Vol. 39, No. 1, January 2010
Printer friendly version of Newsletter
HSS Employment Survey Report, 2008-2009
by Jacqueline Wernimont, Harvey Mudd College
This analysis reports on the 2008-2009 History of Science Society (HSS) Employment Survey. This year’s survey collected data concerning jobs and postdoctoral fellowships commencing in the fall of 2009. The HSS office sent out approximately 100 invitations to participate in the online survey. The invitations were sent to the job search committee contacts and/or human resources administrators listed in job calls. We have collected data regarding thirty-three of these positions or grant opportunities. We would like to thank all of the respondents for their assistance in helping HSS track current employment trends.
The quality of the data has a significant impact on the kind of conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis. While a response rate of roughly one-third has been common over the last five years of the survey, it remains low enough to make strong conclusions impossible. The survey was offered as an online survey this year, in the hopes that this format would yield a higher response rate. We do not yet see an impact from this change. While every effort was made to capture accurate information regarding job postings, there is also the possibility that invitations were not sent out to every committee considering hiring in H/P STM. Consequently, the conclusions of this analysis must remain somewhat provisional. Of the thirty-four responses received, two were eliminated from analysis because they indicated that they were doctoral fellowship opportunities, rather than post-doctoral or career opportunities.
In order to explore other avenues of data collection, we also collected information on jobs for which we had no response but for which press releases and departmental or program websites identified the new hire or post-doctoral fellow. This data is far more limited, in that we were not able to identify the number total applicants for these positions, nor the importance of training in the History (and/or Philosophy) of Science, Technology, and/or Medicine in the job selection process. This approach was disproportionally successful with post-doctoral fellowship opportunities. The ability to garner accurate information regarding tenure-track job offers and temporary non-fellowship positions is limited by the kind of information dissemination associated with those job opportunities. We were able to collect data on seven positions through these alternative means. Therefore, this report covers a total of thirty-eight filled searches relating or potentially relating to H/P STM.
Cancellation of searches was of particular concern this year. We have report of one cancelled search and anecdotal data regarding at least one other cancelled search. We are unable to determine at this point how many, if any, of the unreported searches were not completed.
Among the searches for which we have data 39% (12) were reported as “newly created or redefined positions,” 30% (10) were “replacement positions,” and 27% (9) were reported as “fellowship or grant opportunities.” We do not have this data on the seven positions that were not self-reported. While the responses suggest a high proportion of tenure-track or non-fellowship positions, when respondents were asked directly regarding the temporary or permanent status of the position, only six were reported as tenure-track positions and one was a non-tenure-track but not temporary position. The remaining 24 positions, nearly 77% of the positions, were reported as “temporary.” For the seven other jobs we are able to determine the temporary/permanent status based on the job call. Six of these seven positions were listed as post-doctoral fellowships, meaning that 30 of the 38 positions (79%) for which we have information were temporary positions.
Of the 31 positions for which we have data regarding desired areas of expertise, 19 listed H/P STM as the primary area of expertise desired, 6 listed it as a possible area of expertise, and 5 listed it as a desired secondary area of expertise. Of the 19 positions for which H/P STM was a primary area of expertise, 17 required a Ph.D. or equivalent at the time of starting the position. In the general pool, 26 (84%) of the positions required a Ph.D. or equivalent at the time of starting the position.
Permanent positions, both tenure-track and non-tenure track, were rare in this year’s survey and some individuals indicated that their institution did not allow for the reporting of gender or minority status. Given the very small dataset that we have, generalizations regarding these two important areas are impossible. Of the 5 permanent jobs that reported the gender of the successful candidate, 4 of the 5 went to women. None of the permanent jobs were reported as filled by a minority candidate, but only three of the institutions reported on this topic.
Within the somewhat larger set of temporary or post-doctoral positions we see what appears to be gender parity; of those that reported gender status, eleven went to male scholars and twelve to female scholars. Only one third of the respondents for temporary positions felt able to report on the minority status of their candidate and, of those, two reported that their candidate was of a recognized minority status. It is clear that in order for minority status data to be useful, we need to find ways to improve upon the numbers of reporting institutions or find alternative access to such data.
Unlike in previous years, with respect to the gender distribution of applicants to the temporary and permanent positions, we did not note a consistent trend in either direction. In many cases institutions reported equal or near equal numbers of male and female applicants. On the other hand there were particular jobs were the distribution of applicants was unequal; one permanent but non-tenure track job had three times as many female applicants as male applicants and one international position received 72 % of their over fifty applications from men. The number of applicants for individual job or fellowship opportunities ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 59.
This year’s responses spoke yet again to the importance of online media for the advertising of positions and fellowship opportunities. 82% of those who responded regarding advertising media indicated that they posted to one or more online resource. While a small number used online media only to advertise their position, most used online resources in conjunction with advertising in print media.
Several individuals who responded to the survey and a few who did not complete the survey but contacted us via email indicated that they did not feel that the positions listed should be included in an “employment” survey. This seemed to be a particular issue for institutions and organizations that offer post-doctoral fellowships of various types. Given the high proportion of employment opportunities this year that were temporary and/or post-doctoral fellowship, it may be worth considering how to respond to this concern in the field. Another comment suggested that the survey should enable respondents to report on multiple fellowships that all fall under the same heading (such as the National Science Foundation fellowships or those at the Max Planck Institutes).
We wish to continue to improve the annual survey and to optimize our data collection. At the same time, we are concerned to maintain a level of consistency that will enable comparisons over time. There is a sense among many that the employment landscape continues to shift, and indeed the high proportion of temporary positions this year seems to continue a trend seen in previous surveys from this decade where the proportion of permanent positions has gone from a high of 43% in 2002-3 to the 21% reported this year. That said, the first employment report in 1972 also commented on the relatively low numbers of permanent academic positions available to historians of science.
Obviously many things have changed since the early seventies, but the suggestion at that time that we can do more to think about the variety of career options available to historians of science may be as relevant today as it was then.
We welcome input regarding the survey and future improvements. Please send suggestions to: Jacqueline Wernimont, Harvey Mudd College, 301 Platt Blvd, Claremont, Ca 91711 or, via email: Jacqueline_Wernimont@hmc.edu. I would like to express my appreciation to Robert J. Malone, Marsha Richmond, Roger Turner, and the HSS Women’s Caucus and Graduate and Early Career Caucus for their support of the survey and assistance assembling the questionnaire and contacting respondents.