• In most humanities departments, full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members had access to research support (through the institution or the department; Figure 7A). While an estimated 73% of the departments offered support for research to full-time nontenured and non-tenure-track faculty members, less than a third of departments provided such support to their part-time faculty members. In the disciplines of classical studies, combined English/LLE, communication, English, musicology, and philosophy, a quarter or less of departments provided support for faculty members employed part-time.
• Several disciplines experienced a statistically significant increase from 2012 to 2017 in the share of departments offering research support to certain categories of faculty. In religion, a greater share of departments offered support to full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty. In art history and classical studies, the increase in share was for both nontenured and non-tenure-track full-time faculty. In history of science, a greater share of departments provided research support to part-time faculty in 2017 than in 2012.
• Teaching was of greatest importance for purposes of tenure decisions, with an estimated 78% of departments rating it as “essential” and another 18% describing it as “very important” (Figure 7B). Publications were cited as “essential” by 54% of departments and as “very important” by another 21%.
• Although a growing number of commenters in recent years have pointed to public humanities as a vehicle for elevating the profile of the field, only an estimated 11% of departments indicated that such activity was “very important” or “essential” for tenure.1
• While an estimated 91% of departments at research institutions considered publications “essential” to achieving tenure, less than 40% of departments at other types of institutions held a similar view (Figure 7C). Conversely, over 85% of the departments at primarily undergraduate or comprehensive institutions rated teaching “essential,” as compared to 57% of the departments at research universities. The public humanities were considered “essential” for tenure by a negligible share of department chairs at all three types of institution.
• In an estimated half of humanities departments, faculty members, staff, or students had been involved with state humanities councils or community organizations (Figure 7D). In 43% of departments, faculty, staff, or students had participated in community-service endeavors involving primary or secondary schools, however, less than a quarter of departments had worked with community colleges “to attract new majors into their programs.”.
• Among the disciplines, the estimated rates of community service varied substantially depending on the type of activity. At least 70% of departments in the disciplines of art history, folklore, and history had engaged with state humanities councils or community organizations. English, history, and LLE were the only disciplines in which at least half of departments had engaged with precollegiate teachers or students. Only in the disciplines of communication and race/ethnic studies had more than a third of departments partnered with community colleges to recruit students.

Endnotes

• 1See, for instance, Emma Pettit, “Are the Humanities Really in Crisis?” Chronicle of Higher Education, February 9, 2020 (https://www.chronicle.com/article/Are-the-Humanities-Really-in/248014); Aaron R. Hanlon, “Centering the Humanities,” Inside Higher Ed, September 9, 2019 (https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/09/09/humanities-centers-can-improve-image-humanities-among-public-and-policy-makers); and Leonard Cassuto, “Making a Public Ph.D.,” Chronicle of Higher Education, February 12, 2012 (https://www.chronicle.com/article/Making-a-Public-PhD/130716).