2009-2010 Employment Survey

Vol. 40, No. 1, January 2011
Printer friendly version of Newsletter

2009-2010 Employment Survey

by Jacqueline Wernimont

History of the Survey and Thoughts for the Future

HSS has collected data on the employment opportunities for historians and philosophers of science since 1972. In ‘73 the job survey was taken over by the “HSS Committee on Women” and, later, the Women’s Caucus. For the 2008–09 survey the Women’s Caucus (WC) partnered with the newly formed Graduate and Early Career Caucus (GECC) to complete the survey. This shift signaled, in part, a change in what motivates the survey and we are actively looking at ways to optimize the survey, but we face several issues. The rhetoric of early surveys makes clear that the project was instrumental in the ongoing effort to raise the visibility of women in the profession and to tackle structural issues that continued to limit women’s ability to enter into the field productively. For example, the 1978/79 report observed that several positions went unadvertised and were “acquired through private arrangement.” Women have made significant gains with respect to position parity and we have not seen reports of non-transparent hiring for some time.

Nevertheless, gender parity remains a concern for both the WC and the GECC (especially with respect to tenure, research funding, and child care issues). But our concerns expand beyond gender; the survey has not been able to assess adequately issues of racial and ethnic diversity in our field. The current survey does not deal with the ways that sexual orientation and transgender identity may play a role in the job market, an omission that seems particularly glaring in light of the recent reports of sexuality-based harassment at universities and colleges. We also do not currently collect data on disabled scholars or independent scholars. In addition to these major concerns, it has become clear within the GECC that graduate students, in particular, need to have a sense for the kinds of skills for which “the field” is looking. While several questions attempt to get at the kind of training that is currently expected by hiring committees, new areas such as environmental science are not adequately captured.

There is also a pragmatic issue at hand; the survey has struggled from increasingly poor response rates. As I write this report with a paltry 30% response rate for a field of 98 “opportunities,” which include post-doctoral fellowships, one year positions, non-tenure contract positions in history of science, and traditional tenure-track positions, I envy the writers of the 1981/82 report who had an 85% response rate for a field of 53 positions. Equally enviable are the years when report writers had high response rates and were then able to cobble together information on one hundred percent of the jobs. After two years of directing this survey, I cannot say that I have the answers to the pressing questions around survey response rate. What I can say is that the kinds of “opportunities” that we survey are shaped by who is advertising their positions/fellowships in our digital and print media. Changing perspectives on what “counts” as a job in a tight employment market have also shaped the feedback that we have received from various constituents about the survey. While both HSS executive staff and myself carefully cull the pool of jobs that we contact, it is clear to me that some of what we consider “opportunities” rightfully reported on in an employment survey are seen otherwise by the originating parties. Each year I receive terse emails notifying me that this or that call does not offer anyone a job. What may seem to be a legitimate one-year or short term research opportunity to those of us thinking about what new Ph.D.s will do next year clearly reads differently for others. Scale is also an issue for the survey in ways that it has not been in the past. What began as a survey of twenty or so positions has gradually grown to an evaluation of roughly one hundred, depending on the year. This evidences some growth in the field, especially in the late eighties and early nineties, which has since leveled out. But it is also an indication that we have a broader range of opportunities that this survey attempts to understand.

Our attempts to preserve some kind of continuity between data collected 38 years ago and what we think we need in 2010 further complicates how we might envision changing the survey. While even the very first survey (and most surveys subsequently) have collected information on, or commented upon, positions in libraries, archives, and museums, the ways in which they have done so differ significantly from approaches that have been discussed by GECC and the WC in recent years. In an attempt to gather more robust data generally, including ethnic and racial information, which is nearly systematically not reported at this point by our contacts, the WC piloted a survey of departmental chairs and directors of graduate studies within H/PSTM programs. While this was not a successful attempt this year, should it or some other approach succeed in the future we will almost certainly not be able to use that data in any longitudinal fashion. The survey has historically been accomplished by a volunteer, either from the WC or GECC, with the help of HSS staff at the point of establishing contacts. The scale of a full survey overhaul simply cannot be addressed by the efforts of a few volunteer scholars, especially those who are early in their careers. The survey has a long history and it has served the HSS community well. It is clear from conversations over the last two years that HSS members want the survey to continue. In order to have a functional, meaningful survey that addresses both the history of the field and its future manifestation, we need to have a collective conversation about the goals of the annual survey and we need to find a way to fund a revision of the process that will allow us to address changes in the field, in technology, and in desiderata, while maintaining some kind of meaningful continuity with past surveys.

Method

We continued to use an online survey form for the “traditional” survey this year. The Women’s Caucus piloted an alternative survey targeting departmental chairs and directors of graduate studies at H/PSTM programs. Because we received only one response to this effort, we have not reported on this data here, nor is it integrated in any way into the survey analysis.

After eliminating pre-dissertation research grants and other opportunities that do not offer new Ph.D.s either a permanent or temporary work or research position, we had a total of 98 discrete opportunities. These included tenure-track jobs, one year or other non-tenure-track positions, post-doctoral positions, and other funding opportunities that graduates might pursue when on the job market. These included both domestic and international opportunities.

Two mailings went out, one in August and the other in late September, by email, to the contact listed in the call. Where it was clear that the contact listed was not viable (expired special email addresses, for example), we then attempted to find the appropriate contact by emailing departments/programs/offices. As was the case last year, the first email yielded about a 10% response rate. The follow up email, which was sent once classes had resumed at most institutions, yielded the remainder of the responses. One issue that we have struggled with is timing for the requests for information. While HSS was able to send me the list of contacts before the end of the academic year, teaching and interviewing kept me from my own goal to catch people before the summer. Summer requests inevitably arrive while a great many people are on vacation or are conducting research. To wait until the beginning of the fall semester compresses the schedule, given that follow up has been instrumental to increasing reporting.

The online survey may be viewed here: http://bit.ly/fe9S4P (you will need to have a Google account). We collected data on the traditional features of hiring category (tenure, non-tenure, etc. and temporary vs. permanent), expertise required, secondary expertise considered, advertising media, and hiring statistics, which included successful hire, offers made, gender and ethnic data, and applicant pool size.

The Results

The following information is for the 29 positions or opportunities for which we have data. To review all of the data, please go to the survey and click on the link at the top “See responses.”

We gathered data regarding the number of tenure-track/permanent and “contingent” (adjunct or some other form of temporary position) positions. 69% of the respondents indicated that the opportunity was temporary or “contingent.” Of the remaining 31% of positions, all of which were permanent in some sense, only 17% (5) were tenure-track jobs, the others were contract-based positions.

As with last year, we saw a distribution in the longevity of positions. Over a third of our “opportunities” (9) were fellowship or grant opportunities, with the remaining 69% (20) classified as a formal position. Replacement was emphasized by a small proportion this year, 60% (12) of the formal positions were described as “replacement positions” and the remaining 40% (8) were “newly created or redefined” positions. This is an inverse relationship relative to last year’s survey, and while we don’t see a significant imbalance generally, we will continue to keep an eye on this particular data point as we move through the hiring done in the wake of the financial crisis.

The majority of the calls were looking specifically for expertise in the history or philosophy of science, technology, or medicine. Only 1% of the respondents reported that HP/STM was not a factor in their search. For 59% it was the primary area of expertise desired and for an additional 7% it was a desired secondary or supporting area of expertise (the remainder of respondents listed it as one of a number of possible fields of expertise). Very few (7%) of our respondents indicated that they were looking for candidates who could teach general American history or Western Civilization courses. 76% of the positions were for those who hold a Ph.D. at the time of hire. We do note that while the majority of positions required a Ph.D. at time of hire, there is some room for those finishing their degrees during the job search. 65% of respondents reported that the successful candidate had the Ph.D. in hand at the time of the offer, while 35% did not.

In addition to asking about the position title and the relative importance of H/PSTM for the search, we asked about areas of training that were important to various positions. Clearly history of technology and medicine are strong areas of expertise, with training in history of technology a factor in 28% of searches, while the history of medicine was important for 17% of respondents. Philosophy of science continues to be a desirable area of training, with 21% of the respondents listing this as a factor in their search. While museum studies and public history continues to be a growing field in terms of program offerings, for our survey it was an important area of training in just one position.

While we continue to hear about the relative scarcity of jobs, we were surprised to see that 4 of the 28 respondents did not fill the position or award the funding that was available. The reasons for this varied: in one case the search was cancelled, in another the offer was not accepted. The remaining two listed “other” as the reason for the failed search. This year, 90% of first offers were accepted. With respect to scarcity of permanent positions, while we see a small increase in the percentage of permanent positions, from 23% to 31%, it continues to be clear that tenure-track jobs make up a relatively small proportion (17%) of the opportunities for which we have data. We actually show a loss, in terms of raw numbers, of TT jobs from last year, when there were seven reported. We can’t draw significant conclusions from this, given the small numbers and the reporting issues, but we can see that year over year, there remain a relatively small number of tenure-track jobs. While other permanent positions exist, at archives, museums, or the like, our data suggest that the job market is dominated by temporary positions. In light of this, it seems particularly critical that we, as a field, find a way to understand this situation in light of the numbers of people seeking positions, much as the Modern Language Association and the American Historical Association have done for their members. While our survey does try to capture this information, we found an enormous range for the reported positions. At the high end, one indicated they had 600 applications for the opportunity and at the low end there were just three. The median number of applicants was 20 and if we eliminate the outlier of 600 (which was for an open Humanities post-doc), the average number was 26.8. Given, however, that the data does not neatly cluster around this average, we suggest that we need to find another way of quantifying the ratio of positions relative to the numbers of job seekers.

In keeping with the emphasis on temporary positions, 58% (15) of the successful searches resulted in hiring at the post-doctoral fellow level, 8% (2) as a lecturer, and the remainder as tenure-track faculty (23%). Of these tenure-track hires, four were at the assistant professor level, one at the associate level, and one at full professor. Given that hiring is happening at a range of ranks, we think it is especially important to capture the size of the applicant field, especially at the junior level.

As indicated above, data regarding gender remains less underreported relative to other areas and data on race distribution is extremely difficult to obtain. Only 21 respondents answered our question regarding the gender of the successful candidate, of those, 12 were female and 9 were male. Only 52% of respondents reported on whether the candidate was classified as a member of a minority group as defined by their institution. Of those 12 who did report, only one hired a candidate who qualifies as a member of a minority group at the hiring institution. We had equally low numbers last year, with just two reports that positions or funds went to members of an identified minority. In a review of the last ten years of reports, where reporting on the issue of minority status appears to have been more robust, it is generally the case that fewer than three respondents indicate that they have hired someone of minority status. When reporting on minority status is happening, it is most often to indicate that the successful applicant is not a member of a recognized category. The recent trend away from answering this question over the last five years leaves us puzzled and threatens the transparency of the hiring process with respect to race and ethnicity.

Print advertisement continues to lag behind web advertisement, a trend that has been prevalent over the last five years. Respondents were able to check all outlets in which they advertised, and a combined 79% of people reported advertising on either the HSS Website and on H-Net. Newsletters were an outlet of advertising for between 11% and 30% of respondents, depending on the particular outlet. The most popular print outlet was the Chronicle of Higher Education.

A Final Thought

A quick review of WC meeting minutes for the last decade indicates that the status of the Employment Survey has been under question for at least that long. It certainly has been an issue within GECC since our inception. It is clear to me that the survey remains a valuable conceptual tool for a number of different groups within HSS, but that different groups are asking for the survey to do different kinds of work. We need to better capture data, period. We need a survey that articulates a vision of where the field is going, one that can serve as a guide to job seekers, faculty mentors, and program directors. But we also need to do better in describing the field and in drawing attention to any race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and sexual orientation pressures that may exist in the job market. In light of reports like those of the Clayman Institute on the status of dual-academic couples, we need also to capture data about spousal accommodation, especially given that this issue disproportionally affects female academics. But we might also stop and ask ourselves how and why this survey has been the work of the Women’s Caucus almost from the beginning and now also the Graduate and Early Career Caucus, which, while not gender based, was founded by, and is largely populated with, women. A part of this history is the desire of the WC to be good stewards of the survey on behalf of its members, but we also need to be sure that we are not relying on a subset of the community to keep house in some sense. Certainly the kinds of training that employers are looking for is not an issue for a subset of the HSS community. Ensuring racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, and gender non-discrimination is equally the job of our entire community and it is a job worthy of resources, even when research is calling and money is tight. A comprehensive overhaul is long overdue and this is something that must involve the broad HSS community if the survey is to continue to have relevance and illuminating power.

History of Science Society