Given recent trends in the field, this round of the survey asked chairs to offer forward-looking assessments of their departments: specifically, faculty size, academic freedom, and the health of the discipline at their institution. Respondents offered a decidedly mixed set of views about what the future holds for the field.
Most department chairs believed that the number of tenured/tenure-track faculty members in their departments would either remain the same or increase (Figure 18). The chairs of linguistics, race/ethnic studies, and musicology programs were the most optimistic, with 80% or more chairs projecting that the size of their tenured/tenure-track professoriate would hold steady or grow over the next three years. In several other disciplines, chairs were far less sanguine. In history, religion, American studies, and English, only 53% to 62% of the department chairs believed their faculty numbers would remain steady or increase. English chairs were the most pessimistic, with 45% believing that that they would lose some tenure-line faculty.
The survey also found that one-in-four department chairs had concerns about academic freedom for their faculty members (though the survey was administered prior to the recent national election). Such concerns were more common among chairs at public institutions, with 31% of these chairs expressing discomfort. At private institutions, only 19% of chairs were concerned.
However, the survey did turn up substantial differences among the disciplines. The race/ethnic studies and women’s/gender studies department chairs appeared the most anxious about academic freedom for their faculty members, with almost half of the chairs in each discipline expressing concern (Figure 19). Nearly one-third of the chairs in American studies and English were similarly concerned. Conversely, in six disciplines (art history, philosophy, LOTE, linguistics, classical studies, and communication), fewer than 20% of chairs were worried about academic freedom for their faculty.
Looking at the field as whole, department chairs who expressed concerns were most likely to point to the hierarchy within their institutions, either the academic administration (selected by 62% of the chairs with concerns) or boards of trustees (cited by 57%; Figure 20). For chairs in seven of the disciplines (anthropology, art history, classical studies, history, LOTE, religion, and women’s/gender studies), the administration at their institution was the most cited source of concern about academic freedom, while boards of trustees were most likely to be cited by chairs in four other disciplines (American studies, communication, linguistics, and philosophy).
A majority of the chairs with concerns also pointed to federal or state governments as a source of worry (55%). For four disciplines (English, musicology, race/ethnic studies, and women’s/gender studies), it was the most cited source of concern. (Women’s/gender studies was also the only discipline to have such large shares citing two different sources of concern.)
Other sources of concern (which had been proposed by department chairs and scholarly societies in the development phase of the study) were substantially less cited, though more than one-third of chairs indicated that the public and students posed a threat to academic freedom. A few department chairs wrote in other sources of concern, including donors, media (both “right wing” and “mainstream”), and specific political actors (extending from conservative political groups to “faculty in my own department who are ideologues”).
A final question asked chairs whether they were optimistic, pessimistic, or neither/not sure about the future of the discipline at their institution (Figure 21). In only linguistics (61%), musicology (60%), and race/ethnic studies (57%) did a clear majority of departments indicate that they were optimistic about the future of the discipline at their institutions. In none of the disciplines were a majority of departments pessimistic about their futures, but at least one-quarter of the departments in history, women’s/gender studies, LOTE, American studies, English, and philosophy expressed some pessimism about their discipline, with the largest share of pessimists found among history department chairs (38%).
Differences in outlook between departments at public and private institutions were negligible. A greater difference was observed among Carnegie classifications. While a slight majority (51%) of departments at research universities expressed optimism about the future of their discipline, only 29% of chairs at master’s institutions were optimistic—and more than one-third were pessimistic. Among English and history departments at HBCUs, a majority of chairs (54% for English and 50% for history) were either pessimistic or “not sure” about the future of the discipline at their institutions.
The chairs’ responses to these questions about the condition of the humanities at their institutions revealed a mixed state of affairs. The mood was captured by one chair who observed:
"While I am not completely pessimistic and may be even somewhat optimistic given the specifics of our department right now, the position of the humanities at our institution is fragile. We have seen many retirements go unreplaced, with the number of faculty in humanities departments shrinking. This has required that existing faculty teach courses in new areas or leave central areas uncovered in the curriculum. The possibility of program closure has been in the air as well, making it stressful for all of us."
As is true of all surveys, only so much can be asked of respondents before fatigue begins to compromise data quality. The HDS only begins to describe the condition of the humanities at the nation’s colleges and universities. Fortunately, the Mellon Foundation has funded the HI to conduct a series of focus groups with chairs in the coming year to help both expand and deepen understanding of these issues. Anyone interested in these questions—or who has questions about this study specifically—is welcome to contact the HI staff via the codirector of the program, Robert Townsend, at rtownsend@amacad.org.
Next: Discipline Profiles >>
