|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN RESPONSE to widespread discussion about the effect of downsizing on higher education, the MLA gathered data on recent changes in the size of full-time regular faculties in modern language departments. 1 Time constraints led us to focus on a clearly delimited set of departments able to provide information on short notice: PhD-granting modern language departments. Such departments are almost entirely confined to the relatively small number of doctorate-granting institutions, 2 though a few comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions also have PhD-granting programs in modern languages. Of the PhD-granting English programs, 42% are in what are known as Research I institutions, as are 62% of the institutions with PhD-granting foreign language programs. 3
During the first three weeks of April 1994, MLA staff members undertook telephone surveys of stratified, systematic random samples of English and foreign language departments granting PhDs. Thanks to respondent cooperation, all 36 English and 43 foreign language departments queried provided the information requested in the brief survey. 4 Once the data were assembled, the responses were weighted by source of funding and institutional type so as to approximate the universe of institutions with PhD-granting English programs or one or more PhD-granting foreign language programs. (See appendix for an account of the sampling procedures used and an assessment of the representativeness of the foreign language sample.) In considering the findings presented in the following pages, readers should bear in mind that, even with weighted numbers, the two data sets are small. One of the consequences of this limited size is that statistically significant subgroup differences, the only ones discussed here, are relatively large (at least 25% to 30%).
The findings reported below indicate that during the 1990–94 period the average size of full-time regular faculties declined in foreign language departments and in English departments in Research I institutions, while the average size of full-time regular faculties grew somewhat in English departments in other doctorate-granting institutions. At the same time, lower-division enrollments and the number of majors increased in the majority of PhD-granting English and foreign language departments.
The first two sections of table 1 show the average number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members in PhD-granting English and foreign language departments in 1989–90 and 1993–94. The difference in the averages is notable; it exists largely because doctorate-granting institutions with PhD-granting foreign language programs tend to have several departments, each of which deals with a circumscribed number of languages, while doctorate-granting institutions with PhD-granting English programs have only one English department. Although overall summary figures hide as much information as they reveal, the means presented in table 1 suggest that trends through time differ for English and foreign language departments, with average faculty size decreasing somewhat in foreign language departments between 1990 and 1994 and increasing somewhat in English departments.
In foreign languages, faculty size varies by a number of institutional characteristics. Figure 1 indicates that in both 1989–90 and 1993–94 average faculty size in foreign language departments was larger in public than in private institutions. Average faculty size also varies by type of language program, as figure 2 shows. The small percentage of inclusive programs (19%)—which are generally responsible for all foreign language courses offered at an institution—have considerably larger faculties, on average, than the specialized programs that focus on one or two languages or a family of related languages (e.g., Romance languages) and account for most PhD-granting programs.
Differences in subgroup means are not an effective way of assessing change through time. Thus, the percentage change in faculty size during the 1990–94 period was calculated for each of the sampled departments. The resulting figures were used to create a threefold classification of departments: those whose faculty size increased, those whose faculty size decreased, and those whose faculty size remained unchanged. To avoid classifying trivial changes an increases or decreases, we considered faculty size unchanged if it differed by less than 5% at the beginning and end of the period. For the average foreign language department, which had 16.5 faculty members in 1989–90, a change of 0.83 positions qualified as an increase or decrease, while a change of 1.85 positions qualified as a meaningful change for the average English department, which had 37 faculty members in 1989–90.
The last section of table 1 indicates that, during the 1990–94 period, faculty size remained unchanged in the majority of PhD-granting English departments and in just over a third of foreign language departments; only a quarter of the latter increased in size. 5 Among foreign language departments, increases in faculty size ranged from 6% to 25% for most departments, or 2.61 positions, on average. Half the foreign language departments experiencing a decrease saw their faculty size decline by 10% to 17%; on average, faculty size declined by 2.63 positions in this group. Of the English departments whose faculty size decreased, the decline ranged from 5% to 9%, which translates into a loss of 3.87 positions, on average. Within the group of departments whose faculty size increased, half experienced increases of 8% to 15%, with all gaining an average of 4.1 positions. These findings suggest that changes in faculty size during the 1990–94 period were often substantial.
The degree to which faculty size changed during the 1990–94 period varies by faculty size in 1989–90. Among both English and foreign language departments, the percentage experiencing a decrease in faculty size increases along with 1989–90 faculty size, while the percentage enjoying an increase tends to decline (see table 2). 6
In addition to asking about the number of tenure-track faculty members departments employed during 1989–90 and 1993–94, we asked respondents about the number of existing positions in their departments that became vacant between 1989–90 and 1993–94, the number of entirely new positions or faculty lines allocated to their departments, and the number of positions their departments were authorized to fill by the administration. Table 3 indicates that during the 1990–94 period retirements led to vacancies in four-fifths or more of the PhD-granting English and foreign language departments; in three-fourths or more, existing positions became vacant for other reasons (e.g., denial of tenure, resignations, deaths). Among foreign language departments with vacancies, the average number created by retirements was 2 and the average number created by other reasons was 2. The equivalent figures for English were 4 and 3, as table 3 indicates. Just over two-fifths of the PhD-granting foreign language departments and just over half of the PhD-granting English departments were allocated entirely new positions or lines by the campus administration during the 1990–94 period. On average, the foreign language departments receiving new positions were allocated 1, while English departments receiving new positions were allocated an average of 3. 7
The last section of table 4 indicates that close to 9 in 10 PhD-granting foreign language departments and almost all English departments were authorized to fill one or more positions during the 1990–94 period; 41.5% of the foreign language departments and 60% of the English departments were authorized to fill all available positions. Of the departments not authorized to fill all positions (58.5% in foreign languages and 40% in English), foreign language departments were authorized to fill two-thirds, on average, and English departments half. Half of the foreign language departments authorized to fill one or more positions were authorized to fill between 2 and 4, while half of similarly situated English departments were authorized to fill between 4 and 8.
The degree to which departments were authorized by the administration to fill all available positions during the 1990–94 period varies by 1989–90 faculty size. Foreign language departments with 15 or more faculty members in 1989–90 were less likely than smaller departments to be authorized to fill all available positions (22% vs. 58%), while English departments with 46 or more faculty members in 1989–90 were less likely than departments with smaller faculties to be authorized to fill all positions (29% vs. 77%). In addition, foreign language departments in private institutions were more likely than those in public institutions to be authorized to fill all available positions (69% vs. 24%). 8 In short, large departments in public institutions were often not authorized to fill all available positions, while small departments in private institutions were frequently authorized to do so.
The discussion thus far has proceeded on the assumption that changes in faculty size, especially decreases, take place independently of changes in enrollments or the number of majors. Yet, a decline in the latter often leads to a decline in faculty size, while an increase in enrollments or majors represents an effective decrease in faculty size if the number of faculty members remains unchanged. In an effort to assess the consequences of changes in students served, we asked respondents about changes during the 1990–94 period in the number of majors and lower-division enrollments.
The first column of table 4 indicates that enrollments in lower-division courses increased in a clear majority of the PhD-granting English departments and decreased in very few. Moreover, the number of majors increased in seven in ten English departments during the 1990–94 period. Although growth was not as marked in PhD-granting foreign language departments, approximately half reported increases in lower-division enrollments and in the number of majors. In all, 28% of the foreign language departments experienced increases in both lower-division enrollments and the number of majors, as did 48% of the English departments. The widespread increase in the number of majors is in keeping with trends in the number of bachelor's degrees granted in modern languages; according to figures published by the National Center for Education Statistics, the number has been increasing in foreign languages since 1988–90 and in English since 1985–86 (288).
Whether lower-division enrollments and the number of majors in a department increased during the 1990–94 period varies by a number of factors. Source of funding affects enrollments in English and the number of majors in foreign languages. The number of foreign language majors is more likely to have increased in public than in private institutions (62% vs. 29%), 9 while lower-division enrollments in English departments are more likely to have increased in public than in private institutions (74% vs. 33%). Faculty size in 1989–90 also affects the likelihood that the number of majors increased during the 1990–94 period. PhD-granting foreign language departments with more than 10 faculty members are more likely than departments with smaller faculties to have experienced an increase in the number of majors (57% vs. 11%). Among English departments the opposite is true: 47% of the departments with more than 46 faculty members in 1989–90 experienced an increased in the number of majors compared with 85% of the smaller departments.
Among PhD-granting English departments, changes in the number of majors are clearly linked to changes in faculty size. Among foreign language departments, in contrast, only one link is evident: departments whose majors declined in number are less likely than other departments to have received entirely new positions during the 1990–94 period (9% vs. 51%). A similar pattern is evident in English. Departments whose majors increased in number are more likely than others to have been allocated entirely new positions (62% vs. 36%). (English departments enjoying growth in their majors were allotted an average of 3.9 new positions during the 1990–94 period.) In addition to being more likely to receive new positions, English departments whose majors increased in number are more likely than those whose numbers of majors decreased to have been authorized to fill all available positions during the 1990–94 period (65% vs. 34%). 10 These findings suggest that PhD-granting departments that can point to growth in their undergraduate major are better able to fill vacant positions and more likely to receive new positions. Growth in lower-division enrollments, in contrast, appears to provide a less persuasive rationale for enlarging a department's regular full-time faculty.
The discussion thus far has indicated that changes in faculty size are linked to changes in the number of majors and lower-division enrollments. Changes in these dimensions also affect other aspects of a department's staffing patterns and course offerings, and the 1994 telephone survey inquired into a number of them; the results are listed in table 5. The right-hand column of the table indicates that during the 1990–94 period approximately half of the PhD-granting foreign language departments increased the number of TAs and part-time faculty members teaching courses and offered fewer sections of some courses. Over 60% of the English departments also increased the number of TAs teaching classes and close to 60% offered some upper-division courses less frequently. For both English and foreign language departments, increases in class size were least frequent. The two kinds of departments clearly differ in two respects: foreign language departments are more likely than English departments to have increased the number of part-time faculty members hired during the 1990–94 period and less likely to have offered fewer upper-division courses.
As one might expect, departments making one kind of change in staffing and course offerings are likely to make another similar change. Thus, both English and foreign language departments offering fewer sections of some multisection courses during the 1990–94 period are more likely than other departments to have offered some upper-division courses less frequently (52% vs. 17% for foreign languages and 84% vs. 38% for English). Foreign language departments that increased the number of part-time faculty members they hired are somewhat more likely than other departments to have increased the number of TAs teaching classes (61% vs. 38%). Although the majority of English departments did not increase average class sizes during the 1990–94 period, those that did increase the average size of composition classes are more likely than others to have increased the average size of upper-division classes (64% vs. 31%).
Some links between class size and the frequency with which courses were offered during the 1990–94 period are also evident. Among foreign language departments, the minority that increased the size of their upper-division classes during the early 1990s are more likely than the departments in the majority to have offered some upper-division courses less frequently. In contrast, foreign language departments that increased the average size of their introductory language classes are less likely than others to have offered fewer sections of some multisection courses. Similarly, English departments that increased the average size of their upper-division courses are somewhat less likely than others to have offered fewer sections of some multisection courses (21% vs. 44%).
Increases in the number of part-time faculty members hired during the 1990–94 period are linked to a number of changes in modern language course offerings. Among PhD-granting foreign language departments, those that increased the number of part-time faculty members hired are less likely than others to have offered fewer sections of some multisection courses (32% vs. 67%) and somewhat less likely to have offered fewer upper-division courses (22% vs. 46%). Similarly, foreign language departments that increased the number of TAs teaching classes during the 1990–94 period are less likely than others to have offered fewer upper-division courses (18% vs. 48%). PhD-granting English departments that increased the number of part-time faculty members hired are less likely than other departments to have increased the average size of their upper-division classes (10% vs. 43%) or the average size of their composition classes (0% vs. 21%). In short, modern language departments unable to increase the number of temporary faculty members hired during the 1990–94 period were more likely than other departments to change their course offerings.
Respondents also indicated whether their departments made changes in staffing patterns and course offerings because of a shortage of full-time faculty members. Table 6 shows that approximately 30% of the PhD-granting English and foreign language departments made changes in response to a shortage of faculty members, while 30% of the respondents from English departments and 18% of those from foreign language departments said the changes were partially a result of faculty shortages. Thus, approximately half of the PhD-granting foreign language departments and three-fifths of the English departments made changes at least in part because of a shortage of full-time faculty members.
Foreign language departments that made at least some changes because of faculty shortages are more likely than other foreign language departments to have offered some upper-division courses less frequently during the 1990–94 period (53% vs. 22%). The same is true of English departments; 82% of those making changes because of faculty shortages offered fewer upper-division courses, compared with 24% of the departments making changes for other reasons. English departments making changes because of shortages are also more likely than others to have offered fewer sections of some multisection courses (49% vs. 23%). These findings suggest that during the 1990–94 period departments were most likely to cope with a shortage of full-time faculty members by offering fewer courses. In part this may have occurred because the financial constraints of the early 1990s often prevented staffing increases of any kind. Such a conclusion is in keeping with a finding reported above: foreign language departments unable to hire larger numbers of part-time faculty members were more likely than others to offer fewer courses.
Changes in lower-division enrollments played an important role in whether departments made changes in course offerings and staffing during the 1990–94 period, as tables 7 and 8 make clear. Doctorate-granting foreign language departments whose enrollments increased are more likely than other foreign language departments to have increased the number of TAs teaching each year and less likely to have offered fewer sections of some multisection courses or fewer upper-division courses. Among English departments the pattern is similar: those whose lower-division enrollments increased are more likely than other English departments to have increased the number of part-time faculty members hire each year and the average size of composition classes, but less likely to have offered fewer sections of some multisection courses and fewer upper-division courses. These findings suggest that growth in lower-division enrollments is associated with the employment of larger numbers of temporary staff, be they TAs or part-timers, and with a greater ability to maintain both upper- and lower-division course offerings.
The findings discussed above indicate that when temporary staff could not be hired during the 1990–94 period, English departments tended to increase class sizes, while foreign language departments tended to offer fewer courses. Further analysis reveals that foreign language departments whose faculty size decreased during the 1990–94 period are more likely than others to have offered some upper-division courses less frequently (see first row of table 9), while English departments in the same situation are more likely than others to have increased the size of their composition courses (53% vs. 8%).
A decrease in faculty size during the 1990–94 period is not associated with a concurrent increase in temporary staff members teaching modern language classes. In fact, the reverse is true for foreign languages: departments whose faculty size decreased are less likely than others to have increased the number of TAs teaching classes (see second row of table 9). These findings suggest that during the 1990–94 period PhD-granting modern language departments were not hiring either TAs or part-timers in place of the full-time tenure-track faculty members they were unable to hire. Although such a conclusion applies to all English departments, it applies only to smaller foreign language departments. Table 10 indicates that departments with 15 or more full-time tenure-track faculty members in 1989–90—they account for 51% of those departments whose faculty size decreased during the 1990–94 period—are more likely than departments with fewer tenure-track faculty members to have increased the number of part-time faculty members hired during the 1990–94 period but less likely to have offered fewer sections of some courses. It seems, therefore, that foreign language departments with large tenure-track faculties were often able to maintain their lower-division course offerings by hiring larger numbers of part-time faculty members during the 1990–94 period. Foreign language departments with smaller faculties, however, were not able to do so.
Some changes in the staffing patterns and course offerings of English and foreign language departments vary by two other factors. English departments whose majors increased in number are less likely than others to have offered fewer sections of some courses (17% vs. 87%), while foreign language departments whose majors decreased in number are much less likely than others to have increased the number of TAs teaching classes during the 1990–94 period (0% vs. 59%). In addition, as institutional size increases, the percentage of foreign language departments raising the average size of their upper-division classes during the 1990–94 period grows.
|
Institutional Size
(No. of Students) |
Percentage Increasing
Upper-Division Class Size (No. of Depts.) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Medium-sized (12,000 or fewer) | 0.0 | (18) |
| Large (12,001–25,000) | 17.8 | (29) |
| Very large (25,001 or more) | 36.7 | (32) |
Since modern language departments had to meet the challenges of the early 1990s in the context of campus-wide fiscal constraints, their experiences may be typical of humanities departments. We asked respondents to indicate the degree to which this was the case on their campuses; foreign language respondents were also asked how typical their experience was in comparison with that of other modern language departments.
Almost all foreign language departments that responded to the question are specialized (i.e., they offer courses in one to two languages or a family of languages); approximately 70% said their experience was typical of at least some other language departments on their campuses, as the first section of table 11 indicates. Understandably, foreign language departments responsible for all language instruction at their institutions did not answer either part of the question (n=14). The degree to which foreign language respondents deem their departments' experiences similar to other language departments varies by two factors. Respondents in departments with fewer than 10 faculty members are less likely than those in larger departments to describe their experiences as typical of at least some other language departments (38% vs. 80%). In addition, respondents in departments whose faculty size decreased during the early 1990s are more likely than those in departments whose faculty size increased to say that their departments' experiences are typical of language departments on campus (86% vs. 51%). 11 These findings suggest that the recent experiences of the specialized foreign language departments included in the survey samples, especially programs with large faculties or with faculties that declined in size during the early 1990s, were typical of the experiences of language departments on their campuses.
The second section of table 11 indicates that the experiences of the specialized foreign language departments queried are typical of other humanities departments too; approximately 70% of the respondents say that their departments' experiences during the early 1990s are typical of at least some other humanities departments on their campuses. As might be expected, respondents from departments offering commonly taught languages are more likely to say their experiences are typical than those from departments offering less commonly taught languages (90% vs. 25%). 12
Respondents from English departments are as likely as those from foreign language departments to say their recent experiences are typical of other humanities departments on their campuses; 72% say their experiences are typical of at least some humanities departments, as table 11 indicates. These findings, along with those from foreign languages, suggest that during the early 1990s many humanities departments faced the challenge of serving more students with fewer faculty members.
Have departments in other fields had to cope with similar challenges? In an effort to gain some insight into this matter, we asked respondents the following question: “During the last few years, have humanities departments on your campus been more severely affected by campus budgetary constraints than those in the social and natural sciences?” The last section of table 11 indicates that 49% to 58% of the English and foreign language respondents agreed that humanities departments have been harder hit. If one ignores the respondents who were unable to offer an assessment and the few on campuses without fiscal constraints, the percentage believing the humanities have been more severely affected by budgetary constraints climbs to 56% for English and 71% for foreign languages.
Whether respondents say that the humanities have been harder hit than the social and natural sciences by institutional budget constraints varies by several factors. Among English respondents, those in institutions with fewer than 12,000 students were less likely than those in large institutions to say the humanities have been disproportionately affected (19% vs. 71%). Among foreign language respondents, those in departments whose faculty size decreased during the 1990–94 period are more likely than those in other departments to say that the humanities have been more severely affected than the sciences by budgetary constraints (92% vs. 59%). A similar pattern is evident among English respondents, though it is not as pronounced (72% vs. 52%). These findings suggest that, at least in the eyes of most foreign language faculty members and English faculty members in larger institutions, the humanities have been more severely affected than the social and natural sciences by budgetary constraints.
Changes in the size of the full-time tenure-track faculties in PhD-granting modern language departments during the 1990–94 period take on added significance when placed against the backdrop of these departments' experiences during the 1980s. Data from two MLA surveys of stratified random samples of English and foreign language programs provide information on faculty size during the 1980s. For the purposes of the comparisons presented here, the 76 PhD-granting English departments included in a 1989–90 survey were weighted by source of funding and institutional type to approximate all PhD-granting English programs. Such weighting was not feasible for foreign languages because the sample used in the 1989–90 survey was constructed differently from the sample used for the telephone survey. 13 Thus, the data from the 122 PhD-granting foreign language departments included in the 1989–90 survey are presented in their original form.
Figures 3 and 4 compare average faculty size during the 1990–94 period with average faculty size during the 1980–90 period. For English the earlier period shows a steady downward trend in average faculty size, while in foreign languages some growth is evident during the 1985–90 period. 14 Table 12, which compares percentage changes in faculty size during the 1990–94 period with percentage changes for the 1980–90 period, provides more detail on changes in faculty size during those fifteen years. The top part of the table indicates that the percentage of PhD-granting English departments whose faculty size decreased during the 1990–94 period is smaller than the percentage of departments experiencing decreases during the 1980s. The percentage of departments enjoying increases in faculty size during the 1990–94 period, however, is also smaller than during the 1985–90 period, largely because the no-change group increased so substantially. These findings suggest that for PhD-granting English departments, faculty size was more stable in the 1990–94 period than in the 1985–90 period.
Among foreign language departments, in contrast, both decline and stability were more marked during the 1990–94 period than during the 1985–90 period; only one-quarter of the departments saw their faculty size increase during the 1990–94 period, compared with 45% during 1985–90. Growth in faculty size during the second half of the 1980s was accompanied by, and may have been fueled by, healthy growth in enrollments in foreign language classes; according to the MLA's periodic surveys, such enrollments grew by 18% during the 1986–90 period and by 8.5% during the 1980–86 period (Brod and Huber 7). Changes in foreign language faculty size during the 1980–90 period suggest that the pattern observed for the 1990–94 period is quite similar to that prevailing during the 1980–85 period, when many college and university budgets were also constrained. In short, many PhD-granting foreign language departments enjoyed modest growth in average faculty size during the second half of the 1980s, but tended to lose faculty lines during the first half of the 1980s and 1990s.
The author is Director of Research for the Modern Language Association.
Choosing the foreign language sample required a two-step procedure because a single doctorate-granting institution often has multiple foreign language programs. (As a result, there are 271 PhD-granting departments in foreign languages, but only 84 institutions with such departments.) We began sample selection by assembling a list of all postsecondary institutions with one or more PhD-granting programs in foreign languages. Two of the institutions were eliminated because their programs were not appropriate to the survey's purposes. 15 Separate lists of public and private institutions, arranged in zip code order, were then created. These procedures ensured the inclusion of a sufficient number of private institutions and institutions from all parts of the country. We identified the institutions included in the sample by choosing every second name on the public and private lists. 16 Thereafter, one PhD-granting department from each of the institutions included in the sample was chosen at random. If the program chosen was one in classics, the next program on the list was used instead because classics departments often face different problems and challenges than those in modern foreign languages. The end result of the sampling process was a systematic random sample of 43 PhD-granting modern foreign language departments, 25 in public institutions and 18 in private institutions. These departments represent 51% of the institutions with PhD-granting foreign language departments (and 16% of all PhD-granting foreign language departments). Once the data were in hand, the responses were weighted by source of funding and institutional type to approximate the distribution of all institutions with PhD-granting foreign language programs.
The first five sections of table A-1 compare the weighted sample and all institutions with PhD-granting foreign language programs on a number of characteristics. The two groups are identical in source of funding and institutional type, an outcome ensured by the weighting process, and equivalent in institutional size, geographic region, and type of language program. Institutions from the south central states are somewhat overrepresented in the sample, a tendency that is counterbalanced by the slight underrepresentation of institutions from the south Atlantic states. Thus, the weighted foreign language sample is representative of all institutions in the United States with PhD-granting foreign language departments.
The last section of table A-1 compares the linguistic focus of the foreign language departments included in the weighted sample with the focus of the programs included in the MLA's 1990 survey of application patterns to doctorate-granting modern language programs (the survey sample included 77% of all US doctoral programs in foreign languages). The key difference between the two distributions is the percentage of programs in the “other” category; it is larger for the weighted sample than for the 1990 survey group. The reason for the discrepancy is that most of the programs included in the “other” group are inclusive (78% for the weighted sample), which means they are responsible for all language instruction at their institutions. Consequently, they loom larger in a sample (like the one used here) in which only one PhD-granting department is chosen from each institution than in a sample (like the one used in the 1990 survey) that includes multiple PhD-granting programs from the same institution. If one excludes the “other” group from consideration, the figures indicate that departments focusing on Spanish and Portuguese and Slavic languages are slightly overrepresented in the weighted sample, while Germanic and Near Eastern languages are slightly underrepresented. If one combines the language categories listed in table A-1 into commonly and less commonly taught languages, one finds that the less commonly taught are slightly overrepresented in the weighted sample (departments focusing on less commonly taught languages represent 30% of the weighted sample and 27% of all PhD-granting foreign language programs). Such differences are trivial, however, and the findings suggest that the linguistic foci of the departments included in the weighted sample are largely representative of those in all PhD-granting language departments. This result is surprising, since the procedures used to construct the sample made such representativeness unlikely.
In sum, the brief analyses presented here suggest that the weighted sample used in the telephone survey discussed in this report is fully representative of the larger group of institutions from which it is drawn. The survey findings, therefore, should provide an accurate picture of current conditions in PhD-granting foreign language departments.
1 As used here, the terms regular faculty and tenure-track faculty are understood to include tenured associated and full professors and all nontenured tenure-track faculty members, most of whom are assistant professors. Further, throughout the report, the unmodified term faculty refers to all full-time regular or tenure-track faculty members.
2 According to the Carnegie Foundation's 1987 classification, doctorate-granting institutions account for only 213 of the 3,389 colleges and universities in the United States. Of these, 142 have PhD-granting programs in English, while only 84 have one or more PhD-granting programs in foreign languages.
3 Research I institutions, according to the Carnegie Foundation classification, differ from other doctorate-granting institutions by the number of PhD degrees they grant annually and the amount of federal funding they receive. All doctorate-granting institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate.
4 Special thanks are due to the MLA staff members (David Goldberg, Josh Klein, Natalia Lusin, Steve Olsen, Karin Bagnall, and Richard Brod) who, with only the briefest notice, willingly made time in their busy schedules to undertake the telephone survey and refused to give up until the last difficult-to-reach respondent had been called. Special thanks are also due to Phyllis Franklin for her very helpful comments on earlier versions of this report.
5 Faculty size remained constant for two-thirds of the foreign language departments in the unchanged group, while the remainder experienced an increase or decrease of less than 5%. Of the English departments in the unchanged group, almost two-thirds had the same number of faculty members in 1993–94 as in 1989–90.
6 The second pattern is more clear-cut among English departments. The percentages presented in table 2 and elsewhere many not sum to 100% because of rounding. In addition, the number of respondents in tables and subtables varies because programs for which information was missing on specific items were eliminated from consideration.
7 As one would expect, foreign language departments experiencing an increase in faculty size during the 1990–94 period are more likely than others to have been allocated one or more new positions (91% vs. 26%). The same is true of English departments (90% vs. 37%). Among the foreign language departments enjoying an increase in size, an average of 2.3 new positions were allocated; in English the equivalent average is 3.7 new positions.
8 Foreign language departments experiencing a decrease in faculty size during the 1990–94 period were less likely than others to be authorized to fill all available positions (8% vs. 56%). The same is true of English departments (15% vs. 71%). As with allocation of new positions, the link between the ability to fill all positions and a decline in faculty size during the 1990–94 period simply reflects the similarity of the two variables.
9 In English an opposite, though less pronounced, pattern is evident: the number of majors in a department is more likely to have increased in private institutions than in public institutions (87% vs. 63%).
10 Of the English departments whose majors remained the same in number, 56% were authorized to fill all available positions.
11 Of the departments experiencing no change in faculty size, 69% said their experience was typical.
12 Respondents from departments offering commonly taught languages are also somewhat more likely than those from departments offering less commonly taught languages to say their experiences are typical of other language departments (74% vs. 50%).
13 The 1994 sample is based on institutions with foreign language departments, while the 1989–90 sample is organized by foreign language department. The second sample includes 122 departments because it includes several PhD-granting departments from a single institution; the first sample includes no more than one department from any institution.
14 The two estimates for mean faculty size in 1989–90 differ for both English and foreign languages because of the different samples used to make the estimates. (The discrepancy is greater for foreign languages than for English because the 1980–90 foreign language data could not be weighted.) The difference in the two estimates does not present a problem as long as one focuses on change in faculty size, as is being done here, rather than on the actual size of the faculties in PhD-granting modern language departments.
15 One institution is atypical because it has a PhD-granting foreign language program in classical languages only, while a second grants PhDs in a school that is independent of the baccalaureate college with which it is affiliated.
16 The starting point in this identification process was chosen at random.
Brod, Richard, and Bettina J. Huber. “Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1990.” ADFL Bulletin 23.3 (1992): 6–10. [Show Article]
Huber, Bettina J. “Recent and Anticipated Growth in Foreign Language Doctoral Programs: Findings from the MLA's 1990 Survey.” ADFL Bulletin 25.1 (1993): 15–35. [Show Article]
National Center for Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics. Washington: GPO, 1992.
|
English
Departments |
Foreign Language
Departments |
|
|---|---|---|
| Average faculty size in 1989–90 | ||
| Mean | 37.0 | 16.5 |
| Median | 35.0 | 13.0 |
| Interquartile range | 25–49 | 11–22 |
| (No. of programs) | (142) | (82) |
| Average faculty size in 1993–94 | ||
| Mean | 37.4 | 16.0 |
| Median | 39.0 | 15.0 |
| Interquartile range | 24–49 | 11–20 |
| (No. of programs) | (142) | (82) |
| Change in faculty size between 1990 and 1994 | ||
| Decrease | 19.5 | 37.5 |
| No change | 51.2 | 37.5 |
| Increase | 29.4 | 25.0 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of programs) | (142) | (82) |
| 1990–94 Change in Faculty Size |
Total (No.
of Depts.) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decrease | No Change | Increase | |||
| English departments | |||||
| 25 or fewer | 0.0 | 57.3 | 42.7 | 100.0 | (39) |
| 26–45 | 8.0 | 51.2 | 40.8 | 100.0 | (51) |
| 46 or more | 45.6 | 46.5 | 7.9 | 100.0 | (52) |
| Foreign language departments | |||||
| 9 or fewer | 22.0 | 78.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | (15) |
| 10–14 | 35.9 | 21.4 | 42.7 | 100.0 | (33) |
| 15 or more | 46.1 | 34.5 | 19.5 | 100.0 | (34) |
|
English
Departments |
Foreign Language
Departments |
|
|---|---|---|
| Did positions become vacant due to retirements? | ||
| Yes | 92.2 | 83.2 |
| No | 7.8 | 16.8 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (142) | (82) |
| Mean | 3.9 | 2.0 |
| Median | 4.2 | 2.0 |
| Interquartile range | 2–5 | 1–2 |
| Did positions become vacant for other reasons? | ||
| Yes | 91.1 | 74.9 |
| No | 8.9 | 25.1 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (142) | (82) |
| Mean | 3.7 | 2.5 |
| Median | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Interquartile range | 1–5 | 1–3 |
| Were entirely new positions allocated by the administration? | ||
| Yes | 52.6 | 41.8 |
| No | 47.4 | 58.2 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (142) | (82) |
| Mean | 3.6 | 1.9 |
| Median | 3.0 | 1.0 |
| Interquartile range | 2–5 | 1–3 |
| Were departments authorized to fill positions? | ||
| Yes | 98.0 | 87.6 |
| No | 2.0 | 12.4 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (142) | (82) |
| Mean | 6.7 | 3.3 |
| Median | 6.0 | 3.0 |
| Interquartile range | 4–8 | 2–4 |
|
English
Departments |
Foreign Language
Departments |
|
|---|---|---|
| During the 1990–94 period enrollments in lower-division courses have | ||
| Increased | 61.2 | 50.8 |
| Remained the same | 33.0 | 19.1 |
| Decreased | 5.9 | 30.1 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (139) | (80) |
| During the 1990–94 period the number of majors has | ||
| Increased | 70.1 | 49.1 |
| Remained the same | 12.6 | 26.9 |
| Decreased | 17.3 | 24.0 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (139) | (78) |
|
English
Departments |
Foreign Language
Departments |
|
|---|---|---|
| Increased the number of TAs teaching classes each year | 64.4 | 49.9 |
| Increased the number of part-time faculty members hired each year | 24.1 | 49.2 |
| Offered fewer sections of some courses | 38.1 | 50.8 |
| Offered some upper-division courses less frequently | 58.1 | 35.2 |
| Increased the class or section size of upper-division classes | 38.4 | 21.4 |
| Increased the average size of freshman composition or introductory language classes | 17.5 | 27.9 |
| (No. of depts. on which percentages based) | (131) | (79) |
|
English
Departments |
Foreign Language
Departments |
|
|---|---|---|
| Were changes the result of a shortage of full-time faculty members? | ||
| Yes | 29.1 | 29.8 |
| In part | 30.0 | 18.3 |
| No | 41.0 | 51.9 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (131) | (75) |
| Lower-Division Enrollments | ||
|---|---|---|
| Increased | Did Not Increase | |
| Increased the number of TAs teaching classes each year | 66.7 | 27.8 |
| Offered fewer sections of some courses | 25.9 | 80.6 |
| Offered some upper-division courses less frequently | 12.5 | 55.6 |
| (No. of depts. on which percentages based) | (41) | (36) |
| Lower-Division Enrollments | ||
|---|---|---|
| Increased | Did Not Increase | |
| Increased the number of part-time faculty members hired each year | 31.2 | 6.7 |
| Increased the average size of freshman composition classes | 27.7 | 0.0 |
| Offered fewer sections of some courses | 27.7 | 60.0 |
| Offered some upper-division courses less frequently | 51.0 | 75.6 |
| (No. of depts. on which percentages based) | (82) | (45) |
| Change between 1990 and 1994 Faculty Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Increased |
Remained
the Same |
Decreased | |
| Offered some upper-division courses less frequently | 9.1 | 18.6 | 67.5 |
| Increased the number of TAs teaching classes each year | 73.4 | 51.0 | 33.1 |
| (No. of depts. on which percentages based) | (21) | (27) | (31) |
| Faculty Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 or less | 10–14 | 15 or More | |
| Increased the number of part-time faculty hired each year | 24.7 | 38.4 | 68.9 |
| Offered fewer sections of some courses | 75.3 | 67.1 | 26.1 |
| (No. of depts. on which percentages based) | (14) | (31) | (34) |
|
English
Departments |
Foreign Language
Departments |
|
|---|---|---|
| Has department's recent experience been typical of | ||
| Other language departments on campus? | ||
| Yes | 46.1 | |
| Typical of some | 24.2 | |
| No | 29.6 | |
| Total | 100.0 | |
| (No. of depts.) | (63) | |
| Other humanities departments on campus? | ||
| Yes | 57.1 | 48.8 |
| Typical of some | 14.5 | 21.7 |
| No | 28.4 | 29.5 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (135) | (63) |
| Have humanities departments been more severely affected by budgetary constraints than those in the social and natural sciences? | ||
| Yes | 48.5 | 58.1 |
| No | 8.9 | 24.5 |
| Cannot say | 10.6 | 15.2 |
| No fiscal constraints | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (142) | (78) |
| Period | Change in Faculty Size |
Total (No.
of Depts.) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decrease | No Change | Increase | |||
| English departments | |||||
| 1980–85 | 34.0 | 42.9 | 23.1 | 100.0 | (114) |
| 1985–90 | 35.1 | 29.1 | 35.9 | 100.0 | (119) |
| 1990–94 | 19.5 | 51.2 | 29.4 | 100.0 | (142) |
| Foreign language departments | |||||
| 1980–85 | 33.0 | 42.0 | 25.0 | 100.0 | (100) |
| 1985–90 | 31.3 | 24.0 | 44.8 | 100.0 | (96) |
| 1990–94 | 37.5 | 37.5 | 25.0 | 100.0 | (82) |
|
Weighted
Sample |
All
Departments |
|
|---|---|---|
| Source of funding | ||
| Public | 61.0 | 61.0 |
| Private | 39.0 | 39.0 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (82) | (82) |
| Institutional type | ||
| Research I | 62.2 | 62.2 |
| Other | 37.8 | 37.8 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (82) | (82) |
| Institutional size (Number of full- and part-time students in fall 1988) | ||
| Medium-sized (12,000 or fewer) | 24.1 | 26.8 |
| Large (12,001–25,000) | 37.0 | 36.6 |
| Very large (25,001 or more) | 38.9 | 36.6 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (82) | (82) |
| Geographic region | ||
| Northeastern states | 33.5 | 31.7 |
| South Atlantic states | 17.0 | 20.7 |
| South Central states | 10.1 | 6.1 |
| Midwest states | 20.7 | 22.0 |
| Rocky Mountain states | 4.1 | 6.1 |
| Pacific Coast states | 14.5 | 13.4 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (82) | (82) |
| Type of program | ||
| Inclusive | 19.3 | 20.7 |
| Specialized | 80.7 | 79.3 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (80) | (82) |
| Linguistic focus a | ||
| Spanish and Portuguese | 14.1 | 12.1 |
| French and Italian | 12.8 | 16.2 |
| Romance Languages | 11.5 | 13.6 |
| Germanic languages | 15.4 | 19.9 |
| Slavic languages | 11.5 | 9.4 |
| Asian languages | 9.0 | 8.4 |
| Near Eastern languages | 2.6 | 5.2 |
| Other degree programs | 23.1 | 15.2 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (No. of depts.) | (78) | (191) |
| a The figures for all institutions in this category are drawn from table 12 in Huber (28). Programs in classics have been eliminated from consideration. | ||
Figure 1:
Mean Number of Faculty Members in PhD-Granting Foreign Language Departments bySource of Funding and Year
Figure 2:
Mean Number of Faculty Members in PhD-Granting Foreign Language Departments by Type and Year
Figure 3:
Mean Faculty Size in PhD-Granting English Departments by Year (1980–94)
Figure 4:
Mean Faculty Size in PhD-Granting Foreign Language Departments by Year(1980–94)
© 1995 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
