Anthropology News • May 2009

34

C A R E E R D E V E L O P M E N T

c a r e e r d e v e l o p m e n t

Anthropology Faculty Job Market Report

Anthropology Career DVDs

Praise for Anthropology: Real People, Real Careers

“The AAA careers DVD presents the broad scope of anthropology for introductory stu-dents. It is ideal for students who are new to the discipline. We show it in all our Introduction to Anthropology classes with great success. It provides our more advanced undergraduates with a sense of the possibili-ties that anthropology offers.”

anthony BalzanoChair, Dept of Social Sciences and HistoryProfessor of Anthropology and Sociology

Sussex County Community College

Anthropology: Real People, Real Careers

Beyond Ethnography: Corporate and Design Anthropology

For more information go to www.aaanet.org/publications/AAA-DVDs.cfm.

AAA ONLINE CAREER CENTER

Job ads appearing in print AN repre-sent only a portion of those submitted to AAA for circulation. Many employers seek applicants online only. Visit http://careercenter.aaanet.org/search to explore our comprehensive job listings today.

Kathleen terry-Sharp aaa academic relationS dept

AAA has been increasingly concerned with the academic job market. Anecdotal evidence suggests that faculty lines are being lost and searches cancelled. In one instance, a position had been offered, negotiated and accepted. Shortly thereafter, the offer was rescinded and the faculty line taken. Several members reported hearing that searches were being “paused” or suspended indefinitely. In response, we have gathered information on what has happened with academic jobs over the past 18 months.

Jobs ads posted through the online AAA Career Center declined by 19% (199 jobs) from 2007 to 2008, and applicants using the Career Center declined by 11% (223 applicants). Data for the current job cycle is even more alarming. From September 2008 through February 2009, we expe-rienced a 22% decline in both jobs posted and applicants using the center, compared to the same period in 2007–08. Seeking additional infor-mation, we conducted a short survey of depart-ment chairs in February 2009, inquiring about current faculty searches over the past 18 months, including suspended and cancelled searches, and about faculty lines lost over the past three years.

The survey was sent to 493 anthropology programs, with a 43% response rate. The respon-dents were largely from public institutions (69%) and represented PhD granting programs (58%); 15% represented master’s granting programs, 24% four-year bachelor’s and 3% community colleges. Collectively, they reported 125 active searches: 50% in cultural anthropology, 18% in archaeology, 13% in physical anthropology, 7% in linguistic anthropology and 11% in “other.” Of the current searches, 93% are in public institutions, and 14% of respondents reported paused, frozen or suspended searches—largely in public institutions (92%) and with the same subdisciplinary distribution. Of the paused searches, 59% were in PhD granting programs, 20.5% in master’s programs, 18% in bachelor’s programs and 3% in community colleges.

Of those who responded, 12.3% indicated they have cancelled searches in the past 18 months. Again, the majority were in public institu-tions (93%), affecting cultural positions (43%), followed by physical anthropology (27%) and archaeology (20%) positions. Also, the majority of the cancelled searches were in PhD granting programs (47%), followed closely by master’s

(40%) and bachelor’s granting programs (13%). No community colleges reported cancelled searches. Respondents indicated that 41% of cancelled searches were suspended prior to conducting pre-visit interviews, 32% prior to campus visits, 18% after candidate short lists were determined and 9% after the individual was selected or the position offered.

In terms of existing positions, 18.4% of respon-dents indicated that they have lost faculty lines in the past three years (totaling 73.5 faculty posi-tions) in cultural (57%), “other” (18%), physical (12%) and linguistic anthropology (9.5%), and archaeology (2%). The vast majority were in PhD granting programs (78%); only 16% of master’s and 6.8% of bachelor’s degree granting programs reported losing faculty lines, and no community colleges reported losing positions. Respondents providing verbatim comments suggested that 27% see steady growth in their faculty, 40% feel that they are stable and 20% indicate that they are having difficulty or face losing faculty lines. Additionally, 30% observed that the situa-tion seems to be rapidly deteriorating and 40% believe the next 2–3 years will be difficult.

Survey results paint a rather bleak picture for academic jobs, particularly in public PhD granting programs, but we cannot yet know what this means in the long term. Data from the AAA Career Center suggest that 2009 may well be a difficult year for academic programs and job seekers, but without data from previous years, we do not have an accurate gauge of the severity of the situation. AAA will conduct this survey again in the fall and spring in an effort to get additional comparative data. We thank all departments who responded to the survey, and encourage you to see additional information at www.aaanet.org/resources/departments. If you have any comments regarding the current job climate, please send them to academic@aaanet.org. We will make additional data and informa-tion available as we receive it.

2009–10 AAA Guide

Get the biggest bang for your buck by using abbreviations (see approved list available at www.aaanet.org) and making sure you’re not duplicating information. Be sure to review your price before finalizing your profile to stay within your budget.

remember, you are not charged for providing statistical or dissertation data. This information is collected as a service to the discipline. AAA has been compiling statistical data in the Guide since 1962.

Increase your profile!

Listing in the Guide provides

information about your institution or

program to a wide audience.

deadline: may 31For more information go to

www.aaanet.org/publications/guide.cfm.

May 2009 • Anthropology News

35

C A R E E R D E V E L O P M E N T

Access the PDF of the full COSWA report: www.aaanet.org/cmtes/coswa/COSWASurveys.cfm

Keri Vacanti Brondo U memphiS

linda a Bennett U memphiS

The AAA Committee on the Status of Women in Anthropology (COSWA) recently produced a report on the gendered dimensions of applied and practicing anthropologists’ work envi-ronments (see www.aaanet.org/cmtes/coswa). Based on a 78-question survey, the report examines work climate, including career satis-faction, mentoring, advancement and work-family issues; and the status of practicing anthropology, including career trajectories and the perceived “rift” between academics and practitioners. The survey was developed by a mix of full-time practitioners employed outside of academia and faculty members of applied anthropology departments: Keri Brondo, Annie Claus, Carol Colfer, Carla Guerron-Montero, Micki Iris, Ed Liebow, Barbara LeMaster, Eve Pinsker, Trudy Turner and Christina Wasson. It was administered late 2007, and analysis was completed by Linda Bennett, Keri Brondo, Cindy Martin and four graduate students.

Of the 437 respondents, 69% were women and 31% men. Most were between 30 and 69 years of age, reported a Caucasian heritage (84%) and held a PhD (64%). Seventy-four percent of respondents were married or in a domestic partnership, the majority of whom were men (86% men versus 56% women). Respondents were employed in a variety of sectors: 38% in private/for-profit organiza-tions, 31% in government, 22% in nonprofit, and 9% listing “other” (eg, consulting or retire-ment). Personal income levels were normally distributed, with the majority (28%) earning $50,000-$79,000 a year. Many respondents (49%) earned income through two or more sources over the previous two year period, suggesting the trends for practitioners to work multiple contracts simultaneously or teach in addition to full-time employment.

Career Trajectories Practitioner career trajectories are rarely linear. In planning their careers, practicing anthro-pologists reported that obtaining job security, opportunities for professional advancement, job satisfaction and work-family balance are very important. Many reported teaching as a primary work activity, meaning that although many

Gendered Dimensions of Applied Work EnvironmentsCOSWA Survey Report

practitioners are not academically employed full-time, they are contributing to the educa-tion of anthropology students. In fact, respon-dents reported that their initial entry into the world of anthropological practice (beyond the academy) was facilitated by networks that origi-nated in their home anthropology departments when they were students, which suggests that anthropology programs should help develop students’ professional networking skills.

Work Climate Respondents reported signs of positive work climate, including gender equality in hours worked and mentoring. Key areas for improve-ment were the ratio of men to women employed in management and administration positions, and mentoring practices. Particular sectors of employment reported to overrepre-sent men in management include engineering, international development, fisheries, military, national park services and cultural resource management. Minorities tend to be under-represented in top administrative and mana-gerial positions, and are perceived to be more often relegated to field work, tech or support roles. Mentoring relationships are less often

developed for women practitioners than for men. Moreover, many prac-ticing anthropologists work for orga-nizations that do not offer formal mentoring programs, and therefore employees rely on informal networks to develop mentor-mentee relationships.

In addition to gender, respondents reported that a variety of factors influence percep-tions of work climate, including family status, race and ethnicity, age and disciplinary back-ground. Age is a factor that can cut both ways; in certain fields of employment (eg, interna-tional development, national park service, the military) older and more experienced employees are preferred, whereas in other fields (eg, advertising) younger employees are preferred. As in COSWA’s 2005 survey of academia, women practitioners were more likely than men to face a “chilly climate” in their place of employment.

Work and FamilySurvey respondents reported weak “family-friendly” work policies, with less than half employed in organizations with formal leave policies. Most respondents rely on informal practices to attend to familial responsibili-ties. Although managers reported scheduling work activities at times that do not conflict with caregiving, respondents noted animosity from co-workers without such responsibili-ties. Observations about the impact of family responsibilities on hours worked or percep-tions of work climate were not gendered; both women and men reported facing the same issues in achieving a work-family balance.

Recommendations and ReflectionsRespondents to this 2007 survey reported deep dissatisfaction with programs and services provided by the AAA, although there is some recognition of recent change. Principally, the organization is perceived as catering to academic anthropologists and lacking rele-vance to the work experiences of practitioners. Key recommendations for the AAA include: (1) increase sessions at the annual meetings that address the career interests and research exper-tise of practicing anthropologist; (2) expand opportunities for students to build profes-sional skill sets; (3) support career services and interviewing for non-academic positions at AAA meetings and online; and (4) increase the representation of practitioners within American Anthropologist and other AAA publications. AAA is pursuing initiatives to address these issues, such as adding gray literature reviews to American Anthropologist, anticipated in spring 2010. As with our 2005 academic survey, a vast majority of respondents wrote with great passion about the work they do and reported general satisfaction with their career paths.

Please send comments and questions about this COSWA survey to Keri Vacanti Brondo (kbrondo@memphis.edu) or Linda Bennett (LBennett@memphis.edu).

http://

Many reported teaching

as a primary work activity,

meaning that although

many practitioners

are not academically

employed full-time,

they are contributing

to the education of

anthropology students.

Anthropology News • May 2009

36

C A R E E R D E V E L O P M E N T

Doing Anthropology Well?Panels and Proposals

deBorah WinSloW national Science FoUndation

I am here to report that the fight continues. Fresh from skirmishes at two proposal review panels, I say with confidence that cultural anthropolo-gists reserve the right to disagree. We have yet to bridge the gap between those who do “cases-and-interpretations” anthropology (as Renato Rosaldo once described the work of Clifford Geertz) and those who stay resolutely focused on grander theory designed to reveal the political and economic realities of contemporary human life or contribute to Science-writ-large. Others may disagree, but I think the persistence of difference is less the sign of an immature science (as some allege) than of an ambitious science that resists inappropriate simplifications.

For me, a clarifying moment came during a panel meeting. Regional and theoretical special-ists were arguing the merits of a beautifully designed but relatively detachable-from-context research project. None of the combatants would

give way. The regional specialists insisted that the researcher should speak the local language and engage with the abundant ethnography relevant to the project. The theoreticians argued that the context was salient but not exclusively so because the project’s goal was to investigate possible human universals by employing an experimental methodology. The outcome was (eventually) a draw, and perhaps that is as it should be.

It is rare that the most highly rated proposals are so controversial. These proposals cover all the bases: great ethnographic engagement, good language skills, deep knowledge of both the local situation and larger theory, research questions of importance beyond the case at hand, and a care-fully wrought and well-explained research design. Cultural anthropology is difficult to do well, but much more often than one might anticipate, reviewers and panelists of all stripes agree on excel-lence when they see it. So, as you hand in your final grades or term papers, and turn to writing excellent research proposals for the August 15 target date, I suggest you consider again what I wrote in AN almost two years ago (October 2007). I repeat here selected portions of that column, which my most recent experience suggests still apply in full.

What Is a Meritorious Proposal?There are six key ingredients to a strong proposal: an interesting research question, good contextual-ization in relevant literature, appropriate research design, clear analysis plan, qualified researcher and potential contribution beyond the research community (NSF’s “broader impacts”). Panelists enjoy proposals that put forward intriguing ques-tions or methodologies. They dislike proposals

that simply extend a well-worn topic into yet another context. Panelists prefer engagement with the particular ethnographic context in which the research will be conducted, but have reservations about projects so ethnographically grounded as to produce only a case study, unless the research would fill a significant ethnographic gap or the researcher brings a unique richness of experience.

Panelists particularly dislike projects designed to illustrate foregone conclusions. A proposal that begins, “In this research, I will show…” elicits only groans. One that convincingly argues that the researcher will tackle an important puzzle in a novel and promising way incites interest, espe-cially if the results may be generalized beyond a particular context and thereby contribute to building social science knowledge generally. NSF reviewers also demand explicit plans for answering the intriguing questions. They recog-nize that anthropologists employ an extraordi-narily wide variety of methods, but they want to be convinced that methodology has been consid-ered carefully and that the methods chosen are

appropriate to the questions being investigated. Finally, reviewers want to know in detail how the data produced—surveys, notes, networks, recordings, informant maps, GIS points, what-ever—will be analyzed to address the research questions, including bringing in specialists if needed as part of the research team.

Hypotheses?There is no gainsaying the tension in anthro-pology today between advocates of quantitative versus qualitative approaches, paralleling in part a division between seekers of general laws and those who give primacy to contingency, description and history. My experience is that reviewers and panelists find merit in all of this. But however the data are gathered, and whatever the goals, panel-ists also want to know that the researcher will subject findings to systematic scrutiny, including consideration of competing explanations.

Overall, I think that a good NSF proposal has the virtues of traditional anthropological research—long-term engagement, good language skills, lots of listening to one’s informants. But in addition, NSF, perhaps more than other funders, asks for reflection on how conclusions are reached and their more general significance. This meth-odological self-consciousness may be less than second nature for many of us, but it also has the potential to enrich our contributions to social science. Happy proposal writing! As always, do not hesitate to contact me if I can help.

Do you have a question about NSF funding for Deborah Winslow? Feel free to contact her at dwinslow@nsf.gov or 703/292-7315.

G A T E W Ay T O N S F

G R A N T R E C I P I E N T S

To be included in a future Grant Recipients column, sub-mit your grant information and photo to Jona Pounds at jpounds@aaanet.org.

National Science Foundation For more information on NSF grants go to www.nsf.gov.

Lisa Cliggett (U Kentucky) received a grant for her workshop “Tonga Timeline:

Appraising 60 Years of Multidisciplinary Research in Southern Province, Zambia,” which brought together a multidisci-plinary group of scholars to capture the breadth and depth of knowledge on Tonga-speaking popu-

lations, starting with the seminal work of Elizabeth Colson in the 1940s. Since 2004, NSF has funded a variety of Cliggett’s projects, including a collaboration with Jon Unruh (McGill U) and Roderick Hay (CSU Domiguez Hills) that examines migration, land tenure insecurity and environmental change, and a collaboration with Deborah Crooks (U Kentucky) that looks at food and livelihood security in the migrant context.

Jerome Crowder (U Houston) was awarded two consecutive collaborative grants for “Understanding and Optimizing Wireless Mobile Computing for Underserved Urban Communities.” The driving vision behind the project is to develop a wireless mobile computing paradigm consisting of a cost-effective wireless broadband network, mobile phones and relevant applications for under-served urban communities. To date, 3G cellular networks and other resources provide an initial thrust toward this vision. However, this para-digm invites drastically different user expe-riences and usage patterns from both tradi-tional personal computing and cellular tele-phony. The first grant was awarded in 2007 and Crowder’s collaborators were Lin Zhong (Rice U) and Edward Knightly (Rice U). Philip Kortum (Rice U) and Will Reed (Technology for All) joined the team for the second grant.

Kirk Dombrowski (CUNY John Jay C) received a Faculty Scholars Award for his project

“Stochastic Modeling of IDU Network Factors for HIV Stabilization Dynamics,” which ex-plores why HIV infection rates among injecting drug users frequently stabilize at levels below saturation, despite the

ongoing presence of risk factors and recur-rence of new infections in uninfected portions of the community. The project looks for local level structural factors and social relationship