Resources: Doctoral Dissertations Bibliography

The Structure and Administration of American Studies Programs in the United States

By D. Melissa Hilbish

At the 1989 American Studies Association convention in Toronto, the National Council of the American Studies Association charged the Office of the Executive Director with conducting a survey of the field of American Studies. The Standing Committee on American Studies Programs, Minority Scholars’ Committee, International Committee, Women’s Committee, and Students’ Committee supported the projects. This report is the result of extensive institutional research on the field of American Studies from 1990 through 1993. The Program Survey focused on the institutional level. Taken with the Individual Member Survey 1990-1991 (see September, 1993, ASA Newsletter) it serves as a point of departure for continuing discussions on the role of American Studies in both academic and non?academic settings, as practiced individually, in an institutional setting, and abroad.

The American Studies Program Survey owes much to previous surveys of the field. Special thanks should go to individuals who have devoted considerable time and energy to understanding and defining American Studies. Their work over the years makes longitudinal comparisons possible. Tremaine McDowell’s 1948 study (American Studies, University of Minnesota Press, 1948) was the first investigation of its kind. McDowell defined the institutional structure and curricular emphases found in fledgling American Studies programs and departments. In 1958, Robert Walker, then of the University of Wyoming, conducted a second, more comprehensive survey, and created the first real directory of American Studies programs. Walker’s final report, American Studies in the United States: A Survey of College Programs (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1958), defined the state of American Studies and examined its institutional patterns, faculty, student representation, and curriculum. In 1973, Charles Bassett of Colby College used Walker’s questionnaire as a point of departure for an undergraduate and graduate survey. The American Quarterly published his findings, which included a comparison to the earlier Walker study, in 1975 (vol. 27, pp. 306-330). Both studies yield insights on the development of the field, its curriculum, methods of teaching, and institutional setting.

The 1992 AQ biennial survey identifies 242 American Studies programs. Approximately 6% (14 programs) offer the Associate degree, 71% (170 programs) offer a Bachelor’s, 18% (42 programs) offer the Master’s, and 12% (28 programs) offer the Doctorate. These programs--and others discovered through additional research--received the 1991-1992 “Survey of American Studies Programs.” Out of the 261 American Studies programs contacted, 62% responded, and 144 (55%) provided extensive information on structure, administration, and curriculum. Over 83% of American Studies programs surveyed grant degrees in American Studies. Seven programs offer the Associate degree, 109 the Bachelor’s, 38 the Master’s, and 26 the Doctorate.

Program Demographics

American Studies programs thrive at both small and large colleges and universities, in various regions of the country, in both urban and rural environments, and internationally. Over half of programs fall into two of seven ranges: those campuses with less than 2,500 students (22.9%) and those with between 10,000 and 20,000 students (27.8%). There are only 11 programs at institutions with over 30,000 students. More than 41% of American Studies programs are located at public state institutions while the number of programs at private institutions has declined from over 50% in 1956, and 54% in 1973, to 35.4% in 1992. A clear majority (85.4%) of programs are currently at coed institutions, with the representation at women’s colleges dropping from 10% in 1972 to only 2.8% in 1992. The decline in the number of women’s colleges nationally partially explains this drop.

At the state level, Massachusetts has the largest number of American Studies programs (16), followed by New York (15), California (9), and Pennsylvania (9). In 1972, New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Texas had the largest numbers of programs (Table 1). The earlier surveys indicated that over 70% of American Studies programs were situated east of the Mississippi with the highest concentration of programs at the regional level in the Mid-Atlantic sector (26.7%), the Midwest (21.7%), the Far West (12.0%), and New England (11.3%). In the current survey, the regional chapters containing the largest number of American Studies programs are New England (15.3%), the South (13.2%), and Mid?America (13.1%). State-by-state comparisons between current figures and the 1973 survey suggest that the New England and Rocky Mountain Regions have increased in the overall percentage of programs represented.

ASA Regional Chapters %

Hawaii .4
Rocky Mountain 1.3
Tennessee-Kentucky 1.3
New England 15.3
Texas 3.4
California 8.9
Southern 13.2
Mid-America 13.1
Great Lakes 11.1
Pacific Northwest 3.3
New York 10.6
Chesapeake 7.2
Mid-Atlantic 8.0
Not Reported 2.1

Table 1: AS Programs: Regional Base in 1992

General Profile of Institutional Structure

The 1992 survey indicated that American Studies programs are administered through three broad models: the Independent Department/Program, the Interdepartmental Program, and Other (Table 2). The number of American Studies programs functioning as independent programs/departments with tenure-track lines specifically in American Studies, independent budgets, curricular control and autonomy grew from 5% in 1956 to 13% in 1972, and finally to 26.3% in 1992. The “interdepartmental” category--programs with at least one course in American Studies, and some control over staffing and budget--contains the largest number of programs (52.7%). The “Other” category reveals a growing trend toward independent, or semi-independent, American Studies programs located within larger interdisciplinary fields, such as the social sciences or humanities.

The programs are coordinated primarily by an independent chair/director appointed by a dean (57.3%), while other programs use the chair and staff of another department (8.4%), a rotating chair appointed by a steering committee (7.0%), or other system. The term length of the chair varies greatly, but most either serve indefinitely (53%) or for three years (25%). Over 32% receive no compensation for administrative duties, while others receive course-load reduction (25%), additional salary (8%), or both course-load reduction and salary increase (21%). Over 50% of programs indicate that the chair works with a steering committee on the administration and staffing of the program. Both the chair and a steering committee, drawn from volunteers and “official representatives” of other programs, may change yearly. Over 74% of the programs responding report that they offer at least one AS-designated course, with 63% offering an introductory course and 49% offering a Junior-Senior Seminar. The program budget comes from a variety of sources depending on the structure of the program.

Comparisons to the 1956 and 1973 surveys reveal some changes in the most prevalent administrative model. Both surveys showed that 40% of American Studies programs exist as “quasi-departments” with curricular control that allowed the program to offer AS-designated courses taught by individuals with a strong philosophical commitment to American Studies, but with little or no control over budget or staffing. In 1973, the administration of 37% of programs came from independent chairs or directors. This marked a significant shift from 1956 when chairs of “traditional” departments (primarily English and history) administered 35% of the programs. In 1956, traditional departments, primarily English and history, most often initiated new American Studies programs, and that trend continued both in 1972 and 1992. The key difference in 1992 is in the variety of programs and faculty contributing to program development and staffing. Women’s Studies, African American Studies, Ethnic Studies, the fine arts, and material culture are now more in evidence as active participants.

Program Models %

Independent department 12.5
Independent program 11.1
Interdepartmental program 52.7
Interdepartmental with AS lines (6.9)
Interdepartmental (6.3)
Interdepartmental with Core (39.5)
Other 14.7
Independent program within larger field (4.9)
AS as concentration (3.5)
Other (6.3)
Not Identifieda 9.0

Table 2: Structure and Administration

The Independent Department/Program

Approximately 24% of American Studies programs function as independent departments/programs with tenure-track lines, independent budgets, curricular control, and autonomy. Independent departments and programs have similar structures and budgets, but the department structure may offer some advantages over the independent program designation from a political and hierarchical standpoint within the institution. The independent program is more likely than the department to use a steering committee of interested volunteers from other departments and programs as part of its administrative structure. The curriculum of the independent program is highly diverse, and is dependent on the areas of specialization of the tenured faculty members. The budget of the independent department/program is more inclusive than that of other administrative structures, and generally contains money for professor salaries, clerical/administrative salaries, teaching/graduate assistant lines (in the graduate programs), travel (though there are increasingly fewer funds), and technical support (supplies, phone, etc.). The independent department/program is also likely to receive money for speakers or lecturers.

The Interdepartmental Program

The interdepartmental program uses the courses and faculty of other departments/programs for its offerings. An analysis of staffing and curriculum helps define the distinctions among the three types of interdepartmental programs. The interdepartmental with tenure lines program (6.9%) has a director, or some staff, tenured specifically (usually part-time) in American Studies, and offers some AS-designated courses. The interdepartmental with core program (39.5%) has AS-designated courses taught by affiliate faculty located in other departments/programs. The interdepartmental program (6.3%) is completely interdepartmental, with courses and faculty drawn from other departments/programs, though it occasionally offers a special topics or directed readings course. All three operate primarily with affiliate and related faculty from other departments/programs. The key administrative distinction lies in the divergence between the department/program of tenure, and the teaching and administrative responsibilities of the faculty. There are some interdepartmental programs that have joint appointments between American Studies and another discipline, but the program cannot hire its own tenured faculty. The issue of release time also complicates the definition, because a director may be tenured in another department, but have partial or full release time from his/her department. These programs often have core AS-designated courses (with an average of 5.7 courses, though most programs offer three or four courses), with the rest of the offerings taught by affiliate faculty or related faculty. Over 63% offer an introductory course and 50% offer some type of junior/senior seminar. Other subject areas most evident in the core courses include advanced research and methods, AS theory and method, literature courses, historical periods courses, and popular culture.

Interdepartmental with Tenure Lines Program

The interdepartmental with tenure lines program is administered by a chair tenured in American Studies, with a curriculum staffed by affiliate faculty with a strong interest in, and commitment to, American Studies. Additional courses are drawn from the offerings of related departments and programs. Over 50% of these programs indicate that they have no budget exclusively designated for American Studies. When a budget is shown, it is in partial salary, usually for the chair, clerical support, limited travel funds, technical support (copying, telephone), and funds for specific projects (lecturers, field trips, film series, etc.). Some have a small independent budget, but most of these programs receive funds through another department, or as a direct allocation from the dean’s office. The chair is usually independent--either appointed by the dean or elected to the position by a steering committee--with the curriculum and staffing provided through a steering committee. Many of these programs have a modest amount of administrative staff support and strong support from affiliate faculty. It is not possible, however, for a junior scholar to make a career specifically in American Studies. Faculty members are tenured in a related field and then become involved in American Studies. The interdepartmental with tenure lines program offers AS-designated courses, usually an introductory course to fulfill both major and general education requirements, special topics courses, and a junior/senior methods course.

Interdepartmental with Core Program

The interdepartmental with core program offers a few AS-designated core courses. It is administered by an independent or part-time director tenured in another department/program who coordinates the activities of a program through release time. Sometimes, the director has a joint appointment between American Studies and a related discipline. The director position rotates among individuals located within departments. These individuals administer the program either formally or informally through a steering committee. The chair is sometimes, though not often, compensated for administrative responsibilities with release time and/or increased salary. These programs operate with a small budget, sometimes with a small independent budget (19%), but more often allocated directly from the dean’s office (30%), or through another departmental budget. Some administrative staff support is generally available to the program, or at least access to another department’s support staff. Faculty salaries come either from another departmental budget or from the dean’s office. The course offerings most often include the introductory course and a junior-senior methods course, and courses in American Studies theory and method, historical periods, literature, popular culture, women’s studies, and ethnic studies.

Interdepartmental Program

Approximately 6.3% of programs are truly interdepartmental, with both the faculty and the curriculum drawn entirely from other departments/programs. This area may be vastly underrepresented in the program survey results due to the nature of the survey instrument. These programs make extensive use of related, or part-time affiliate faculty, and the program is generally administered by a chair who is rarely compensated in any way for his/her time. If there is a budget, it is allocated from the dean’s office or through another department’s budget for small targeted activities such as field trips, honoraria, or travel. The true interdepartmental program is located on the small liberal arts campus. It sometimes exists as a paper program, often to be initiated by the creative student in search of interdisciplinarity. The course offerings are most often drawn from English and history departments.

Other

Independent Program Within Larger Interdisciplinary Field. Since 1990 there has been a growing number of independent American Studies programs housed within a larger area in either the humanities or social sciences. These programs often have faculty with joint appointments, or even tenured lines in American Studies, but they are located within a humanities or interdisciplinary studies department. Some programs experienced this reclassification as a part of campus downsizing efforts, while others sought the relationship between programs as a strategy for solidifying the position of American Studies on the campus. The programs struggling with a forced reclassification sometimes view the new structure as a demotion, or in the words of one program director a “decommission.” This approach to doing American Studies, however, can prove politically and intellectually advantageous. The programs with this structure either have tenured lines in American Studies or are administered by the chair and staff of a larger program or through affiliate faculty. These programs are viewed as separate entities within a larger whole and generally have AS-designated courses. The program budgets are sometimes independent, or the budget is allocated by the chair of the larger program.
Program as Concentration. In 1956, 32% of the American Studies programs were located within traditional departments, or under a division. This structure is similar to the program type described above except that in 1956 these programs were most likely administered by the chair of the traditional program. The number of programs as concentration in a traditional department dropped from 18% in 1972, and to 3.5% in the current survey.

The Discussion over Structure, Administration, and Staffing

Both the 1958 and 1973 surveys questioned whether there was in fact a particular administrative model representing an ultimate goal for the field of American Studies. The independent department appeared, to some early practitioners, to be the more traditional academic model for American Studies to follow, but practicality demanded the development of alternative administrative structures. Robert Walker concluded in 1958 that while AS-trained Doctorates advocated independent departments of American Studies because of the employment situation, traditional fields would continue to resist their rise. Walker advocated “fiscal and academic autonomy” as a solution for American Studies. This perspective continued in the 1972 survey results with 60% of program directors agreeing on the “validity” of departments (up from 40% in 1958), while only 39% suggested “expediency” in creating this model. Smaller institutions, in particular, cited practical problems of adding another level of bureaucracy at their institutions.

Since 1972 there has been a significant increase in the number of strong interdepartmental programs and a decrease in the establishment of independent departments. Carrying the discussion over desirable models forward to 1992, the distinction between “validity” and “expediency” remains important to the philosophical discussion. The 1992 survey of programs also asked directors to comment on administrative structure. Now, as in 1958 and 1972, practicality, at least in part, defines the administrative goals of American Studies at a particular institution. The perspective of a particular chair is generally highly subjective and contingent, in part, on the type of institution in which he/she is located. Pragmatic considerations sometimes outweigh philosophical preferences as directors distinguish between what is desirable and viable at that institution. While this seems to render the whole issue moot, the discussion over structure goes to the heart of whether a distinctive American Studies methodology and approach is possible, or even desirable. Can American Studies be all things to all people and yet define itself as a distinct field of study? How important is autonomy and control to the development and future of American Studies?

In the 1992 survey, 60% of program directors affirmed the validity of department status as an administrative model. For many program directors, departmental status provides the means for establishing a budget with continuity of personnel and faculty lines, as well as curricular coherence. Departmental status also offers a political designation equal to that of comparable departments and programs on the campus. According to one program director, department status provides “equal standing in college political [budgetary] struggles” and helps with “the attack on the faculty equation of discipline equals department and field equals program.” The interdepartmental director is forced to go “hat in hand” to “traditional” departments and programs asking for release time for faculty, and the availability of faculty to teach basic courses can sometimes prove an insurmountable problem. Another director, while agreeing that it is “easier to recruit across departments as a program,” argues that when “times get tough, departments pull back off faculty commitments to a program,” leaving the American Studies program without adequate resources. The department structure also allows faculty more time and resources to pursue research interests, while providing a more coherent focus for students. The comments of one program director summarize the arguments used by proponents of departmental status: Department status is “essential. People’s hearts are where they get paid. If you want their commitment you have to pay them. It gives you control over your own program and it demonstrates university commitment to the discipline.”

While many program directors identified departmental status as valid, this view was frequently followed by the caveat “but not at this institution. It wouldn’t work here.” The reasons for this are almost identical to the 1972 results: financial problems in higher education, “the dangers of proliferating bureaucracy,” and hostile, or ambivalent, administrators. At the risk of raising the “can American Studies develop a method” debate, some directors question whether American Studies is a definable discipline with its own approach and methodology. The strongest statements against independent status argued that some have tried too hard to make American Studies into a single discipline. It should remain interdepartmental because departments become too insular and often resort to empire building. One program director clearly expressed these sentiments:

Academic departments have a tendency to turn inward developing their own professional culture, vested interests, and social life, and resist the claims of the wider university. American Studies as a field arose to challenge such departmentalism. Yet, at some universities, American Studies departments have succumbed to the very forces they were meant to transcend.

Despite this caution, the director believed in the validity of departmental status because of the control needed over faculty appointments and curriculum to mount a viable integrated program.

For other directors, the interdepartmental structure makes them less visible and therefore less subject to downsizing. Also cited is the possibility of stagnation and retrenchment in a small, tenured American Studies department. To quote one director, “If American Studies is interdisciplinary, the constant effort of moving between disciplines is good for the soul, or the intellect.” An interdepartmental administrative structure also allows for increased flexibility in program offerings and specializations by enabling the program to draw on the strengths of Americanists, and increasingly international studies specialists, all over the campus. Many Association members identify strongly with, and have a philosophical commitment to, American Studies on the national level, but affiliate with more traditional fields (primarily English and history) on the campus. For AS program directors, drawing on this pool keeps the program offerings and specializations innovative and creative.

At the center of the discussion are matters of power and control, or lack of them. All program directors, no matter what current program structure, agree that programs need some control over budget and curriculum to remain viable. The directors identified the “five top major problems facing their American Studies programs” and ranked them (Table 3). The major problems cited in the surveys were virtually the same. These include Budgetary Concerns (44.4%), Inadequate Faculty Size (40.3%), Lack of Release Time for Teaching/Research in AS (31.9%), Lack of Majors (31.9%), and Inadequate Staffing (29.2%). Over 38% of program directors ranked Budgetary Concerns among the top three problems facing the program, and most of the other problems identified also have a financial component. Of note, while Lack of Majors clearly proved a significant impediment to program development, only 9% of program directors identified Declining Student Enrollments as a problem. American Studies courses tend to fulfill university/college general education requirements so enrollments are not generally a problem. Despite horror stories about unfriendly deans dismantling American Studies programs, surprisingly few program directors identified hostile administrators as a major problem, citing instead benign neglect at the heart of many of the suggested problems.

Problem %

Budgetary Concerns 44.0
Inadequate Faculty Size 40.0
Lack of Majors 32.0
Lack of Release/Support Time for Teaching AS 32.0
Inadequate Staffing 30.0
Lack of Financial Support for Students 23.0
Lack of Financial Support from Administrators 21.0
Lack of Support for Professional Development 19.0
Lack of College/University Support 19.0
Lack of Space 19.

Table 3: Top Problems Facing American Studies Programs, Rounded-in Percent

Program directors also caution against defining an American Studies career entirely as a pedagogical issue, and insist that personal scholarship in American Studies is always possible. In the 1992 survey, most programs indicate that the emphasis, particularly in large public schools, remains on scholarship over teaching or service. Although 42% of the surveys suggested that an assistant professor could not make a career in American Studies (35% wrote that it was possible, and 23% did not answer the question), many also commented on the potential for AS scholarship and participation at the national level. This raises two related issues. How is American Studies scholarship assessed at institutions as a part of the tenure and promotion process, particularly for those tenured in other departments? And, how does the structure of programs influence the AS job market?

Over 70% of the institutions surveyed in 1973 reported that a junior faculty member could not expect to make a career in American Studies. The 1973 survey identified “divided loyalties” between departments of tenure and interest in American Studies as a problem for those trying to develop and participate in a distinctive discipline of American Studies. This is still a problem in 1992. In many institutions the department of tenure is reluctant to grant release time for participation in an interdepartmental American Studies program without compensation of some type. An additional concern relates to how promotion and tenure are determined. Only 37% of program directors indicated that “equal” credit with other fields was accorded work in American Studies by traditional departments, while 19% indicated no credit toward promotion and tenure for work in American Studies. Of note, 50% either did not know how work in American Studies affected tenure and promotion, or did not answer the question. These statistics suggest that further research is necessary.

Also of concern is the AS job market. A small survey of job seekers in American Studies reveals some potential problems. Because of the small number of American Studies programs able to hire their own faculty, those with Doctorates in American Studies are competing for positions across the disciplines. In addition, the program surveys suggest that over the last five years many AS programs advertising positions have hired individuals with Doctorates in other disciplines, both traditional and other interdisciplinary fields. Certain external and institutional realities, like the economy and changes in mandatory retirement, have affected, and will continue to affect, the AS job market. The potential job market specifically in American Studies has been an issue through all three surveys. It would appear that the discipline of American Studies is currently, and has always been, possible at the national level through conventions and scholarship, but that at the program level the establishment and staffing of American Studies continue to be a problem.

The strongest theme running throughout the surveys is the strong belief that American Studies continues as a positive influence on education at the local, regional, national, and international level. Program directors concur on the vital role of American Studies on the college/university campus. The main arguments cited include the interdisciplinary role of American Studies in allowing “learning across borders” to explore the relationship among different disciplines. The philosophical statements emphasize both the vital interdisciplinary role of AS in integrating the educational experience of the student and the pluralistic emphasis that exposes the student to a range of materials and approaches. American Studies, noted one respondent, “represents a holistic academic experience, one that emphasizes the organic and functional relationships between parts and whole in American thought and culture. One can thus teach the subject matter of America’s past and present through more than one area.” Several directors believed American Studies to be essential to providing a “unifying principle to the idea of education of Americans.” One program director wrote, “However diversified Americans may be, there still needs to be a commonality for American culture, however it be defined.” The directors believe that American Studies provides the tools necessary for critical analysis. For, as one director expressed it, “In the words of Alfred Kazan, the job of American Studies is to present to students `the great American lay philosophy,’ which restores the connection to form and content, structure and belief, and politics and action.”

Recent trends would suggest that American Studies is a growing, healthy, active field. American Studies programs are receiving both institutional and external support for activities and program development. The University of North Carolina American Studies Curriculum and the Vassar American Studies Program received NEH support for Summer Institutes in 1993. The University of Colorado, Boulder received NEH support for program development. American Studies programs at the University of Minnesota and the College of William and Mary were awarded Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowships. There is considerable evidence of growth in the number of new programs emerging, while more established programs consider offering additional degrees and courses. Membership in the American Studies Association has now passed 4,000, and many Regional Chapters are highly active.

The number of programs offering a minor or no degree in American Studies may be underrepresented in the present survey results. The survey neglected to address this area specifically, and the survey more specifically addressed programs offering a degree in American Studies. Some program directors indicated that the survey did not adequately address their program structure and administration. We followed-up by asking programs to send relevant program materials.
Regional breakdowns have changed considerably since Bassett’s survey. While the New England region remains the same, the other defined regions have changed. In 1972, regions were as follows: Mid-Atlantic: DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA; Border: KY, NC, TN, VA, WV; Deep South: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC; Midwest: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI; Plains: IA, KS, MO, ND, NE, SD; Southwest: AZ, NM, OK, TX; Far West: AK, CA, HI, OR, WA; and Mountain: CO, ID, MT, NV, UT, WY.
Affiliate faculty are either faculty members in the program or committee administrative structure teaching AS courses along with home discipline courses or department/program faculty in other departments or programs identifying themselves as AS faculty and teaching AS courses. Affiliate faculty are generally tenured in another department/program, but devote considerable time to, and have a philosophical commitment to, teaching American Studies. Related faculty are faculty members in other departments/programs who teach courses accepted for credit in American Studies but who identify primarily with another home department (i.e., history or English). These faculty generally teach concentration-area courses or electives.