). Readers arecautioned 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.
INTRODUCTION 2
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
1THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES
DISTRIBUTION BY FIELDThe 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 betweenJanuary 1942 and June 1990, who were age 75 or younger, and who were residing in the United States inSeptember 1991. Doctorates in English and American languages and literature constituted approximately one-fourth of the humanities population, and another one-fourth was composed of doctorates in fields of history (SeeFigure 1). Table 1 shows the distribution of the humanities population by field of doctorate and field ofemployment. More than one-fifth of the humanists were employed in a nonhumanities field in 1991, and 13.4percent were not employed (this figure includes those who were retired).
FIGURE 1. Humanities Ph.D. population, percentage by field of doctorate, 1991.
THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES 3
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE 1 Distribution of Humanities Doctorates in the United States, by Field of Degree and Field of Employment, 1991Field of Degree Field of EmploymentNo. % No.* %
All Fields 100,300 100.0 100,300 100.0American History 6,300 6.3 5,900 5.9“Other History” 15,500 15.5 6,700 6.7European History 4,300 4.3 3,200 3.2History of Other Countries 4,400 4.4 2,900 2.9History and Philosophy of Science 300 0.3 600 0.5Unspecified History† 6,500 6.5 N/A N/AArt History 3,100 3.1 2,500 2.5Music 8,700 8.7 6,000 6.0Speech/Theater 5,400 5.4 2,200 2.2Philosophy 7,500 7.5 4,400 4.4English and American Lang/Lit 25,900 25.8 14,900 14.8Classical Lang/Lit 2,100 2.0 1,200 1.2Modern Lang/Lit 16,400 16.3 10,100 10.1“Other Humanities” 9,500 9.4 7,800 7.7Linguistics 2,900 2.9 1,000 1.0American Studies 1,300 1.3 300 0.3Religious Studies 2,500 2.5 1,800 1.8Unspecified Other Humanities 2,700 2.7 4,700 4.7Nonhumanities‡ N/A N/A 22,700 22.7No Report on Employment Field‡ N/A N/A 2,400 2.4Not Employed‡ N/A N/A 13,400 13.4No Report on Employment Status‡ N/A N/A 100 0.1
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 alisting of fields. †For some doctorates, the area of study within history was not known. Field of employment isnot applicable in this subcategory. ‡Field of degree is not applicable.
THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES 4
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
GenderWomen 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 47.2percent, respectively), while females constituted only 16.4 percent of the doctorates in philosophy.
Racial/Ethnic GroupsThe 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 12.1percent of the doctorates in modern languages and literature were of Hispanic origin.
Age in 1991Slightly 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 ofhumanities doctorates overall.
Year of DoctorateApproximately 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 (48.6percent) of doctorates granted in the 1980-1990 period. Other fields with high proportions of 1980-1990doctorates were “other humanities” (53.5 percent) and art history (43.3 percent). On the other hand, only 22.5percent of “other history” doctorates and 23.0 percent of speech/theater doctorates were held by 1980-1990graduates.
Citizenship StatusOnly 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 Americanhistory and speech/theater each had less than 1 percent. It should be noted that foreign-earned doctorates werenot included in this survey; the foreign citizens tabulated here earned their doctoral degrees in the United States.
THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES 5
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 2
Dem
ogra
phic
Cha
ract
eris
tics
of H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Fiel
d of
Doc
tora
te, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
Dem
ogra
phic
Cha
ract
eris
tics
All
Fiel
dsA
mer
His
t“O
ther
His
t”A
rt H
ist
Mus
icSp
eech
/Th
eate
rPh
ilEn
gl/ A
mer
Lang
/ Lit
Cla
ss L
ang/
Lit
Mod
ern
Lang
/Li
t“O
ther
Hum
”
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
(No.
)10
0,30
06,
300
15,5
003,
100
8,70
05,
400
7,50
025
,900
2,10
016
,400
9,50
0
Gen
der
Mal
e67
.178
.380
.144
.974
.274
.983
.661
.970
.952
.859
.6Fe
mal
e32
.921
.719
.955
.125
.825
.116
.438
.129
.147
.240
.4R
acia
l/Eth
nic
Gro
upW
hite
91.7
94.1
93.3
93.4
93.0
95.0
92.4
95.1
96.3
82.7
88.8
Min
ority
Gro
up7.
65.
66.
15.
96.
45.
05.
44.
33.
416
.810
.7H
ispa
nic
3.3
0.8
2.3
2.4
2.0
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.2
12.1
2.0
Bla
ck2.
44.
31.
70.
33.
22.
82.
02.
01.
62.
33.
7A
sian
1.8
0.4
1.9
3.2
1.0
0.8
1.9
1.0
0.0
2.3
4.8
Am
eric
an In
dian
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.3
Oth
er0.
20.
30.
00.
00.
70.
00.
20.
10.
00.
20.
3N
o R
epor
t0.
50.
00.
60.
70.
00.
02.
10.
50.
30.
30.
3A
ge In
199
1U
nder
30
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
30-3
43.
01.
61.
42.
26.
21.
24.
62.
84.
43.
04.
335
-39
9.7
9.4
7.0
11.7
15.6
7.1
12.1
8.5
8.0
9.0
12.6
40-4
936
.646
.030
.443
.037
.823
.739
.235
.532
.035
.648
.650
-59
29.5
35.6
30.8
25.4
22.4
32.7
24.6
31.7
35.0
30.5
24.1
60-7
520
.77.
429
.917
.617
.434
.918
.820
.919
.621
.510
.0N
o R
epor
t0.
30.
00.
40.
00.
10.
30.
30.
50.
60.
20.
3Y
ear o
f Doc
tora
te19
42-4
90.
70.
01.
00.
00.
70.
21.
30.
91.
10.
70.
119
50-5
96.
90.
013
.53.
83.
511
.58.
17.
18.
75.
62.
219
60-6
919
.011
.027
.616
.09.
935
.518
.520
.928
.216
.86.
719
70-7
940
.355
.135
.337
.037
.329
.842
.742
.335
.942
.837
.519
80-9
0 *33
.233
.922
.543
.348
.623
.029
.428
.826
.134
.153
.5C
itize
nshi
pU
.S.
96.6
99.3
97.8
97.2
97.9
99.1
97.4
98.1
96.7
90.8
95.7
Fore
ign
3.3
0.7
2.2
2.8
2.1
0.9
2.4
1.7
3.3
9.2
4.3
NO
TE: N
umbe
rs a
re ro
unde
d to
the
near
est h
undr
ed; t
here
fore
, sub
cat e
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
*Exc
lude
s Ph
.D.s
awar
ded
from
July
199
0 to
Dec
embe
r 199
0.
THE DOCTORAL POPULATION IN THE HUMANITIES 6
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
2EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES
EMPLOYMENT STATUSOf 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 thepopulation; the majority of this group was retired.
Table 3 presents the 1991 employment status by field of doctorate. American history doctorates had thehighest rate of full-time employment, 88.5 percent. Art history and music had the highest percentages ofdoctorates employed part-time, 12.8 and 11.9 percent, respectively. Percentages of those retired were highestamong “other history” and speech/theater doctorates. As noted earlier, these two fields also had the highestproportion of doctorates in the 50-75 age bracket.
LABOR FORCE STATUSFor 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 notseeking 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 wereemployed full-time, 9.6 percent were employed part-time, and 1.7 percent were unemployed but seekingemployment (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 byless 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 alow of 5.0 percent in American history.
3Retired individuals working part-time were classified as employed part-time.4Because of the small numbers of humanities doctorates on postdoctoral appointments, this group was subsumedunder the categories “employed full-time” or “employed part-time” in Table 4 and in subsequent tables in thisreport.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 7
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 3
Em
ploy
men
t Sta
tus o
f Hum
aniti
es P
h.D
.s, b
y Fi
eld
of D
octo
rate
, 199
1 (in
per
cent
)Em
ploy
men
tSt
atus
All
Fiel
dsA
mer
His
t“O
ther
His
t”A
rt H
ist
Mus
icSp
eech
/Th
eate
rPh
ilEn
gl/
Am
erLa
ng/L
it
Cla
ssLa
ng/L
itM
oder
nLa
ng/L
it“O
ther
Hum
”
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
(No.
)10
0,30
06,
300
15,5
003,
100
8,70
05,
400
7,50
025
,900
2,10
016
,400
9,50
0
Empl
oyed
Ful
l-Ti
me
77.7
88.5
73.8
74.2
75.1
71.3
82.3
78.2
83.5
75.8
81.3
Empl
oyed
Par
t-Ti
me
8.4
4.6
7.7
12.8
11.9
8.7
7.5
7.7
7.2
9.2
9.0
Post
doct
oral
App
oint
men
t0.
40.
10.
41.
70.
30.
00.
00.
30.
10.
31.
2
Not
Em
ploy
ed*
13.4
6.6
17.9
11.3
12.7
20.0
10.1
13.8
8.5
14.6
8.5
Seek
ing
Empl
oym
ent
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.6
0.7
0.9
0.5
2.3
1.4
Not
See
king
Empl
oym
ent
1.8
2.5
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.4
1.2
1.8
0.8
1.5
0.9
Ret
ired
9.3
2.8
13.5
5.6
7.5
14.7
8.0
10.5
7.2
9.5
4.6
Oth
er0.
80.
00.
52.
00.
71.
30.
20.
60.
01.
31.
7N
o R
epor
t0.
10.
10.
20.
00.
10.
00.
20.
00.
60.
00.
0N
OTE
: Num
bers
are
roun
ded
to th
e ne
ares
t hun
dred
; the
refo
re, s
ubca
t ego
ries
may
not
add
to to
tal.
*Per
cent
ages
are
not
une
mpl
oym
ent r
ates
bec
ause
they
are
bas
ed o
n th
e to
tal p
opul
atio
n, w
hich
incl
udes
thos
e re
tired
, tho
se n
ot se
ekin
g em
ploy
men
t, an
d th
ose
not r
epor
ting
stat
us; n
one
of th
ese
is c
onsi
dere
d pa
rt of
the
labo
r for
ce in
this
repo
rt. U
nem
ploy
men
t rat
es a
re sh
own
in T
able
4.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 8
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 4
Em
ploy
men
t and
Une
mpl
oym
ent o
f Hum
aniti
es P
h.D
. s in
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es L
abor
For
ce, b
y G
ende
r and
Fie
ld o
f Doc
tora
te, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
Gen
der
Empl
oym
ent S
tatu
sA
ll Fi
elds
Am
er H
ist
“Oth
er H
ist”
Art
His
tM
usic
Spee
ch/T
heat
erPh
ilEn
gl/ A
mer
Lang
/ Lit
Cla
ss L
ang/
Lit
Mod
ern
Lang
/Li
t“O
ther
Hum
”
Tota
l19
91 P
h.D
. Lab
orFo
rce*
(No.
)88
,300
5,90
013
,000
2,80
07,
800
4,40
06,
800
22,6
001,
900
14,4
008,
800
Empl
oyed
Ful
l-Tim
e88
.793
.688
.784
.184
.087
.490
.990
.191
.586
.888
.9Em
ploy
ed P
art-
Tim
e†9.
65.
09.
114
.313
.610
.68.
38.
87.
910
.69.
7
Seek
ing
Full-
Tim
e3.
22.
83.
34.
05.
13.
22.
32.
60.
63.
73.
5N
ot S
eeki
ng F
ull-
Tim
e5.
92.
25.
89.
87.
56.
85.
45.
87.
06.
25.
7
Une
mpl
oyed
/Se
ekin
g1.
71.
42.
21.
62.
42.
00.
81.
10.
62.
61.
5
Mal
e (N
o.)
59,2
004,
700
10,5
001,
200
5,90
03,
300
5,60
013
,800
1,30
07,
600
5,30
0Em
ploy
ed F
ull-T
ime
92.4
95.6
90.3
92.7
89.7
88.6
92.4
94.5
94.5
91.8
94.7
Empl
oyed
Par
t-Ti
me†
6.2
3.8
7.3
5.5
8.3
9.3
7.2
5.2
5.4
6.3
4.1
Seek
ing
Full-
Tim
e2.
02.
61.
93.
62.
62.
92.
51.
30.
91.
62.
0N
ot S
eeki
ng F
ull-
Tim
e3.
91.
25.
41.
94.
76.
04.
53.
44.
44.
11.
7
Une
mpl
oyed
/Se
ekin
g1.
30.
62.
41.
72.
02.
10.
40.
30.
21.
91.
2
Fem
ale
(No)
29,1
001,
200
2,50
01,
600
1,90
01,
100
1,20
08,
800
600
6,70
03,
500
Empl
oyed
Ful
l-Tim
e81
.086
.382
.077
.966
.383
.584
.183
.284
.481
.179
.9Em
ploy
ed P
art-
Tim
e†16
.59.
416
.820
.530
.114
.813
.414
.514
.015
.518
.2
Seek
ing
Full
Tim
e5.
73.
49.
04.
312
.74.
21.
34.
60.
06.
05.
7N
ot S
eeki
ng F
ull-
Tim
e10
.06.
17.
215
.516
.19.
59.
99.
413
.18.
511
.9
Une
mpl
oyed
/Se
ekin
g2.
54.
21.
21.
53.
61.
62.
62.
31.
63.
41.
9
NO
TE: N
umbe
rs a
re ro
unde
d to
the
near
est h
undr
ed; t
here
fore
, sub
cat e
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime,
pos
tdoc
tora
l app
oint
ees,
and
thos
e se
ekin
g em
ploy
men
t.
†Inc
lude
s th
ose
who
did
not
repo
rt w
heth
er th
ey w
ere
seek
ing
full-
time
empl
oym
ent.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 9
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
Labor Force Status by GenderWhen 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 1.3percent for males. Within field, the highest unemployment rates were for women with American historydoctorates (4.2 percent), music doctorates (3.6 percent), and modern languages and literature doctorates (3.4percent); 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 formales. Among both males and females, the majority of those employed part-time were not seeking full-timeemployment. The reasons for choosing part-time employment were similar for both males and females; thereason selected most frequently was “prefer part-time” (59.0 percent of both groups), followed by “full-time notavailable” (24.3 percent of males and 23.6 percent of females).
GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN LABOR FORCE STATUSBy 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 percentin 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 MOBILITYIn 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 populationwere working in the same area in which they earned their doctorate. By field, the retention rates ranged fromhighs 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 1in the Introduction) showed wide variation in the retention rates of the individual fields, but all were below 40percent.
The majority of humanities doctorates who were not employed in their field of doctorate were employed ina nonhumanities discipline. This group of field switchers constituted 26.2 percent of all employed humanitiesdoctorates; Figure 2 shows their distribution by employment specialty. Education was the field attracting themost humanities doctorates (over 4,700), followed by social sciences (just over 3,000), and
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 10
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 5
Lab
or F
orce
Sta
tus o
f Hum
aniti
es P
h.D
.s in
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es, b
y R
egio
n, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
1991
Loc
atio
n (R
egio
n)To
tal P
h.D
. Lab
or F
orce
* (N
o.)
Empl
oyed
Ful
l-tim
eEm
ploy
ed P
art-t
ime
Une
mpl
oyed
& S
eeki
ng E
mpl
oym
ent
All
Reg
ions
†88
,300
88.7
9.6
1.7
New
Eng
land
9,20
087
.110
.92.
1M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic16
,900
86.4
11.1
2.5
East
Nor
th C
entra
l12
,800
92.7
5.8
1.4
Wes
t Nor
th C
entra
l6,
700
91.2
7.4
1.4
Sout
h A
tlant
ic16
,200
91.1
7.4
1.5
East
Sou
th C
entra
l3,
700
89.8
9.1
1.1
Wes
t Sou
th C
entra
l6,
900
88.9
9.3
1.7
Mou
ntai
n4,
000
88.7
11.0
0.2
Paci
fic11
,500
83.6
14.9
1.5
NO
TE: S
tate
s in
each
regi
on a
re a
s fol
low
s: N
ew E
ngla
nd (C
onne
ctic
ut, M
aine
, Mas
sach
uset
ts, N
ew H
amps
hire
, Rho
de Is
land
, Ver
mon
t); M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic (N
ew Je
rsey
, New
Yor
k,Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia);
East
Nor
th C
entra
l (Ill
inoi
s, In
dian
a, M
ichi
gan,
Ohi
o, W
isco
nsin
); W
est N
orth
Cen
tral (
Iow
a, K
ansa
s, M
inne
sota
, Mis
sour
i, N
orth
Dak
ota,
Neb
rask
a, S
outh
Dak
ota)
; Sou
thA
tlant
ic (D
elaw
are,
Dis
trict
of C
olum
bia,
Flo
rida,
Geo
rgia
, Mar
ylan
d, N
orth
Car
olin
a, S
outh
Car
olin
a, V
irgin
ia, W
est V
irgin
ia);
East
Sou
th C
entra
l (K
entu
cky,
Ala
bam
a, M
issi
ssip
pi,
Tenn
esse
e); W
est S
outh
Cen
tral (
Ark
ansa
s, L
ouis
iana
, Okl
ahom
a, T
exas
); M
ount
ain
(Ariz
ona,
Col
orad
o, Id
aho,
Mon
tana
, New
Mex
ico,
Nev
ada,
Uta
h, W
yom
ing)
; and
Pac
ific
(Ala
ska,
Cal
iforn
ia, H
awai
i, O
rego
n, W
ashi
ngto
n).
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime,
pos
tdoc
tora
l app
oint
ees,
and
thos
e se
ekin
g em
ploy
men
t.
†Inc
lude
s th
ose
loca
ted
in U
.S. t
errit
orie
s.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 11
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 6
Fie
ld R
eten
tion
and
Mob
ility
of E
mpl
oyed
Hum
aniti
es D
octo
rate
s, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
1991
Fie
ld o
fEm
ploy
men
tTo
tal
Empl
oyed
*A
mer
His
t“O
ther
His
t”A
rt H
ist
Mus
icSp
eech
/Th
eate
rPh
ilEn
gl/ A
mer
Lang
/ Lit
Cla
ssLa
ng/ L
itM
oder
nLa
ng/ L
it“O
ther
Hum
”A
ll Fi
elds
(No.
)86
,800
5,90
012
,700
2,70
07,
600
4,30
06,
700
22,3
001,
900
14,0
008,
700
Am
eric
an H
isto
ry6.
857
.517
.41.
90.
10.
00.
00.
21.
70.
12.
5“O
ther
His
tory
”7.
75.
746
.12.
00.
40.
80.
90.
13.
10.
91.
3A
rt H
isto
ry2.
80.
50.
579
.00.
00.
00.
00.
11.
00.
11.
8M
usic
7.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
77.7
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
Spee
ch/T
heat
er2.
50.
00.
00.
90.
047
.40.
00.
30.
00.
40.
1Ph
iloso
phy
5.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
61.9
0.0
2.6
0.1
1.3
Engl
ish
and
Am
erLa
ng/L
it17
.10.
00.
41.
20.
44.
40.
558
.24.
13.
411
.4
Cla
ssic
al L
ang/
Lit
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
51.8
0.1
0.8
Mod
ern
Lang
/Lit
11.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.4
1.9
4.1
62.5
8.1
“Oth
er H
uman
ities
”9.
03.
13.
52.
92.
84.
34.
410
.86.
18.
730
.4N
onhu
man
ities
26.2
31.3
28.2
10.3
15.8
40.6
29.8
24.4
22.0
20.2
39.3
No
Rep
ort
2.8
1.3
2.6
1.8
2.6
2.3
2.1
3.4
3.6
3.4
2.6
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 12
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
business management (approximately 2,300). Fields with the highest proportions working in nonhumanitieswere speech/theater (40.6 percent), “other humanities” (39.3 percent), philosophy (29.8 percent), and “otherhistory” (28.2 percent).
There was little mobility among humanities fields. Only the field of classical languages and literature hadmore 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 SECTORIn 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). Theremainder were employed by government (federal, state, and local) and all other types of employers.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 13
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 7
Typ
e of
Em
ploy
er o
f Hum
aniti
es P
h.D
.s, b
y Fi
eld
of D
octo
rate
, 199
1 (in
per
cent
)Ty
pe o
f Em
ploy
erTo
tal E
mpl
oyed
Am
er H
ist
“Oth
er H
ist”
Art
His
tM
usic
Spee
ch/
Thea
ter
Phil
Engl
/ Am
erLa
ng/ L
itC
lass
Lang
/ Lit
Mod
ern
Lang
/ Lit
“Oth
erH
um”
Empl
oyed
Popu
latio
n* (N
o.)
86,8
005,
900
12,7
002,
700
7,60
04,
300
6,70
022
,300
1,90
014
,000
8,70
0
Educ
atio
nal
Inst
itutio
n77
.571
.477
.674
.274
.676
.377
.981
.784
.578
.871
.3
4-Y
ear C
oll/U
niv/
Med
Sch
68.3
59.4
66.3
72.2
64.6
70.6
72.2
71.5
74.5
69.6
63.1
2-Y
ear C
olle
ge5.
66.
48.
10.
85.
34.
53.
27.
10.
04.
54.
3El
em/S
econ
dary
Scho
ols
3.7
5.6
3.1
1.2
4.6
1.2
2.5
3.1
9.9
4.7
4.0
Bus
ines
s/In
dust
ry11
.87.
910
.09.
112
.415
.613
.211
.67.
913
.013
.7Se
lf-Em
ploy
ed5.
72.
24.
56.
16.
311
.64.
95.
13.
46.
18.
1N
ot S
elf-
Empl
oyed
6.1
5.7
5.5
3.0
6.1
4.1
8.3
6.5
4.4
6.8
5.6
U.S
. Gov
ernm
ent
2.3
6.0
5.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
1.5
1.4
1.2
2.2
2.2
Stat
e/Lo
cal
Gov
ernm
ent
1.7
2.7
1.1
1.8
1.0
2.9
1.1
1.6
0.3
1.6
2.8
Non
prof
itO
rgan
izat
ion
5.7
11.5
5.3
13.7
9.7
4.0
5.5
2.8
5.3
3.4
8.8
No
Rep
ort
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.0
1.4
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.7
NO
TE: P
erce
ntag
es fo
r tho
se re
porti
ng “
othe
r” ty
pes o
f em
ploy
ers
are
not i
nclu
ded
in th
is ta
ble;
ther
efor
e, to
tals
may
not
add
to 1
00 p
erce
nt.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 14
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
By field, more than 70 percent of the doctorates in every specialty were working in an educationalinstitution. Doctorates in “other history” and English and American languages and literature were more likelythan other Ph.D.s to be employed in 2-year colleges (8.1 and 7.1 percent, respectively) and doctorates in classicallanguages and literature were more likely than other Ph.D.s to work in elementary/secondary schools (9.9percent). 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 13.7and 11.5 percent respectively of art history and American history doctorates: were employed by nonprofitorganizations--nearly twice the rate for all humanities doctorates.
Years Since Award of DoctorateTable 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 representdoctorates 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 tablebecause 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 hadthe highest proportion employed by educational institutions (82.5 percent); followed by those with 16 to 35 yearssince degree award (80.0 percent). Those with 6 to 15 years since degree award had the lowest proportion (72.4percent) 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 oldestdoctorates).
PRIMARY WORK ACTIVITYTeaching 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 engagedprimarily in management and administration; 5.6 percent were writing or editing; and 5.1 percent were involvedprimarily in research and development (see Table 9). While teaching was the primary work activity of themajority of doctorates in each field, there were variations by field in the proportions reporting other majoractivities. A higher-than-average proportion of American history doctorates was primarily engaged inmanagement 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 5.1percent in the population overall; approximately 9 percent of music Ph.D.s
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 15
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 8
Typ
e of
Em
ploy
er o
f Hum
aniti
es P
h.D
.s, b
y Y
ears
Sin
ce A
war
d of
Doc
tora
te, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
Type
of E
mpl
oyer
Tota
l5
or fe
wer
yea
rs6-
15 y
ears
16-3
5 ye
ars
Empl
oyed
Pop
ulat
ion*
(No.
)86
,800
14,7
0032
,400
38,3
00Ed
ucat
iona
l Ins
titut
ion
77.5
82.5
72.4
80.0
4-Y
ear C
oll/U
niv/
Med
Sch
68.3
73.8
61.5
71.8
2-Y
ear C
olle
ge5.
65.
36.
45.
0El
emen
tary
/Sec
onda
ry S
choo
ls3.
73.
34.
53.
2B
usin
ess/
Indu
stry
†11
.88.
214
.710
.5U
.S. G
over
nmen
t2.
31.
92.
91.
9St
ate/
Loca
l Gov
ernm
ent
1.7
0.9
2.1
1.7
Non
prof
it O
rgan
izat
ion
5.7
5.9
7.1
4.7
No
Rep
ort
0.8
0.5
0.6
1.0
NO
TE: T
hose
with
mor
e th
an 3
5 ye
ars s
ince
doc
tora
te a
re n
ot sh
own
beca
use
of th
eir s
mal
l num
bers
; the
refo
re, s
ubca
tego
ries
may
not
add
to to
tal.
Perc
enta
ges
for t
hose
repo
rting
“ot
her”
type
s of e
mpl
oyer
s ar
e al
so n
ot sh
own;
ther
efor
e, to
tals
may
not
add
to 1
00 p
erce
nt.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 16
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
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 9percent of doctorates in American history and English and American languages and literature were primarilywriting and editing, compared with 5.6 percent overall.
Years Since Award of DoctorateTable 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) thanfrom either the middle or the oldest groups (57.0 and 59.5 percent, respectively). As noted, humanists in thenewest group were also most likely to be working in an educational institution. On the other hand, doctoratesfrom the middle and oldest group were about twice as likely to have reported management and administration astheir primary activity.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 17
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 9
Prim
ary
Wor
k A
ctiv
ity o
f Hum
aniti
es P
h.D
.s, b
y Fi
eld
of D
octo
rate
, 199
1 (in
per
cent
)Pr
imar
y W
ork
Act
ivity
All
Fiel
dsA
mer
His
t“O
ther
His
t”A
rt H
ist
Mus
icSp
eech
/Th
eate
rPh
ilEn
gl/ A
mer
Lang
/ Lit
Cla
ss L
ang/
Lit
Mod
ern
Lang
/Li
t“O
ther
Hum
”
Empl
oyed
Popu
latio
n* (N
o.)
86,8
005,
900
12,7
002,
700
7,60
04,
300
6,70
022
,300
1,90
014
,000
8,70
0
Teac
hing
60.4
50.4
58.0
59.3
64.1
60.8
60.1
61.9
68.6
65.2
54.1
Man
agem
ent/
Adm
inis
tratio
n13
.121
.013
.512
.611
.716
.78.
813
.37.
811
.213
.3
Mgm
t of E
duca
tion
Prog
ram
s8.
412
.58.
65.
97.
813
.04.
310
.04.
77.
46.
3
Mgm
t of O
ther
Prog
ram
s4.
68.
45.
06.
73.
93.
84.
53.
43.
23.
87.
0
Res
earc
h &
Dev
elop
men
t5.
15.
46.
110
.60.
72.
810
.22.
73.
44.
610
.6
Writ
ing/
Editi
ng5.
68.
85.
95.
01.
43.
15.
08.
37.
84.
63.
0Pe
rfor
min
g A
rts1.
00.
00.
00.
09.
32.
60.
00.
10.
00.
10.
2C
onsu
lting
/Pro
fSe
rvic
es4.
54.
15.
11.
51.
57.
16.
94.
32.
53.
96.
6
Oth
er A
ctiv
ities
7.4
7.3
8.3
6.3
8.2
5.2
6.4
6.4
8.9
7.1
10.4
No
Rep
ort
2.8
3.1
3.1
4.6
3.1
1.6
2.6
2.9
0.9
3.4
1.8
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 18
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
0 Pr
imar
y W
ork
Act
ivity
of H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Yea
rs S
ince
Aw
ard
of D
octo
rate
, 199
1 (in
per
cent
)Pr
imar
y W
ork
Act
ivity
Tota
l5
or fe
wer
yea
rs6-
15 y
ears
16-3
5 ye
ars
Empl
oyed
Pop
ulat
ion*
(No.
)86
,800
14,7
0032
,400
38,3
00Te
achi
ng60
.469
.657
.059
.5M
anag
emen
t/Adm
inis
tratio
n13
.17.
113
.714
.9M
gmt o
f Edu
catio
n Pr
ogra
ms
8.4
3.8
8.3
10.3
Mgm
t of O
ther
Pro
gram
s4.
63.
35.
44.
6R
esea
rch
& D
evel
opm
ent
5.1
7.9
5.1
4.2
Writ
ing/
Editi
ng5.
64.
86.
35.
4Pe
rfor
min
g A
rts1.
01.
71.
30.
5C
onsu
lting
/Pro
f Ser
vice
s4.
52.
14.
75.
3O
ther
Act
iviti
es7.
45.
49.
76.
2N
o R
epor
t2.
81.
52.
14.
0N
OTE
: Tho
se w
ith m
ore
than
35
year
s sin
ce d
octo
rate
are
not
show
n be
caus
e of
thei
r sm
all n
umbe
rs; t
here
fore
, sub
cate
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 19
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
MEDIAN ANNUAL SALARIES BY FIELD, GENDER, AND YEARS SINCE AWARD OFDOCTORATE
In 1991, the median annual salary of all humanities doctorates was $48,200 (see Table 11). Doctorates inAmerican history, “other history,” and speech/theater all had median salaries over $50,000; the lowest mediansalary was that of doctorates in music, $42,700. By years since award of doctorate, the salary range across fieldswas fairly low for the newest group ($35,000 to $38,500); the differences across fields were considerably morefor 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 malehumanities 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.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 20
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
1 M
edia
n A
nnua
l Sal
arie
s of F
ull-T
ime
Empl
oyed
Hum
aniti
es P
h.D
.s, b
y G
ende
r, Y
ears
Sin
ce A
war
d of
Ph.
D.,a
nd F
ield
of D
octo
rate
, 199
1 (in
thou
sand
s of
dol
lars
)G
ende
r and
Yea
rs S
ince
Ph.D
.
All
Fiel
dsA
mer
His
t“O
ther
His
t”A
rt H
ist
Mus
icSp
eech
/The
ater
Phil
Engl
/ Am
erLa
ng/ L
itC
lass
Lan
g/ L
itM
oder
n La
ng/
Lit
“Oth
er H
um”
Tota
l$4
8.2
$51.
1$5
1.6
$46.
0$4
2.7
$53.
0$4
9.3
$47.
6$4
5.1
$47.
0$4
6.7
5 or
Few
er36
.436
.736
.836
.736
.338
.336
.235
.036
.836
.638
.56-
1545
.348
.842
.942
.842
.340
.848
.945
.640
.245
.348
.216
-35
56.3
59.8
58.6
58.3
57.0
62.4
55.4
54.5
55.7
55.1
54.5
Mal
e, T
otal
50.2
51.8
52.5
53.0
44.0
56.5
50.6
48.8
45.8
50.4
48.3
5 or
Few
er36
.536
.637
.336
.539
.936
.035
.536
.839
.26-
1545
.648
.142
.343
.045
.950
.246
.545
.548
.516
-35
57.6
60.0
58.9
57.6
63.3
58.5
55.3
57.3
53.9
Fem
ale,
Tot
al43
.850
.545
.840
.740
.040
.845
.544
.342
.342
.844
.35
or F
ewer
36.3
39.0
36.4
36.5
36.7
34.8
36.4
37.5
6-15
44.7
45.1
41.5
44.9
44.8
47.2
16-3
551
.250
.952
.048
.6N
OTE
: Med
ian
sala
ries w
ere
com
pute
d on
ly fo
r Ph.
D.s
empl
oyed
full-
time,
exc
ludi
ng th
ose
in th
e U
.S. m
ilita
ry. A
cade
mic
sala
ries w
ere
mul
tiplie
d by
11/
9 to
adj
ust f
or a
full-
time
scal
e.M
edia
ns w
ere
not p
rovi
ded
for c
ells
with
few
er th
an 4
0 ca
ses r
epor
ting
sala
ry.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 21
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
$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 werenearly equal for men and women humanities doctorates from the newest group; median salaries of men andwomen 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 GENDERTable 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 organizationsthe lowest ($42,900).
A review of median salaries by gender and sector shows that earnings of men and women were nearly equalfor those employed in elementary/secondary schools and in government, but that men outearned women in allother 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 FemaleEmployed Population $48.2 $50.2 $43.8Educational Institution 48.2 50.4 43.34-Year Coll/Univ/Med School 48.3 50.7 42.82-Year College 47.8 48.3 45.6Elementary/Secondary Schools 46.6 46.7 46.4Business/Industry 50.7 53.5 50.0U.S. Government 47.5 47.4 47.8Nonprofit Organization 42.9 44.7 39.7NOTE: Median salaries were computed only for Ph.D.s employed full-time, excluding those in the U.S. military. Academicsalaries were multiplied by 11/9 to adjust for a full-time scale.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 22
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
Figure 5. Government support of humanities doctorates, by federal agency, 1991.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 23
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT STATUS
About 15.1 percent of humanities doctorates reported being engaged in work supported or sponsored by thefederal government in the year preceding the survey. Table 13 shows the distribution by field: about 23 percentof those in American history and art history received support, compared with 11.5 percent and 12.1 percent inphilosophy and modern languages and literature, respectively.
Of those receiving support, the largest portion came from the National Endowment for the Humanities (35.3percent), followed by the National Endowment for the Arts (10.4 percent), the Department of Defense (12.4percent), and the Department of Education (14.7 percent). About 37.5 percent were supported by other agencies(see Figure 5).
TAB
LE 1
3 G
over
nmen
t Sup
port
Stat
us o
f Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Fiel
d of
Doc
tora
te, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
Gov
ernm
ent
Supp
ort S
tatu
sA
ll Fi
elds
Am
er H
ist
“Oth
er H
ist”
Art
His
tM
usic
Spee
ch/T
heat
erPh
ilEn
gl/ A
mer
Lang
/ Lit
Cla
ss L
ang/
Lit
Mod
ern
Lang
/Li
t“O
ther
Hum
”
Tota
l Em
ploy
ed*
(No.
)86
,800
5,90
012
,700
2,70
07,
600
4,30
06,
700
22,3
001,
900
14,0
008,
700
Rec
eive
dG
over
nmen
tSu
ppor
t
15.1
23.1
19.4
23.3
12.8
12.2
11.5
12.9
13.8
12.1
17.5
No
Gov
ernm
ent
Supp
ort
79.3
72.1
76.5
71.0
79.9
80.5
81.8
82.7
83.4
80.7
76.0
Supp
ort S
tatu
s Not
Kno
wn
1.7
2.4
1.1
2.4
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.2
0.4
1.9
2.5
No
Rep
ort
3.9
2.4
3.0
3.3
4.5
5.5
5.1
3.3
2.4
5.3
4.1
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 24
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
JOB SATISFACTIONRespondents 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” werecombined, as were “low” and “very low.” See Table 14.) Differences across field were evident, ranging from77.7 percent in American history reporting high or very high satisfaction to 66.2 percent in modern languagesand 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 theirjob satisfaction as average, while 8.7 percent reported it as low or very low.
Type of Employer and Years Since Award of DoctorateThe 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 ofdoctorate, the oldest group was somewhat more satisfied (72.9 percent) than either the middle group (69.3percent) or newest group (68.1 percent).
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 25
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
4 Jo
b Sa
tisfa
ctio
n of
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Fiel
d of
Doc
tora
te a
nd G
ende
r, 19
91 (i
n pe
rcen
t)Jo
b Sa
tisfa
ctio
nFi
eld
of D
octo
rate
and
Gen
der
Tota
l*H
igh/
Ver
y hi
ghA
vera
geLo
w/V
ery
low
Tota
l81
,500
71.1
20.2
8.7
Fiel
d of
Doc
tora
teA
mer
ican
His
tory
5,80
077
.716
.85.
5O
ther
His
tory
12,2
0073
.619
.07.
4A
rt H
isto
ry2,
600
71.0
19.3
9.7
Mus
ic7,
400
71.1
20.4
8.5
Spee
ch/T
heat
er4,
200
72.9
15.6
11.5
Philo
soph
y6,
500
69.4
20.8
9.8
Engl
ish
and
Am
er L
ang/
Lit
21,8
0071
.020
.28.
7C
lass
ical
Lan
g/Li
t1,
800
74.6
17.1
8.4
Mod
ern
Lang
/Lit
13,4
0066
.224
.69.
2O
ther
Hum
aniti
es5,
700
70.8
19.3
9.9
Gen
der
Mal
e55
,500
72.4
19.5
8.1
Fem
ale
26,0
0068
.421
.610
.0*T
otal
s in
this
tabl
e ar
e eq
ual t
o th
e nu
mbe
r ans
wer
ing
the
job
satis
fact
ion
ques
tion,
not
the
tota
l sam
ple,
and
may
ther
efor
e di
sagr
ee w
ith to
tals
show
n el
sew
here
in th
is re
port.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 26
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
5 Jo
b Sa
tisfa
ctio
n of
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Type
of E
mpl
oyer
and
Yea
rs S
ince
Aw
ard
of D
octo
rate
, 199
1 (in
per
cent
)Jo
b Sa
tisfa
ctio
nTy
pe o
f Em
ploy
er a
nd Y
ears
Sin
ce D
octo
rate
Tota
l*H
igh/
Ver
y hi
ghA
vera
geLo
w/V
ery
low
Tota
l81
,500
71.1
20.2
8.7
Type
of E
mpl
oyer
Educ
atio
nal I
nstit
utio
n64
,100
71.2
20.6
8.2
4-Y
ear C
oll/U
niv/
Med
Sch
56,5
0072
.019
.78.
22-
Yea
r Col
lege
4,60
062
.528
.98.
6El
em/S
econ
dary
Sch
ools
3,00
068
.424
.67.
1B
usin
ess/
Indu
stry
9,00
069
.319
.711
.0G
over
nmen
t3,
200
65.3
17.9
16.8
Non
prof
it O
rgan
izat
ion
4,80
078
.115
.96.
0Y
ears
Sin
ce D
octo
rate
5 or
Few
er13
,800
68.1
20.6
11.2
6-15
30,4
0069
.321
.19.
516
-35
36,1
0072
.919
.87.
3*T
otal
s in
this
tabl
e ar
e eq
ual t
o th
e nu
mbe
r ans
wer
ing
the
job
satis
fact
ion
ques
tion,
not
the
tota
l sam
ple,
and
may
ther
efor
e di
sagr
ee w
ith to
tals
show
n el
sew
here
in th
is re
port.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 27
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE HUMANITIES 28
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
3ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS
As the academic sector5 is the most common employer of humanities doctorates, the followingcharacteristics of those academically employed are described below: academic rank, tenure status, and primarywork activity. These characteristics are then examined by field of doctorate, gender, and years since award ofdoctorate.
ACADEMIC RANKThe 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 considerablyacross fields: the percentage of full professors ranged from a high of 50.1 percent in “other history” to a low of22.3 percent in art history; over 31 percent of the doctorates in art history and modern languages and literaturewere associate professors compared with 20.2 percent of those in “other history”; and approximately 23 percentof doctorates in art history and “other humanities” were assistant professors compared with only 12.3 percent ofthose in “other history.”
Gender and Years Since Award of DoctorateTable 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 ofwomen (see Figure 6). Men were more likely than women to be full professors, even when years since award ofdoctorate were taken into account. The distribution across academic ranks of men and women was most similarfor the newest group.
TENURE STATUSIn 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.6For this report, faculty positions are defined to include the ranks of professor, associate professor, assistantprofessor, and instructor.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 29
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
6 A
cade
mic
ally
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Aca
dem
ic R
ank
and
Fiel
d of
Doc
tora
te, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
Aca
dem
ic R
ank
All
Fiel
dsA
mer
His
t“O
ther
His
t”A
rt H
ist
Mus
icSp
eech
/Th
eate
rPh
ilEn
gl/A
mer
Lang
/Lit
Cla
ssLa
ng/L
itM
oder
nLa
ng/L
it“O
ther
Hum
”To
tal E
mpl
oyed
*(N
o.)
64,1
003,
900
9,40
02,
000
5,30
03,
200
5,10
017
,500
1,40
010
,300
5,80
0
Facu
lty84
.286
.783
.376
.986
.387
.287
.882
.886
.786
.579
.3Pr
ofes
sor
37.7
41.9
50.1
22.3
36.3
44.5
37.1
37.9
46.8
31.2
26.8
Ass
ocia
tePr
ofes
sor
26.5
27.8
20.2
31.2
28.8
27.6
27.5
25.3
21.7
31.5
26.7
Ass
ista
ntPr
ofes
sor
17.7
14.1
12.3
23.0
19.3
13.9
21.6
15.6
17.2
22.0
23.3
Inst
ruct
or2.
32.
90.
70.
41.
91.
21.
64.
11.
01.
82.
4Le
ctur
er2.
51.
02.
21.
82.
71.
21.
22.
70.
23.
84.
0A
djun
ct3.
62.
53.
98.
13.
11.
33.
24.
35.
52.
93.
3O
ther
Fac
ulty
1.9
2.6
1.4
0.8
1.8
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.9
2.0
1.5
Doe
s Not
App
ly4.
15.
45.
33.
14.
24.
23.
14.
41.
52.
15.
7Po
stdo
ctor
alA
ppoi
ntm
ent
0.5
0.0
0.6
1.8
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
1.7
No
Rep
ort
3.2
1.8
3.2
7.6
1.6
4.6
3.1
3.4
3.2
2.3
4.5
NO
TE: N
umbe
rs a
re ro
unde
d to
the
near
est h
undr
ed; t
here
fore
, sub
cat e
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 30
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
7 A
cade
mic
ally
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Aca
dem
ic R
ank,
Yea
rs S
ince
Aw
ard
of D
octo
rate
, and
Gen
der,
1991
(in
perc
ent)
Tota
l5
or F
ewer
Yea
rs6-
15 Y
ears
16-3
5 Y
ears
Aca
dem
ic R
ank
Mal
eFe
mal
eM
ale
Fem
ale
Mal
eFe
mal
eM
ale
Fem
ale
Tota
l Em
ploy
ed*
(No.
)43
,600
20,4
006,
200
5,40
013
,300
8,80
023
,200
6,20
0Fa
culty
87.4
77.4
88.5
77.6
82.1
77.4
91.0
77.5
Prof
esso
r45
.221
.75.
11.
827
.114
.165
.649
.5A
ssoc
iate
Pro
fess
or26
.227
.116
.713
.439
.639
.922
.221
.1A
ssis
tant
Pro
fess
or14
.325
.063
.557
.313
.119
.92.
34.
3In
stru
ctor
1.7
3.6
3.2
5.2
2.4
3.4
0.9
2.5
Lect
urer
1.5
4.7
1.4
5.2
2.7
4.8
0.5
3.9
Adj
unct
2.1
6.8
2.3
9.0
3.3
6.4
0.9
5.4
Oth
er F
acul
ty1.
82.
11.
71.
12.
02.
11.
62.
9D
oes N
ot A
pply
3.7
5.0
2.9
4.4
6.3
4.6
2.5
6.3
Post
doct
oral
App
oint
men
t0.
30.
90.
70.
90.
21.
30.
10.
2N
o R
epor
t3.
23.
12.
51.
83.
33.
43.
34.
0N
OTE
: Tho
se w
ith m
ore
than
35
year
s sin
ce d
octo
rate
are
not
show
n be
caus
e of
thei
r sm
all n
umbe
rs; t
here
fore
, sub
cate
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 31
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
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 “otherhumanities” (50.7 and 49.2 percent, respectively). Doctorates in classical languages and literature had the highestproportion in nontenure-track positions, 14.8 percent, compared with 7.3 percent of humanities doctorates overall.
Gender and Years Since Award of DoctorateAs 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 womenwas 49.6 percent. Women were also more likely to be in nontenure-track positions (13.5 percent, compared with4.3 percent for men) and to hold positions where tenure status was not applicable (15.0 percent, compared with9.4 percent for men). Regardless of group, men were more likely than women to be tenured; the differences weregreatest for those from the oldest group and smallest in the newest group.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 32
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
8 A
cade
mic
ally
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Tenu
re S
tatu
s and
Fie
ld o
f Doc
tora
te, 1
991
(in p
erce
nt)
Tenu
re S
tatu
sA
ll Fi
elds
Am
er H
ist
“Oth
er H
ist”
Art
His
tM
usic
Spee
ch/T
heat
erPh
ilEn
gl/ A
mer
Lang
/ Lit
Cla
ss L
ang/
Lit
Mod
ern
Lang
/Li
t“O
ther
Hum
”
Tota
l Em
ploy
ed*
(No.
)64
,100
3,90
09,
400
2,00
05,
300
3,20
05,
100
17,5
001,
400
10,3
005,
800
Tenu
red
61.5
62.8
66.7
50.7
61.4
66.3
64.2
62.2
59.2
62.0
49.2
Not
Ten
ured
34.4
35.4
29.2
39.7
36.4
29.1
31.7
33.7
37.7
34.5
44.8
Tenu
re T
rack
15.9
15.5
11.9
21.0
20.1
16.9
17.5
13.7
11.9
17.5
20.2
Non
tenu
re T
rack
7.3
4.6
5.5
9.3
6.0
4.3
6.8
7.2
14.8
7.6
12.0
Tenu
re N
otA
pplic
able
11.2
15.3
11.7
9.4
10.4
7.9
7.4
12.8
11.0
9.5
12.6
No
Rep
ort
4.1
1.8
4.1
9.6
2.2
4.6
4.0
4.1
3.2
3.5
6.0
NO
TE: N
umbe
rs a
re ro
unde
d to
the
near
est h
undr
ed; t
here
fore
, sub
cate
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 33
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 1
9 A
cade
mic
ally
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Tenu
re S
tatu
s, Y
ears
Sin
ce A
war
d of
Doc
tora
te, a
nd G
ende
r, 19
91 (i
n pe
rcen
t)To
tal
5 or
Few
er Y
ears
6-15
Yea
rs16
-35
Yea
rsTe
nure
Mal
eFe
mal
eM
ale
Fem
ale
Mal
eFe
mal
eM
ale
Fem
ale
Tota
l Em
ploy
ed*
(No.
)43
,600
20,4
006,
200
5,40
013
,300
8,80
023
,200
6,20
0Te
nure
d68
.945
.816
.212
.663
.950
.986
.267
.9N
ot T
enur
ed27
.349
.680
.283
.732
.543
.810
.127
.8Te
nure
Tra
ck13
.521
.158
.149
.014
.015
.91.
84.
4N
onte
nure
Tra
ck4.
313
.512
.119
.55.
914
.71.
26.
8Te
nure
Not
App
licab
le9.
415
.010
.015
.212
.713
.27.
216
.6N
o R
epor
t3.
84.
53.
63.
73.
65.
33.
74.
2N
OTE
: Tho
se w
ith m
ore
than
35
year
s sin
ce d
octo
rate
are
not
show
n be
caus
e of
thei
r sm
all n
umbe
rs; t
here
fore
, sub
cate
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 34
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
PRIMARY WORK ACTIVITYTeaching 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 thespeech/theater doctorates were primarily engaged in management and administration, compared withapproximately 6 percent of those in classical languages and literature and art history; between 10 and 11 percentof 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 DoctorateWhile 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 inacademe (see Table 21) even when years since award of doctorate are taken into account.
NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONSIn 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, orcoeditor), chapters in scholarly books, articles in refereed journals, book reviews in refereed journals, andarticles in newspapers or magazines. Table 22 shows that the mean number of publications for those employed inacademe was 4.2. (This compares to 2.5 for those employed in business/industry, 2.7 for those employed innonprofit organizations, and 2.1 for those employed in government.) By field, academically employed doctoratesin 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 thesefields are more likely to produce other types of creative and scholarly works such as exhibitions or performancesin the fine or applied arts.
Those with tenure had the highest mean number of publications, 4.6, followed by those not tenured, but in atenure track, 4.3. Those not in a tenure track position had a mean number of publications of 3.3.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 35
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 2
0 A
cade
mic
ally
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Prim
ary
Wor
k A
ctiv
ity a
nd F
ield
of D
octo
rate
, 199
1 (in
per
cent
)Pr
imar
y W
ork
Act
ivity
All
Fiel
dsA
mer
His
t“O
ther
His
t”A
rt H
ist
Mus
icSp
eech
/Th
eate
rPh
ilEn
gl/A
mer
Lang
/Lit
Cla
ss L
ang/
Lit
Mod
ern
Lang
/Li
t“O
ther
Hum
”
Tota
l Em
ploy
ed*
(No.
)64
,100
3,90
09,
400
2,00
05,
300
3,20
05,
100
17,5
001,
400
10,3
005,
800
Teac
hing
76.5
72.2
73.3
79.8
81.7
77.8
76.7
75.3
77.1
80.6
74.1
Man
agem
ent/
Adm
inis
tratio
n11
.014
.011
.06.
29.
915
.26.
712
.75.
99.
611
.8
Res
earc
h &
Dev
elop
men
t5.
14.
86.
05.
81.
03.
610
.13.
03.
65.
010
.7
Writ
ing/
Editi
ng2.
92.
94.
01.
60.
20.
43.
84.
26.
92.
01.
1O
ther
Act
iviti
es3.
02.
93.
72.
27.
22.
31.
23.
45.
71.
02.
0N
o R
epor
t1.
53.
22.
04.
50.
00.
71.
51.
50.
91.
70.
3N
OTE
: Num
bers
are
roun
ded
to th
e ne
ares
t hun
dred
; the
refo
re, s
ubca
tego
ries
may
not
add
to to
tal.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 36
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE 2
1 A
cade
mic
ally
Em
ploy
ed H
uman
ities
Ph.
D.s,
by
Prim
ary
Wor
k A
ctiv
ity, Y
ears
Sin
ce A
war
d of
Doc
tora
te, a
nd G
ende
r, 19
91 (i
n pe
rcen
t)To
tal
5 or
Few
er Y
ears
6-15
Yea
rs16
-35
Yea
rsPr
imar
y W
ork
Act
ivity
Mal
eFe
mal
eM
ale
Fem
ale
Mal
eFe
mal
eM
ale
Fem
ale
Tota
l Em
ploy
ed*
(No.
)43
,600
20,4
006,
200
5,40
013
,300
8,80
023
,200
6,20
0Te
achi
ng76
.776
.183
.379
.677
.376
.574
.472
.3M
anag
emen
t10
.512
.03.
36.
511
.412
.912
.115
.6R
esea
rch
& D
evel
opm
ent
5.2
5.0
7.4
8.1
4.7
4.4
4.8
3.0
Writ
ing/
Editi
ng2.
83.
02.
22.
72.
32.
43.
24.
3O
ther
Act
iviti
es3.
12.
73.
62.
43.
02.
93.
02.
8N
o R
epor
t1.
71.
20.
10.
81.
20.
92.
52.
0N
OTE
: Tho
se w
ith m
ore
than
35
year
s sin
ce d
octo
rate
are
not
show
n be
caus
e of
thei
r sm
all n
umbe
rs; t
here
fore
, sub
cate
gorie
s m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
l.
*Inc
lude
s th
ose
empl
oyed
full-
time
or p
art-t
ime
and
post
doct
oral
app
oint
ees.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 37
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE 22 Publications of Humanities Ph.D.s Employed in Academe, by Field of Doctorate and Tenure Status, 1991 (inpercent)
Number of PublicationsField of Doctorate and Tenure Status Total* (No.) None 1-2 3-5 More Than 5 MeanTotal 60,000 31.2 21.7 22.7 24.4 4.2Field of DoctorateAmerican History 3,800 20.4 20.1 25.4 34.1 6.1Other History 9,200 26.3 19.5 24.7 29.4 5.0Art History 1,900 15.4 32.2 29.0 23.4 4.0Music 5,000 61.0 16.4 10.5 12.1 2.1Speech/Theater 3,100 43.3 20.1 18.1 18.5 3.6Philosophy 4,900 26.6 22.7 23.6 27.1 4.2English and Amer Lang/Lit 17,000 33.2 24.9 21.8 20.1 3.8Classical Lang/Lit 1,300 29.7 20.5 28.1 21.8 3.5Modern Lang/Lit 9,900 26.8 20.3 24.8 28.1 4.6Other Humanities 3,900 21.5 19.9 27.6 30.9 4.9Tenure Status†Tenured 37,300 28.7 21.0 23.4 26.9 4.6Not Tenured 20,700 35.3 22.7 21.7 20.2 3.6Tenure Track 9,600 21.0 23.4 29.6 26.0 4.3Nontenure Track 4,200 40.3 24.8 20.4 14.5 3.3Tenure Not Applicable 6,900 52.3 20.4 11.6 15.7 2.7
*Totals in this table are equal to the number answering the question on publications, not the total sample, and may thereforedisagree with totals shown elsewhere in the report.
†Subcategories do not add to total because no reports are not shown.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT OF HUMANISTS 38
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX A1991 SURVEY CHANGES
In 1991, a number of methodological changes were made to the Survey of Humanities Doctorates. Thesechanges 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 yearsof age or younger in September 1991. In prior surveys, the frame had excluded individuals on the basisof years since the award of their degree, not on the basis of age. Under that definition, individuals whohad 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 inhalf--from 17,716 to 8,894 sample cases. At the same time, it was restratified into fewer sampling cellsand greater homogeneity in sampling rates across strata was introduced. These changes were made toreflect current analytic interests.
3. Response Rates. The resources saved as a result of the sample size reduction were redirected towardincreasing the response rate, which had fallen to about 55 percent in 1989. The approach was two-pronged. First, the mail survey was made more productive through (a) extensive efforts to locate andupdate addresses for individuals in the sample, (b) reformatting of the survey questionnaire (the contentdid not change), and (c) the use of personalized mailing techniques. Second, a sample of about 60percent of the nonrespondents was followed up by telephone. As a result of these efforts, the overallresponse rate to the 1991 survey increased to 78 percent (unweighted). Most likely, this reduced theeffects 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 hadcommenced in March or April of the survey year), the reference date for survey items was moved fromFebruary to September. Thus, 31 months elapsed between the 1989 and 1991 surveys, compared with24 months between previous surveys.
7A study conducted on a sample of science and engineering doctorates who were nonrespondents to the 1989 SDRshowed 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 ofdoctorates was being overestimated, as were the numbers of those employed in the academic sector andthe numbers of those teaching. To the extent that these biases existed in estimates of the humanitiespopulation, 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: AnExploratory Study, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council,Washington, D.C., 1991.
APPENDIX A 39
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
5. Definition of Degree Field. One additional difference between the 1991 survey and earlier surveys needsto be noted. The humanities sample has always been drawn from a population defined by the degreefield chosen by the respondent at the time of degree award (and therefore limited to the DRF taxonomylist that had been used to collect data for the population at that time). However, the 1977, 1979, and1981 surveys gave respondents in the humanities sample the opportunity to reselect their degree fieldfrom a revised list. In subsequent Profile reports, these individuals were counted by field on the basis oftheir revised responses. However, because revised responses had not been collected from every samplemember, 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 theyselected 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 inexistence when they completed the DRF form. Three fields were particularly affected: American history, “otherhistory,” and speech/theater. In American history, doctorates from the earlier cohorts who had revised their fieldto American history reverted to the “other history” category, because American history was not on the list whenthey earned their degrees. This caused a significant drop in the number of doctorates reported in Americanhistory 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 olderdoctorates who had earned degrees in audiology and communications, and who had been counted asnonhumanities doctorates in the 1977, 1979, or 1981 reports, reverted to the category “speech.” (This is becauseaudiology 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 labeled1977 through 1989 show published numbers by field in those years. In general, each field experienced small butsteady growth in the number of doctorates reported in each year. In 1991, however, this trend was reversed. Mostfields (with the exception of speech/theater and “other history”) show only slight growth, or even a decline innumbers.
Thus, as indicated in the Notice of Methodological Changes at the beginning of this report, 1991 estimatesare not comparable with estimates shown in earlier reports. Readers are cautioned not to display 1991 data besidepublished data from earlier years in order to examine trends. Instead, readers are referred to the indexed time-series tables in Appendix D for information about how the humanities population has changed over time.
APPENDIX A 40
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
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 90,600 100,700 100,300American History 5,400 8,500 8,800 10,000 6,300“Other History” 11,400 11,000 12,500 12,700 15,500Art History 1,500 2,100 2,700 3,100 3,100Music 3,700 5,200 6,700 8,300 8,700Speech/Theater 3,200 3,200 3,800 4,200 5,400Philosophy 5,400 6,200 7,000 7,500 7,500English and Amer Lang/Lit 18,500 21,700 23,800 26,000 25,900Classical Lang/Lit 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100Modern Lang/Lit 11,800 14,300 16,000 17,400 16,400“Other Humanities” 3,800 4,600 7,500 9,600 9,500
NOTE: These numbers are for the purpose of illustration only and are not valid indicators of trends in the humanitiespopulation. For a listing of the fields in “other history” and “other humanities,” see footnote 1 in the Introduction to thisreport. 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 andtelephone data.
APPENDIX A 41
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX A 42
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B1991 SURVEY COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B 43
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE WASHINGTON, D. C. 20418
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
October 25, 1991
Dr. NAMEAddress 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 nationalassessments of the health of our society. How do humanities doctorate recipients fare in the labor market? Whatis the relationship between graduate education and career outcomes? What is the projected supply of humanitiesscholars by field, age, and work activity?
To meet these information needs, the National Research Council conducts a biennial survey of doctoraterecipients in the humanities. We ask you to participate, even if you are retired, not working, working in a fieldunrelated to your doctoral degree, or living in a foreign country. The major findings will be used by the NationalEndowment for the Humanities (the project's federal sponsor) and educational institutions in policy formulationand program planning.
Please complete the enclosed survey form and return it to us in the postage-paid return envelope as soon aspossible. The information you provide is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential. Findings will bereported only in the form of statistical summaries for research purposes. To enhance our understanding of thedoctoral population in the humanities, we need your cooperation.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Frank PressChairman
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.
APPENDIX B 44
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
OMB No. 3145-0020Expires: 9-30-93
1991 SURVEY OF HUMANITIES DOCTORATESA. 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 boxprovided.
CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL WITH THE SUPPORT OF THENATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
This information is solicited under the authority of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Actof 1965, as amended. All information you provide will be treated as confidential, will be safeguarded inaccordance 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 identifyinformation about any particular person. Your response is entirely voluntary and your failure to provide some orall 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 dataneeded, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burdenestimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, toSusan 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.
45
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
46
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
47
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
48
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
49
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
50
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
51
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
52
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C1991 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
SAMPLE DESIGNThe 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 Surveyof 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; and3. were under 76 years of age.
To develop the frame, graduates who had earned their degrees since the 1989 survey and met the conditionslisted 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 formthe total sample.
However, after the 1991 sample had been selected, it became necessary to reduce its size by about 50percent 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 theminimum number of cases selected in each sampling cell. This minimum worked to ensure that there weresufficient cases to publish estimates of small subgroups. The variables used for stratification were 11 selectedfields of degree, 2 genders, and 2 cohort groupings (year of degree), resulting in 44 sampling cells.9 Thesampling 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.9The 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 analyticneeds.
APPENDIX C 53
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
subsampling rate (applied to achieve the reduction). The population of 105,715 was sampled at an overall rate of8.2 percent.
DATA COLLECTIONThe 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 locatesample members, and (2) failure to gain cooperation from those who were located. Because the SDR aslongitudinal--and people change residences and jobs--contact is lost with a certain proportion of sample casesbetween survey years. At the start of the 1991 survey, this proportion was estimated to be about 5 percent of thesample. However, with assistance from alumni offices and private address vendors, this percentage was reducedto about 2.5 percent prior to the first mailing.
Data collection consisted of two phases: a self-administered mail survey, followed by computer-assistedtelephone interviewing (CATI) among a sample of the nonrespondents to the mail survey. The mail surveyconsisted of three mailings of the survey questionnaire, with a reminder postcard between mailings 1 and 2. Thefirst mailing was sent in October 1991, and the other two in December 1991 and January 1992. In order toencourage participation, all survey materials were personalized with the respondent's name and address. Inaddition, the survey questionnaires were reformatted in a more “respondent friendly” design than that of earlieryears. 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 mailsurvey. 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 percentand completed interviews with 71 percent. CATI was conducted between March and July 1992.
DATA PREPARATIONAs 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 dataentry. Specifically, they resolved incomplete or contradictory answers, imputed missing answers if logicallyappropriate, reviewed “other, specify” responses for possible backcoding to a listed response, and assignednumeric codes to open-ended questions (about employer name, for example). A coding supervisor validated thecoders' work.
Once cases were coded, they were sent to data entry. The data entry program ensured that only valueswithin allowable ranges were entered and that built-in consistency checks were not violated. For example, a casein which a respondent reported unemployment but later listed an employer's name was flagged for review.
APPENDIX C 54
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
The same consistency and range checks, together with the editing and coding rules, were applied to theCATI data. (Because CATI data are keyed directly to disk during the interview, the data entry step iseliminated.) CATI data were then recoded to match the structure and format of the mail data, and the two fileswere 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 ESTIMATIONThe 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 1991Survey 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 ofthe 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 designweight that reflected the selection probabilities for each case. Because the 1991 initial sample was reducedthrough 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 fornonresponse. This weight was then multiplied by the inverse of the case's probability of selection to the 1991reduced 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 basicweight for the mail respondents.
For the mail “nonrespondent” cases, a further subsampling step was done to determine the cases to befollowed up by CATI. The subsampling was done in 11 groups of cases. The selection of the nonrespondentsubsample was done independently of the 1991 SDR design. Therefore, the basic weight (BSCWGTC) for theith 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
APPENDIX C 55
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
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 ofnonresponse 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 respondentsare 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 weightor the integral part plus one. Allocation of integer weights within a cell was made at random so as to representthe cell population. Estimates in this report were developed by summing the final integer weights of therespondents selected for each analysis.
RELIABILITY OF THE 1991 SURVEY ESTIMATESBecause 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 anddata collection methods). Two types of error are possible when population estimates are derived from measuresof a sample: nonsampling error and sampling error. By looking at these errors, it is possible to estimate theaccuracy and precision of the survey results. Potential sources of nonsampling error in the 1991 SDR arediscussed below, followed by a discussion of sampling error--how it is estimated and how it can be used ininterpreting the survey results.
Nonsampling ErrorNonsampling 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 donot 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.
APPENDIX C 56
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
• Response errors can occur either when the wrong individual completes the survey or when the correctindividual cannot accurately recall the events being questioned. Response errors can also arise from deliberatemisreporting 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 beminimal, because the Doctorate Records File (the sampling frame for the SDR) is considered a completecensus.10 However, response errors may have occurred during the CATI phase, when respondents were asked inMarch to recall their work activities the previous September, a full 6 months earlier--although this type of errorhas never been studied. Likewise, no information exists on the consistency of coding and editing over time orwithin a survey year.
However, the largest potential source of nonsampling error--nonresponse--can be examined by looking atthe overall response rate as well as at response rates by subgroups. Nonresponse bias is defined as “the bias orsystematic distortion in survey estimates occurring because of the inability to obtain a usable response fromsome members of the sample.”11 Nonresponse bias is concerned with the “representativeness” of therespondents, that is, with how the respondents' characteristics compare with those of the population from whichthey were chosen. If the respondents do not accurately represent the population, this would result in inaccuratepopulation estimates.
Table C-1 shows the overall response rate and response rates by subgroups (both weighted andunweighted).12 The overall weighted response rate was 87.6 percent, a rate sufficiently high for confidence thatthe 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 91.9percent (doctorates in music). These differences are not extreme, and they suggest that estimates by field are notlikely to be biased by nonresponse. Likewise, subgroups defined by cohort and sex are probably not affected bynonresponse bias, as evidenced by the high observed response rates (ranging from 86.7 to 92.1 percent) and thesmall 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. 118.12Response 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 responserate might have been if everyone in the population had been surveyed. Weighted response rates indicate the potential fornonresponse bias in the survey estimates, and unweighted response rates indicate how successful the data collection protocolwas in getting responses.
APPENDIX C 57
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
Sampling ErrorSampling 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 theUnited States was one of a large number of samples that could have been selected using the same sample designand 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 ratherthan the entire population was surveyed. Standard errors are used in conjunction with a survey estimate toconstruct confidence intervals--bounds set around the survey estimate in which, with some prescribedprobability, the average estimate from all possible samples would lie. For example, approximately 95 percent ofthe intervals from 1.96 standard errors below the estimate to 1.96 standard errors above the estimate wouldinclude the average result of all possible samples.13 With a single survey estimate, the 95 percent confidencelimit implies that if the same sample design was used over and over again, with confidence intervals determinedeach time from each sample, 95 percent of the time the confidence interval would enclose the true populationvalue.
The number of survey estimates in the SDR for which standard errors might have been estimated wasextremely 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 theraw data for each estimate was prohibited by time and cost limitations. Instead, a method was used forgeneralizing standard error values from a subset of survey estimates that characterize the population, allowingapplication to a wide variety of survey estimates.
This method computes the variances associated with selected variables and uses these estimates to developvalues of a and b parameters (regression coefficients) for use in generalized variance functions that estimate thestandard errors associated with a broader range of totals and percentages.14 Base a and b parameters are shown inTable 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 standarderrors more directly.
Standard Errors of Estimated TotalsTable 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 wouldinclude the average result of all possible samples; or, if more precision is required, approximately 99 percent ofthe intervals from 2.58 standard errors above and below the estimate would include the average result of allpossible samples.
14Consideration of the complex sample design and estimation procedure of the 1991 SDR suggested that a balancedreplication procedure (with 16 replicates) be used for calculating the a and b parameters.
APPENDIX C 58
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
philosophy), and for gender by field. The standard errors shown in the tables were calculated using theappropriate 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 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 at3,200 and one wishes to determine the approximate standard error, one can use the values shown in Table C-3for 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:
On the other hand, using the values of a and bfor speech/theater Ph.D.s from Table C-2 and formula (1), onecan 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 fromthe estimate the standard error multiplied by 1.96. This means that the average estimate from all possiblesamples 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 PercentagesPercentages are another type of estimate that are given throughout the report. The standard error of a
percentage may be approximated using the formula:
APPENDIX C 59
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
nearest multiple of 10.
where x is the numerator of the percentage, y is thedenominator 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-5and C-6. These tables display each of the broad fields reported in the report and for the female subpopulationwithin each field to illustrate the differences for subpopulations. Formula (2) may be used to calculate thestandard 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 29,100and the number of women employed part-time was reported at 4,800. The proportion of women employed part-time would be approximately 16.5 percent. Table C-6 shows the approximate standard error of a 15 percentcharacteristic on a base of 25,000 to be 1.0. Alternatively, using the appropriate value of b from Table C-2 andformula 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 andsubtract from the estimate the standard error multiplied by 1.96. That is, the average estimate from all possiblesamples 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 EstimatesAs 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 approximationof standard errors associated with most survey results, it may overstate the error associated with estimates drawnfrom strata with high sampling fractions. However, the only way to avoid this overstatement is to calculate thestandard errors directly from the raw data, forgoing the practical, more widely applicable generalized method.
APPENDIX C 60
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE C-1 Response Rates by Summary Strata (Field, Cohort, and Gender), 1991A B C D E F GSamplingFrame
SurveySample
In-ScopeSample
Out-ofScopeSample
UsableResponses
UnweightedResponseRate (%)
WeightedResponseRate (%)
Field ofDoctorateArt History 3,383 393 375 18 295 78.7 86.3AmericanHistory
6,612 518 505 13 399 79.0 88.5
“OtherHistory”
17,046 1,102 1,023 79 776 75.9 86.7
Music 9,341 801 768 33 605 78.8 91.9Speech/Theater
5,837 621 594 27 463 77.9 87.9
Philosophy 8,419 794 737 57 569 77.2 85.2Engl andAmer Lang/Lit
27,548 2,030 1,929 101 1,489 77.2 87.2
French/Spanish Lang/Lit
8,508 801 748 53 574 76.7 86.1
Other ModernLang/Lit
8,275 809 738 71 562 76.2 85.1
ClassicalLang/Lit
2,287 323 305 18 234 76.7 87.5
“OtherHumanities”
8,459 702 666 36 526 79.0 91.6
Cohort1985-1990Doctorates
17,739 2,161 2,044 117 1,656 81.0 92.1
Pre-1985Doctorates
87,976 6,733 6,344 389 4,836 76.2 86.7
GenderMale/Unknown
71,967 5,579 5,245 334 4,031 76.9 87.5
Female 33,749 3,315 3,143 172 2,461 78.3 87.8Total 105,715 8,894 8,388 506 6,492 77.4 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. Theweighted response rate is the number of usable responses multiplied by their basic weight divided by the in-scope samplemultiplied by their basic weight.
APPENDIX C 61
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE C
-2 L
istin
g of
a a
nd b
Par
amet
ers (
Sele
ct G
roup
s in
Hum
aniti
es F
ield
s), 1
991
Fiel
d of
Doc
tora
tePa
ram
eter
Tota
lW
omen
Whi
tes
Asi
ans
Bla
cks
Nat
ive
Am
eric
ans
Min
ority
Com
bine
dH
ispa
nic
Fore
ign
Tota
l, A
ll Fi
elds
a-0
.000
199
-0.0
0051
9-0
.000
199
0.00
9131
-0.0
0300
50.
0209
42-0
.000
833
-0.0
0116
2-0
.004
549
b21
.690
418
.993
621
.834
017
.705
722
.335
612
.145
218
.817
912
.804
517
.751
7A
mer
ican
His
tory
a-0
.003
591
-0.0
2173
1-0
.002
012
0.00
9131
*0.
1405
290.
0209
42*
0.11
9762
0.04
2981
-0.0
0454
9*b
26.1
841
29.6
630
20.7
618
17.7
057*
1.23
4712
.145
2*2.
0103
4.28
4817
.751
7*“O
ther
His
tory
”a
-0.0
0019
9*-0
.000
044
-0.0
0019
9*0.
0122
06-0
.022
305
0.02
0942
*-0
.015
350
-0.0
5685
8-0
.004
549*
b21
.690
4*9.
9658
21.8
340*
4.05
8510
.209
912
.145
2*13
.326
432
.909
817
.751
7*A
rt H
isto
rya
-0.0
0410
9-0
.005
417
-0.0
0408
60.
0091
31*
-0.0
0300
5*0.
0209
42*
-0.0
0083
3*-0
.001
162*
-0.0
0454
9*b
12.9
442
10.0
504
12.5
698
17.7
057*
22.3
356*
12.1
452*
18.8
179*
12.8
045*
17.7
517*
Mus
ica
-0.0
0110
5-0
.007
003
-0.0
0105
50.
0091
31*
0.02
2766
0.02
0942
*-0
.000
942
-0.0
0116
2*-0
.004
549*
b10
.768
116
.548
810
.641
117
.705
7*22
.260
012
.145
2*19
.635
012
.804
5*17
.751
7*Sp
eech
/The
ater
a-0
.000
199*
-0.0
0494
6-0
.000
199*
0.00
9131
*-0
.039
070
0.02
0942
*0.
1106
17-0
.001
162*
-0.0
0454
9*b
21.6
904*
7.06
2721
.834
0*17
.705
7*14
.004
512
.145
2*3.
3756
12.8
045*
17.7
517*
Philo
soph
ya
-0.0
0098
6-0
.004
594
-0.0
0094
70.
5720
47-0
.003
005*
0.73
0917
-0.0
0594
80.
1695
59-0
.016
053
b13
.643
46.
1502
13.8
210
0.66
1622
.335
6*0.
7462
15.3
065
1.13
299.
9934
Engl
/Am
er L
ang/
Lit
a-0
.001
281
-0.0
0250
0-0
.001
473
-0.0
0553
4-0
.016
353
0.02
0942
*-0
.016
952
0.05
4909
-0.0
2290
2b
36.4
284
31.2
660
40.0
157
6.21
5219
.452
112
.145
2 *17
.957
57.
0489
11.8
290
Cla
ssic
al L
ang/
Lit
a-0
.003
111
-0.0
0824
3-0
.003
423
0.00
9131
*-0
.003
005 *
0.02
0942
*-0
.000
833
-0.0
0116
2*-0
.004
549*
b6.
8651
5.16
736.
9775
17.7
057*
22.3
356 *
12.1
452*
18.8
179
12.8
045*
17.7
517*
Mod
ern
Lang
/Lit
a-0
.000
809
-0.0
0116
7-0
.000
791
0.10
2755
-0.0
1401
90.
0209
42*
0.03
2888
-0.0
0279
8-0
.008
958
b15
.007
813
.126
213
.188
628
.073
224
.049
112
.145
2*16
.734
510
.968
319
.543
3“O
ther
Hum
aniti
es”
a-0
.002
498
-0.0
0051
9*-0
.002
667
0.00
9131
*-0
.003
005*
0.02
0942
*-0
.026
912
-0.0
0116
2 *-0
.004
549 *
b16
.173
118
.993
6*16
.148
417
.705
7*22
.335
6*12
.145
2*20
.419
112
.804
5*17
.751
7**D
irect
est
imat
es a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble;
dat
a sh
own
are
cons
ider
ed u
sefu
l app
roxi
mat
ions
.
APPENDIX C 62
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE C
-3 A
ppro
xim
ate
Stan
dard
Err
ors o
f Est
imat
ed N
umbe
rs o
f Hum
aniti
es D
octo
rate
s, b
y Fi
eld,
199
1Es
timat
edN
umbe
rA
ll Fi
elds
Am
eric
anH
isto
ry“O
ther
His
tory
”A
rt H
isto
ryM
usic
Spee
ch/
Thea
ter
Philo
soph
yEn
glis
h/A
mer
ican
Lang
/Lit
Cla
ssic
alLa
ng/L
itM
oder
nLa
ng/L
it“O
ther
Hum
aniti
es”
5030
4030
3020
3030
4040
3030
100
5050
5040
3050
4060
3040
4020
070
7070
5050
7050
9040
5060
500
100
110
100
7070
100
8013
050
9090
700
120
130
120
8080
120
100
160
6010
010
01,
000
150
150
150
9010
015
011
019
060
120
120
2,50
023
021
023
080
140
230
170
290
--18
016
05,
000
320
200
320
--16
032
021
039
0--
230
140
10,0
0044
0--
440
----
----
490
--26
0--
25,0
0065
0--
----
----
--33
0--
----
50,0
0077
0--
----
----
----
----
--75
,000
710
----
----
----
----
----
100,
000
420
----
----
----
----
----
NO
TE: S
tand
ard
erro
r est
imat
es a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble
for n
umbe
rs th
at e
xcee
d th
e po
pula
tion
of a
giv
en fi
eld.
APPENDIX C 63
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TAB
LE C
-4 A
ppro
xim
ate
Stan
dard
Err
ors o
f Est
imat
ed N
umbe
rs o
f Fem
ale
Hum
aniti
es D
octo
rate
s, b
y Fi
eld,
199
1Es
timat
edN
umbe
rA
ll Fi
elds
Am
eric
anH
isto
ry“O
ther
His
tory
”A
rt H
isto
ryM
usic
Spee
ch/
Thea
ter
Philo
soph
yEn
glis
h/A
mer
ican
Lang
/Lit
Cla
ssic
alLa
ng/L
itM
oder
nLa
ng/L
it“O
ther
Hum
aniti
es”
5030
4020
2030
2020
4020
3030
100
4050
3030
4030
2060
2040
4020
060
7040
4060
3030
8030
5060
500
100
100
7060
8050
4012
020
8010
070
011
010
080
7090
5050
140
--90
110
1,00
014
090
100
7010
050
4017
0--
110
140
2,50
021
0--
160
----
----
----
160
210
5,00
029
0--
----
----
--31
0--
190
--10
,000
370
----
----
----
250
----
--25
,000
390
----
----
----
----
----
NO
TE: S
tand
ard
erro
r est
imat
es a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble
for n
umbe
rs th
at e
xcee
d th
e po
pula
tion
of a
giv
en fi
eld.
APPENDIX C 64
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE C-5 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Humanities Doctorates, 1991Estimated Percents
Base Number of Percent 1 OR 99 2 OR 98 5 OR 95 10 OR 90 15 OR 85 25 OR 75 5050 6.6 9.2 14.4 19.8 23.5 28.5 32.9100 4.6 6.5 10.2 14.0 16.6 20.2 23.3200 3.3 4.6 7.2 9.9 11.8 14.3 16.5500 2.1 2.9 4.5 6.2 7.4 9.0 10.4700 1.8 2.5 3.8 5.3 6.3 7.6 8.81,000 1.5 2.1 3.2 4.4 5.3 6.4 7.42,500 0.9 1.3 2.0 2.8 3.3 4.0 4.75,000 0.7 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.310,000 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.325,000 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.550,000 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.075,000 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9100,000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Table C-6 Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percents of Female Humanities Doctorates, 1991Estimated Percents
Base Number of Percent 1 OR 99 2 OR 98 5 OR 95 10 OR 90 15 OR 85 25 OR 75 5050 6.1 8.6 13.4 18.5 22.0 26.7 30.8100 4.3 6.1 9.5 13.1 15.6 18.9 21.8200 3.1 4.3 6.7 9.2 11.0 13.3 15.4500 1.9 2.7 4.2 5.8 7.0 8.4 9.7700 1.6 2.3 3.6 4.9 5.9 7.1 8.21,000 1.4 1.9 3.0 4.1 4.9 6.0 6.92,500 0.9 1.2 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.8 4.45,000 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.110,000 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.225,000 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
APPENDIX C 65
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX C 66
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX DTIME-SERIES TABLES
Table D-1 ,Table D-2 ,Table D-3, Table D-4 through Table D-5 show time-series data for survey years1977, 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 the1991 methodological changes discussed in Appendix A. The objective of making the data as comparable aspossible 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 mailrespondents, as was the case in years 1977 to 1989;
(2) the 1991 changes to the sampling frame regarding eligibility for inclusion were retrofitted to the1977-1989 respondent group.
This means that respondents who were 75 or younger were included in the base for estimation. Further, theywere counted according to the degree field they specified at the time of degree award, rather than according to alater revision.
The time-series tables do not show estimated totals (or counts), but rather, rates of change between 1977and subsequent survey years. This is because totals for the years 1977 to 1989 would disagree with thosepublished in earlier years, and totals in 1991 (based only on mail respondents) would disagree with numbersshown earlier in this report, possibly causing confusion and misinterpretation. The rates shown in these tables areindexed to 1977, meaning they show the growth rate in population size between 1977 and a subsequent year. Byfocusing on relative changes, the index numbers allow the comparison of different populations without regard totheir absolute size.
Following are examples of how the tables should be interpreted. Table D-1 shows that the total humanitiespopulation (labeled “All Fields”) grew by 16.9 percent between 1977 and 1981, and by 54.3 percent between1977 and 1991. Table D-3 shows the number of humanities doctorates employed full-time grew by 47.4 percentbetween 1977 and 1991. In comparison, the number employed part-time grew by 154.1 percent (or about one andone-half times) in that period. On the other hand, some populations experienced a decline. Table D-2 shows thatthe number of humanities doctorates under age 40 declined by 43.1 percent between 1977 and 1991 (calculatedby 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 notpossible to “bridge” the change in sample design or sample size between 1991 and earlier years. Thus, 1991estimates are based on a sample comprising 44 strata, compared with about 250 strata in earlier years, and on adifferent 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 andshows a decline in numbers in 1991, when it was used to stratify the sample. Stratification better controlled thevariance associated with that field and probably produced a more accurate estimate in 1991. (This decline isseparate from that noted in Appendix A, caused by the change in the definition of “field”).
APPENDIX D 67
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
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 stillrepresented only a small fraction of the total in 1991, about 3.3 percent. Therefore, large growth rates do notnecessarily indicate large gains in numbers.
APPENDIX D 68
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE D-1 Humanities Ph.D.s, by Field of Doctorate, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977)Field of Doctorate 1977 1981 1985 1989 1991All Fields 100.0 116.9 134.0 147.8 154.3American History 100.0 134.2 156.9 182.4 174.6“Other History” 100.0 108.5 115.3 116.7 121.8Art History 100.0 134.5 168.5 196.8 205.0Music 100.0 139.2 179.6 222.1 246.8Speech/Theater 100.0 104.0 111.0 116.8 123.0Philosophy 100.0 112.1 127.7 137.2 144.1Eng & Amer Lang/Lit 100.0 115.5 126.5 136.7 140.5Classical Lang/Lit 100.0 105.6 107.6 112.6 113.4Modern Lang/Lit 100.0 120.8 135.8 149.9 153.2“Other Humanities” 100.0 125.2 202.8 255.1 288.7
APPENDIX D 69
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE D-2 Demographic Characteristics of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977)Demographic Characteristics 1977 1981 1985 1989 1991Total Population 100.0 116.9 134.0 147.8 154.3GenderMen 100.0 112.0 123.8 132.5 135.4Women 100.0 133.0 166.7 197.6 215.7Racial/Ethnic GroupWhite 100.0 121.1 137.8 152.0 159.2Minority Group 100.0 148.7 189.2 216.4 212.4Hispanic 100.0 157.7 186.3 224.4 233.1Black 100.0 144.0 196.4 209.4 186.3Asian 100.0 139.7 183.2 202.3 197.0American Indian 100.0 130.9 219.8 290.1 279.0Age in Survey YearUnder 40 100.0 96.9 78.6 61.6 56.940-49 100.0 136.2 179.4 197.2 190.350-59 100.0 126.5 157.4 197.2 230.460-69 100.0 129.5 160.1 206.9 229.970-75 100.0 100.9 147.8 194.2 227.0
APPENDIX D 70
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE D-3 Employment Status of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977)Employment Status 1977 1981 1985 1989 1991Total Population 100.0 116.9 134.0 147.8 154.3Employed Full-Time 100.0 118.8 134.9 143.8 147.4Employed Part-Time 100.0 143.3 193.9 237.2 254.1Postdoctoral Appointment 100.0 94.1 49.6 95.4 69.3Not Employed 100.0 88.9 110.6 147.8 173.8Seeking Employment 100.0 54.6 69.6 49.0 62.2Not Seeking Employment 100.0 120.9 131.4 137.1 127.8Retired 100.0 100.3 126.8 207.8 253.6Other 100.0 55.8 106.4 93.6 81.5No Report 100.0 221.4 0.0 7.3 55.6
NOTE: The number of humanities doctorates in the categories Postdoctoral Appointment, Not Employed, and No Report issmall. Therefore, small changes in absolute numbers may result in large fluctuations in the relative index.
APPENDIX D 71
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE D-4 Type of Employer of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977)Type of Employer 1977 1981 1985 1989 1991Employed Population 100.0 119.8 137.2 148.4 152.4Educational Institution 100.0 114.1 126.1 134.3 134.94-Year Coll/Univ/Med School 100.0 113.3 124.1 132.4 131.32-Year College 100.0 116.0 139.3 139.1 156.3Elem/Secondary Schools 100.0 138.3 167.1 188.9 216.3Business/Industry 100.0 236.6 358.7 438.2 493.4U.S. Government 100.0 148.6 184.5 224.9 191.6State/Local Government 100.0 242.3 303.6 213.1 275.5Nonprofit Organization 100.0 117.5 167.5 196.6 218.6Other 100.0 122.6 345.2 371.0 358.1No Report 100.0 104.8 28.6 31.2 150.4
APPENDIX D 72
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
TABLE D-5 Primary Work Activity of Humanities Ph.D.s, 1977 to 1991 (indexed to 1977)Primary Work Activity 1977 1981 1985 1989 1991Employed Population 100.0 119.8 137.2 148.4 152.4Teaching 100.0 120.7 126.6 136.3 137.9Management/Administration 100.0 149.5 198.9 243.4 242.4Research and Development 100.0 101.6 121.5 148.9 123.0Writing/Editing 100.0 103.8 159.8 142.7 146.5Consulting/Prof Services 100.0 162.2 231.6 265.6 286.2Other Activities 100.0 113.8 141.3 177.0 200.5No Report 100.0 68.6 117.3 40.9 101.5
APPENDIX D 73
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX D 74
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E 75
Abou
t thi
s PD
F fil
e: T
his
new
dig
ital r
epre
sent
atio
n of
the
orig
inal
wor
k ha
s be
en re
com
pose
d fro
m X
ML
files
cre
ated
from
the
orig
inal
pap
er b
ook,
not
from
the
orig
inal
type
setti
ng fi
les.
Pag
e br
eaks
are
true
to th
e or
igin
al; l
ine
leng
ths,
wor
d br
eaks
, hea
ding
sty
les,
and
oth
er ty
pese
tting
-spe
cific
form
attin
g, h
owev
er, c
anno
t be
reta
ined
, and
som
e ty
pogr
aphi
c er
rors
may
hav
e be
en a
ccid
enta
lly in
serte
d. P
leas
eus
e th
e pr
int v
ersi
on o
f thi
s pu
blic
atio
n as
the
auth
orita
tive
vers
ion
for a
ttrib
utio
n.