U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2006-176 

2004 National Study 

of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04)

Background Characteristics, 

Work Activities, and 

Compensation of Instructional 

Faculty and Staff: Fall 2003 

E.D. TAB 

December 2005 

Emily Forrest Cataldi 

Ellen M. Bradburn 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

Mansour Fahimi 

RTI International 

Linda Zimbler 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics 

Mark Schneider 

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, 

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional 

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of 

education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning 

and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical 

systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high 

quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education 

policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating 

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or 

report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to: 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

December 2005 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the 

NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog address shown above. 

Suggested Citation 

Cataldi, E.F., Bradburn, E.M., and Fahimi, M. (2005) 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04): Background Characteristics, Work Activities, and Compensation of Instructional Faculty and 

Staff: Fall 2003 (NCES 2006-176). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 

Content Contact 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov
iii 

Foreword 

This E.D. TAB is the second publication based on the 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). NSOPF:04 includes faculty and instructional staff who were 

employed in 2- and 4-year degree-granting institutions in the United States in the fall of 2003. 

The first E.D. TAB (Cataldi, Fahimi, and Bradburn 2005) covered the entire population of 

faculty and instructional staff in NSOPF:04, including faculty with no instructional 

responsibilities for credit in fall 2003. This E.D. TAB, however, includes only faculty and staff 

who had instructional responsibilities in fall 2003, and details their demographic characteristics, 

faculty status, instructional activities, and compensation by employment status, institution type, 

and program area. 

NSOPF:04 is the fourth in a series of data collections on postsecondary faculty conducted 

by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The first was conducted in 1987–88, the 

second in 1992–93, and the third in 1998–99. Readers should consult appendix B of this E.D. 

TAB for more technical information about NSOPF:04. 

The estimates presented in this E.D. TAB were produced using the NCES Data Analysis 

System (DAS), a web-based table-generating application that provides the public with direct, 

free access to NSOPF data as well as other postsecondary datasets collected by NCES. The DAS 

produces the design-adjusted standard errors necessary for testing the statistical significance of 

differences in the estimates (all differences reported in the text are statistically significant at the 

.05 level). Public-access data files and descriptive reports for this and other postsecondary 

datasets collected by NCES are available at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS. 
iv 

Acknowledgments 

We would like to acknowledge the support of many individuals in the production of the 

2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) and this E.D. TAB based on its data. 

NSOPF:04 was conducted by RTI International and MPR Associates for the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES). At RTI International, Margaret Cahalan, who was succeeded by 

Patricia Green, served as project director for NSOPF:04. Also at RTI, Ruth Heuer and Thomas 

R. Curtin conducted extensive work on instrumentation and preparation of data files; Kimberly 

Ault and Darryl Creel conducted sampling, weighting, and imputation analyses; Lisa CarlyBaxter managed faculty telephone interviews; Marjorie Hinsdale-Shouse managed data 

collection; Donna Jewell managed data collection and processing procedures; and Brian Kuhr 

oversaw institutional contacting and response. We appreciate the hard work of many 

interviewers and others at RTI too numerous to mention, and the faculty and instructional staff 

who took the time to complete NSOPF:04. 

At MPR, Stephanie Nevill and Joanna Wu, with assistance from Stephen Lew, were 

responsible for programming and documenting the derived variables. Vicky Dingler prepared 

and created the Data Analysis System files with support from Joanna Wu and Terence Lew. John 

Vavricka oversaw the web publication process. Barbara Kridl, Patti Gildersleeve, and Annabelle 

Yang prepared this E.D. TAB for publication. 

At NCES, Linda Zimbler made significant improvements through her careful oversight of 

every phase of the project. Additional substantive and technical reviews of this E.D. TAB were 

conducted at NCES by Paula Knepper, Marilyn Seastrom, Dennis Carroll, James Griffith, and 

Tracy Hunt-White. 

The final E.D. TAB was also carefully reviewed by Duc-Le To, Institute for Education 

Sciences; Michael P. Cohen, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Peggye Cohen, George 

Washington University; Martin Finkelstein, Seton Hall University; Zackary McLain, Education 

Statistics Services Institute; James Palmer, Illinois State University; Richard C. Richardson, Jr., 

New York University; and Larry E. Suter, National Science Foundation. We appreciate their 

time and dedication to improving this E.D. TAB. 
v 

Contents 

Page 

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... iii 

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... iv 

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. vi 

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

Selected Results ......................................................................................................................... 3

References.................................................................................................................................. 7

Tables.......................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 41

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. 51

Overview ............................................................................................................................... 51 

Sample Design....................................................................................................................... 51 

Data Quality Procedures........................................................................................................ 56 

Data Analysis System............................................................................................................ 64 

Statistical Procedures ............................................................................................................ 66 
vi 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 Percentage distribution of instructional faculty and staff, by employment status, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 11 

2 Average age and percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by 

institution type and program area: Fall 2003 .................................................................. 12 

3 Average age and percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, 

by institution type and program area: Fall 2003 ............................................................. 13 

4 Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 14 

5 Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 15 

6 Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 16 

7 Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 17 

8 Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by U.S. citizenship 

status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ...................................................... 18 

9 Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by U.S. citizenship 

status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ...................................................... 19 

10 Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by academic rank, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 20 

11 Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by academic rank, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 21 

12 Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by tenure status, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 22 

13 Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by tenure status, 

institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 23 
List of Tables 

vii 

Table Page 

14 Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by highest 

educational credential attained, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003............... 24 

15 Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by highest 

educational credential attained, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003............... 25 

16 Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by principal 

activity, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................... 26 

17 Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by principal 

activity, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................................................... 27 

18 Average number of hours instructional faculty and staff reported working per week at 

all jobs, by employment status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003............... 28 

19 Among full-time instructional faculty and staff, average percentage of time spent on 

various activities at the institution, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003 ..... 29 

20 Among part-time instructional faculty and staff, average percentage of time spent on 

various activities at the institution, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003 ..... 30 

21 Average number of classroom hours and student contact hours per week in for-credit 

classes for full-time instructional faculty and staff, by institution type and program 

area: Fall 2003................................................................................................................. 31 

22 Average number of classroom hours and student contact hours per week in for-credit 

classes for part-time instructional faculty and staff, by institution type and program 

area: Fall 2003................................................................................................................. 32 

23 Average number of publications and presentations in the past 2 years by full-time 

instructional faculty and staff, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003 ............ 33 

24 Average number of publications and presentations in the past 2 years by part-time 

instructional faculty and staff, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003 ............ 34 

25 Average income of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by source of income, 

institution type, and program area: 2003......................................................................... 35 

26 Average income of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by source of income, 

institution type, and program area: 2003......................................................................... 36 

27 Average income from the institution other than basic salary for instructional faculty 

and staff who earned that type of income, by employment status, institution type, and 

program area: 2003.......................................................................................................... 37
List of Tables

viii 

Table Page 

28 Average consulting income for instructional faculty and staff who earned that type of 

income, by employment status, institution type, and program area: 2003...................... 38 

29 Average income from outside the institution other than consulting income for 

instructional faculty and staff who earned that type of income, by employment status, 

institution type, and program area: 2003......................................................................... 39 

Appendix B 

B-1 Distribution of NSOPF:04 institution universe and sample, by control and Carnegie 

Classification................................................................................................................... 53 

B-2 Counts of sampled, eligible, and participating NSOPF:04 institutions with response 

rates, by institution type .................................................................................................. 53

B-3 Counts of sampled, eligible, and responding NSOPF:04 faculty with response rates, 

by institution type............................................................................................................ 55 

B-4 Summary of weight components for NSOPF:04 ............................................................ 57 

B-5 Summary of faculty nonresponse bias analysis for NSOPF:04, by institution type ....... 60 

B-6 Summary of item nonresponse bias analysis for all NSOPF:04 faculty, by institution 

type.................................................................................................................................. 62 

B-7 Standard errors for table 1: Percentage distribution of instructional faculty and staff, 

by employment status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ............................ 65 

B-8 Estimated population counts and percentage distribution of instructional faculty and 

staff, by employment status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003 ................... 66 
1 

Introduction 

This second E.D. TAB based on the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04) describes instructional faculty and staff in public and private not-for-profit 

postsecondary institutions that offered an associate’s or higher degree. The demographic 

characteristics, work activities, and compensation of instructional faculty and staff in fall 2003 

are presented by employment status, institution type, and program area.1 Tables are presented in 

the next section, a glossary of variables is available in appendix A, and information about 

NSOPF:04 data may be found in appendix B. 

NSOPF:04 is the fourth in a series of data collections describing postsecondary faculty and 

instructional staff at 2- and 4-year degree-granting institutions. Previous administrations of 

NSOPF took place in 1987–88, 1992–93, and 1998–99. NSOPF:04 is based on survey data 

collected from a nationally representative sample of about 35,000 faculty and instructional staff, 

using a web-based questionnaire that was either self-administered or conducted via telephone 

with a trained interviewer. About 26,100 faculty and instructional staff completed interviews, 

resulting in a weighted response rate for the faculty component of 76 percent.2 The survey 

respondents represent an estimated 1.2 million faculty and instructional staff in the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. The population of faculty and instructional staff included instructional 

faculty, staff with instructional responsibilities, and faculty with no instructional responsibilities. 

Tables in this E.D. TAB, however, are restricted to instructional faculty and staff—that is, 

faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities that are associated with students earning 

credit, which could include teaching one or more classes for credit or advising or supervising 

students’ for-credit academic activities. In fact, instructional faculty and staff represented about 

90 percent of all faculty and instructional staff in the fall of 2003.3 All comparisons made in the 

text were tested using Student’s t statistic, and all differences cited were statistically significant 

at the .05 level. For more information about the methodology of NSOPF:04, see appendix B. 

 

1 See the glossary (appendix A) for detailed descriptions of the teaching disciplines included in each program area and details 

about institution type, which is derived from the 2000 Carnegie Classification. 

2 See the technical notes for more information on response rates and nonresponse bias analysis. 

3 For convenience, the terms “faculty” and “instructional faculty and staff” are used interchangeably hereafter. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
3 

Selected Results 

• The majority (57 percent) of instructional faculty and staff were employed full time in fall 

2003 (table 1). 

• Instructional faculty and staff who were employed in public doctoral institutions were more 

likely to work full time (78 percent) than those employed in private not-for-profit doctoral 

(68 percent), public master’s and private not-for-profit baccalaureate (63 percent each), 

private not-for-profit master’s (45 percent), public associate’s (36 percent), and other types of 

institutions (50 percent; table 1). 

• Employment status varied by program area at 4-year institutions. About three-fourths of 

instructional faculty and staff who worked in the fields of engineering (79 percent), 

agriculture/home economics, or the natural sciences (77 percent each) were employed full 

time, compared with 50–70 percent of those employed in business, education, fine arts, 

health sciences, humanities, social sciences, and all other fields (table 1). 

• Full-time instructional faculty and staff in all institutions averaged 50 years of age in fall 

2003. The largest proportion of full-time faculty (32 percent) fell between the ages of 45 and 

54, compared with 8 percent who were under 35, some 24 percent who were 35–44, another 

28 percent who were 55–64, 5 percent who were 65–70, and 1 percent who were 71 or older 

(table 2). 

• In fall 2003, part-time instructional faculty and staff were more likely to be under age 35 than 

their full-time peers; 12 percent of part-time faculty (table 3) were under 35 compared with 8 

percent of full-time faculty (table 2). Part-time instructional faculty and staff were also more 

likely than their full-time counterparts to be age 65 or older in fall 2003. 

• Doctoral institutions were more likely than other types of institutions to employ 

Asian/Pacific Islander faculty full time (table 4). Eleven percent of public and private notfor-profit doctoral instructional faculty and staff were Asian/Pacific Islander compared with 

3–7 percent at other types of institutions. 

• Engineering programs in 4-year institutions were more likely to have full-time Asian/Pacific 

Islander faculty than were other program areas (table 4). About one-fifth (21 percent) of fulltime instructional faculty and staff in engineering were Asian/Pacific Islander in fall 2003 

compared with 3–14 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander faculty in other program areas. 

• Institutions offering baccalaureate degrees or lower as their highest degree were more likely 

to employ Black instructional faculty and staff part time than doctoral and private not-forprofit master’s institutions (table 5). Seven percent of the part-time instructional faculty and 

staff at private not-for-profit baccalaureate, public associate’s, and other institutions were 

Black compared with 3–4 percent of their peers in public and private not-for-profit doctoral 

and private not-for-profit master’s institutions. 
Selected Results 

4 

• The largest proportion of full-time instructional faculty and staff who were female were 

employed in public associate’s institutions (49 percent) compared with 31–43 percent in 

other types of institutions (table 6). 

• Women made up a larger proportion of part-time than full-time instructional faculty and staff 

(47 percent [table 7] vs. 38 percent [table 6]). 

• Ninety-two percent of full-time instructional faculty and staff were U.S. citizens in fall 2003 

and 8 percent were noncitizens (table 8). Engineering and natural sciences faculty at 4-year 

institutions were more likely than instructional faculty and staff in other program areas to be 

noncitizens; 16 percent of natural sciences faculty and 17 percent of engineering faculty were 

noncitizens, compared with 4–10 percent of faculty in other program areas. 

• Part-time instructional faculty and staff were more likely to be citizens (97 percent; table 9) 

than were full-time faculty (92 percent; table 8). 

• Full-time instructional faculty and staff at public associate’s institutions were more likely to 

be instructors or lecturers (39 percent) than faculty at other institution types (8–12 percent; 

table 10). Full-time faculty at private not-for-profit doctoral institutions were more likely to 

be full professors than their peers at public and private not-for-profit master’s, private notfor-profit baccalaureate, public associate’s, and other institution types (35 percent vs. 21–31 

percent, respectively). 

• Five percent of part-time instructional faculty and staff were full professors, 3 percent were 

associate professors, and 3 percent were assistant professors. However, 42 percent of parttime faculty were instructors or lecturers, and 47 percent were some other rank or indicated 

that academic ranks were not applicable to them (table 11). 

• About one-half (49 percent) of full-time instructional faculty and staff held tenure in fall 

2003, about one-fifth (21 percent) were on the tenure track, another one-fifth were not on the 

tenure track (21 percent), and about one-tenth were employed at institutions that did not have 

tenure systems (table 12). 

• Three percent of part-time instructional faculty and staff were tenured in fall 2003 (table 13) 

compared with 49 percent of their counterparts who were employed full time (table 12). 

Conversely, 87 percent of part-time instructional faculty and staff were not on the tenure 

track (table 13). 

• The highest degree attained by a majority of full-time instructional faculty and staff at public 

associate’s institutions was a master’s degree: 63 percent held master’s degrees, 19 percent 

had doctoral or first-professional degrees, and 18 percent had a bachelor’s degree or less 

(table 14). 

• Instructional faculty and staff who were employed part time were less likely than full-time 

faculty to have earned a doctoral or first-professional degree. One-fourth of part-time 

instructional faculty and staff (table 15) held doctoral or professional degrees, compared with 

68 percent of full-time faculty (table 14). Over one-half of part-time faculty had master’s 

degrees and 21 percent had attained a bachelor’s degree or less, compared with 27 percent of 

full-time faculty with master’s degrees and 6 percent with bachelor’s degrees or less. 
Selected Results 

5 

• Forty-nine percent of full-time instructional faculty and staff in public and 52 percent in 

private not-for-profit doctoral institutions considered teaching their primary activity 

compared with 79–85 percent of their peers in other institution types (table 16). 

• At 4-year institutions, both full- and part-time instructional faculty and staff in the health 

sciences were less likely than their peers in other program areas to consider teaching their 

primary activity. Thirty-seven percent of full-time (table 16) and 60 percent of part-time 

health sciences faculty (table 17) identified teaching as their primary activity compared with 

49–83 percent of full-time faculty and 85–97 percent of part-time faculty in other program 

areas. 

• Full-time instructional faculty and staff, overall, reported working an average of 53 hours 

each week at all jobs both within and outside the institution, and part-time faculty (i.e., those 

who worked part time at the sampled institution but could have other full- or part-time 

employment elsewhere) averaged 40 hours per week; full-time faculty in 4-year institutions 

averaged 54 hours and part-time faculty averaged 41 hours per week4 (table 18). 

• Full-time fine arts faculty in 4-year institutions reported spending a higher percentage of time 

on teaching activities than their peers in other program areas (table 19). Fine arts faculty 

spent an average of two-thirds of their time on teaching activities compared with faculty in 

other program areas who reported spending an average of 49–65 percent of their time on 

teaching activities. 

• Part-time instructional faculty and staff reported on average spending the majority of their 

time at the institution (90 percent) on teaching activities (table 20). Work hours that part-time 

faculty spend elsewhere may include other activities besides teaching, such as research or 

professional service. 

• Full-time instructional faculty and staff who taught for-credit classes averaged 11 classroom 

hours per week in fall 2003, for a total of 308 weekly student contact hours5 (table 21). 

• Full-time faculty at public associate’s institutions spent more time in the classroom (18 hours 

per week) and averaged more student contact hours (431 hours per week) than their peers at 

other types of institutions (8–12 classroom hours and 223–294 student contact hours per 

week; table 21). Part-time instructional faculty and staff averaged 8 classroom hours and 180 

student contact hours per week in fall 2003 (table 22). 

• Full-time engineering and natural sciences faculty at 4-year institutions reported more 

refereed or juried publications in the past 2 years than those in other disciplines (table 23). 

Engineering and natural sciences faculty averaged 4 publications of this type compared with 

an average of 1–3 publications for faculty in other program areas. 

 

4 Respondents were asked to report the average number of hours they worked per week at paid and unpaid work at the sampled 

institution and paid and unpaid work outside of the institution. Therefore, although the respondents were considered part-time 

employees at the sampled institution, they could have worked more total hours per week with other jobs and unpaid hours taken 

into account. 

5 Eighty-nine percent of full-time and part-time instructional faculty and staff taught for-credit classes. Student contact hours are 

defined as the number of hours per week spent teaching for-credit classes multiplied by the number of students in those classes. 
Selected Results 

6 

• Part-time faculty, overall, averaged less than one refereed publication and one nonrefereed 

publication in the past 2 years, and they averaged four presentations in that time frame (table 

24). 

• The average basic salary from the institution for full-time instructional faculty and staff in all 

types of institutions was $66,800 (table 25). This estimate is consistent with the average basic 

salary figure of $66,475 for academic year 2003–04 reported by the American Association of 

University Professors (AAUP 2004). 

• Full-time instructional faculty and staff employed in private not-for-profit doctoral 

institutions averaged $108,100 in total earnings6 from the institution and outside sources in 

2003, compared with $64,000–91,700 earned by their counterparts in other types of 

institutions (table 25). In fact, instructional faculty and staff employed full time at private 

not-for-profit doctoral institutions generally had the highest income in all categories. 

• Part-time instructional faculty and staff employed at 4-year institutions in the humanities had 

lower total earned income from all sources compared with many other program areas (table 

26). Instructional faculty and staff employed in the humanities earned $38,200 in 2003, 

compared with $55,100–81,300 earned by their peers in all other program areas, except 

agriculture and fine arts. 

• Among instructional faculty and staff who earned income from their institution other than 

their basic salary,7 the average amount earned in 2003 was $9,800 for full-time faculty and 

$6,000 for part-time faculty (table 27). Full-time engineering and health sciences faculty 

averaged higher incomes of this type than did faculty in other disciplines ($15,300–16,000 

vs. $5,800–12,600). 

• Among faculty who earned consulting income in 2003,8 those who worked full time averaged 

$7,300 and those who worked part time averaged $11,300 (table 28). Part-time faculty at 4-

year institutions in business averaged $17,200 in 2003, more than those in fine arts 

($11,300), natural sciences ($10,800), education ($6,900), and humanities ($5,400). 

• Part-time instructional faculty and staff averaged $44,800 in outside income other than 

consulting income in 2003 compared with $12,400 earned by full-time faculty (table 29).9

Those in private not-for-profit doctoral institutions averaged the highest outside income 

($62,100) compared with those in other institution types ($38,600–51,300). 

 

6 Total earnings are the sum of basic salary and other income from the institution, outside consulting income, and other outside

income reported in 2003. 

7 Fifty-two percent of full-time and 15 percent of part-time instructional faculty and staff earned income from their institution 

other than their basic salary. 

8 Thirty percent of full-time and 27 percent of part-time instructional faculty and staff earned consulting income in 2003. 

9 Fifty-three percent of full-time and 85 percent of part-time instructional faculty and staff earned outside income other than 

consulting income in 2003. 
7 

References 

American Association of University Professors. (2004). Don’t Blame Faculty for High Tuition: 

The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession. Academe, 90(2): 20–46. 

Retrieved August 16, 2005, from http://www.aaup.org/surveys/04z/zrep.htm. 

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2001). The Carnegie Classification 

of Institutions of Higher Education. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Cataldi, E.F., Fahimi, M., and Bradburn, E.M. (2005). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04): Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff in Fall 2003 (NCES 

2005-172). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Chromy, J.R. (1979). Sequential Sample Selection Methods. Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research (pp. 401–406). Alexandria, VA: 

American Statistical Association. 

Heuer, R., Kuhr, B., Fahimi, M., Curtin, T.R., Hinsdale, M., Carley-Baxter, L., and Green, P. 

(forthcoming). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Methodology 

Report. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Kass, G.V. (1980). An Exploratory Technique for Investigating Large Quantities of Categorical 

Data. Applied Statistics, 29: 119–127. 

Kaufman, S. (2004). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Design When Some Second-Stage 

Strata Have Only One Unit Allocated. Proceedings of the American Statistical 

Association, Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 2766–2773). Alexandria, VA: 

American Statistical Association. 

RTI International (RTI). (2004). SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 9.0. Research Triangle Park, 

NC: Author. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
9 

Tables 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Tables 

11 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of instructional faculty and staff, by employment status, institution type,

Table 1.—and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Full time Part time

 All institutions1 56.7 43.3

Public doctoral2 77.7 22.3

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 68.1 31.9

Public master’s 63.1 36.9

Private not-for-profit master’s 44.9 55.1

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 63.2 36.8

Public associate’s 35.7 64.3

Other3 49.6 50.4

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 65.4 34.6

Agriculture/home economics 77.3 22.7

Business 53.5 46.5

Education 50.4 49.6

Engineering 78.8 21.2

Fine arts 53.5 46.5

Health sciences 69.6 30.4

Humanities 65.8 34.2

Natural sciences 76.6 23.5

Social sciences 69.7 30.3

All other fields 61.5 38.6

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Employment status
Tables 

12 

Table 2.—Average age and percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by institution 

Table 7.—type and program area: Fall 2003

Average Under 71 or

Institution type and program area age 35 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–70 older

 All institutions1 49.6 8.2 24.5 32.5 28.5 5.1 1.3

Public doctoral2 49.3 8.3 25.9 32.7 26.8 5.2 1.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 49.7 8.4 26.2 31.3 25.3 6.2 2.8

Public master’s 50.2 8.0 23.2 30.7 31.1 5.8 1.2

Private not-for-profit master’s 50.1 8.3 23.8 30.8 30.5 5.2 1.5

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 48.3 12.1 25.4 29.7 27.2 4.5 1.1

Public associate’s 49.9 7.0 22.2 34.4 31.7 4.0 0.7

Other3 49.8 6.1 23.0 37.3 28.1 4.6 0.8

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 49.5 8.4 25.0 32.1 27.8 5.4 1.4

Agriculture/home economics 50.1 6.3 20.0 41.2 29.3 2.4 0.9

Business 50.0 5.6 23.1 35.9 29.3 5.0 1.2

Education 51.4 8.2 16.8 31.1 36.7 5.8 1.4

Engineering 49.1 9.1 26.5 32.4 24.2 5.2 2.6

Fine arts 49.4 7.3 22.9 36.5 28.8 3.8 0.8

Health sciences 48.7 7.0 28.5 35.6 24.4 3.4 1.1

Humanities 49.6 9.5 26.3 27.2 29.2 6.1 1.6

Natural sciences 49.5 7.9 27.1 31.7 25.0 6.4 1.8

Social sciences 49.1 10.6 25.9 28.2 28.4 6.0 0.9

All other fields 49.5 10.0 22.1 32.3 28.6 5.7 1.3

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Percentage in each age category
Tables 

13 

Table 3.—Average age and percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by 

Table 8.—institution type and program area: Fall 2003

Average Under 71 or

Institution type and program area age 35 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–70 older

 All institutions1 49.6 12.3 22.0 30.2 24.5 7.0 4.0

Public doctoral2 48.7 14.9 22.1 31.7 20.5 6.7 4.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 50.3 11.2 22.7 28.5 23.4 8.3 5.9

Public master’s 49.6 14.0 22.2 24.8 26.3 8.6 4.2

Private not-for-profit master’s 51.2 9.5 18.6 32.6 26.0 9.0 4.4

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 49.4 12.4 23.9 29.6 22.8 6.8 4.5

Public associate’s 49.2 12.3 22.5 30.4 25.3 5.9 3.6

Other3 50.0 10.4 21.8 32.4 24.1 7.8 3.5

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 49.2 12.2 21.6 30.0 23.9 7.8 4.4

Agriculture/home economics 49.7 17.1 16.5 24.7 38.1 3.6 #

Business 50.6 7.4 20.5 31.7 29.0 7.1 4.3

Education 50.5 7.3 15.5 28.5 30.3 14.2 4.3

Engineering 50.9 3.9 29.8 27.5 17.8 11.2 9.7

Fine arts 48.0 15.6 23.1 34.5 19.6 3.8 3.5

Health sciences 46.7 10.9 23.6 35.9 18.3 6.8 4.4

Humanities 50.9 17.6 22.7 27.6 20.1 5.7 6.3

Natural sciences 50.0 14.0 22.9 25.4 24.4 8.9 4.4

Social sciences 49.2 15.9 20.4 23.6 28.7 8.2 3.2

All other fields 47.3 11.0 23.5 33.9 21.7 6.5 3.6

# Rounds to zero.

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Percentage in each age category
Tables 

14 

Table 4.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity, institution

Table 9.—type, and program area: Fall 2003

Asian/Pacific

Institution type and program area White Black Islander Hispanic Other

 All institutions2 80.8 5.5 8.1 3.5 2.1

Public doctoral3 79.4 4.3 11.3 3.1 2.0

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 79.1 4.7 11.4 3.0 1.8

Public master’s 78.3 8.4 7.1 3.6 2.5

Private not-for-profit master’s 85.5 4.6 5.5 2.5 2.0

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 85.8 6.5 3.5 2.2 2.0

Public associate’s 81.2 6.7 3.9 5.7 2.5

Other4 86.9 4.2 5.7 1.8 1.5

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 80.8 5.3 9.0 3.0 2.0

Agriculture/home economics 87.4 2.3 6.2 3.0 1.1

Business 76.8 4.3 14.0 1.7 3.2

Education 83.5 6.8 3.8 3.2 2.8

Engineering 70.0 4.7 21.1 2.4 1.8

Fine arts 87.6 6.0 2.9 2.3 1.2

Health sciences 79.0 4.5 11.2 2.9 2.5

Humanities 82.9 4.8 5.4 4.5 2.4

Natural sciences 78.4 3.6 14.2 2.4 1.4

Social sciences 81.5 7.6 5.2 3.8 1.9

All other fields 84.6 7.6 3.4 2.5 1.9

1

 Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, Hispanic includes Latino, and Other 

includes American Indian/Alaska Native and those who selected more than one race. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin 

unless specified.

2 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 3

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

4

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Race/ethnicity1
Tables 

15 

Table 5.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity, institution

Table 5.—type, and program area: Fall 2003

Asian/Pacific

Institution type and program area White Black Islander Hispanic Other

 All institutions2 85.3 5.6 3.6 3.4 2.2

Public doctoral3 83.7 3.2 7.5 3.8 1.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 88.5 3.9 4.5 2.5 0.6

Public master’s 86.9 4.8 2.7 3.2 2.4

Private not-for-profit master’s 89.9 3.5 2.0 2.6 2.0

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 87.4 7.3 2.6 1.5 1.2

Public associate’s 83.8 6.8 2.9 4.2 2.4

Other4 83.2 7.1 4.3 2.3 3.2

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 86.5 4.6 4.1 2.8 1.9

Agriculture/home economics 87.6 5.1 # # 7.3

Business 89.2 5.1 2.8 1.2 1.8

Education 89.0 4.4 1.3 3.8 1.5

Engineering 82.3 2.0 11.1 1.4 3.2

Fine arts 89.3 3.1 1.9 2.6 3.1

Health sciences 84.8 2.8 9.2 1.9 1.2

Humanities 85.3 4.4 3.8 4.8 1.8

Natural sciences 85.3 3.6 8.1 2.0 1.0

Social sciences 84.5 6.2 3.1 2.9 3.4

All other fields 85.4 7.8 2.1 3.3 1.4

# Rounds to zero.

1

 Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, Hispanic includes Latino, and Other 

includes American Indian/Alaska Native and those who selected more than one race. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin 

unless specified.

2 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 3

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

4

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Race/ethnicity1
Tables 

16 

Table 6.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender, institution type,

Table 6.—and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Male Female

 All institutions1 61.9 38.1

Public doctoral2 68.4 31.6

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 69.0 31.1

Public master’s 59.2 40.9

Private not-for-profit master’s 57.1 42.9

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 59.3 40.7

Public associate’s 51.3 48.7

Other3 58.3 41.7

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 64.4 35.6

Agriculture/home economics 64.7 35.3

Business 72.9 27.1

Education 41.2 58.8

Engineering 91.2 8.8

Fine arts 63.1 36.9

Health sciences 50.3 49.8

Humanities 59.6 40.4

Natural sciences 77.6 22.4

Social sciences 65.0 35.0

All other fields 58.6 41.4

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Gender
Tables 

17 

Table 7.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender, institution type,

Table 7.—and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Male Female

 All institutions1 52.9 47.1

Public doctoral2 50.3 49.7

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 58.8 41.2

Public master’s 51.1 48.9

Private not-for-profit master’s 53.7 46.3

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 50.9 49.1

Public associate’s 52.3 47.7

Other3 57.7 42.3

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 53.4 46.7

Agriculture/home economics 34.9 65.1

Business 74.7 25.3

Education 34.5 65.5

Engineering 91.1 8.9

Fine arts 52.4 47.6

Health sciences 39.0 61.0

Humanities 44.3 55.7

Natural sciences 62.0 38.0

Social sciences 59.4 40.6

All other fields 59.1 40.9

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Gender
Tables 

18 

Table 8.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by U.S. citizenship status, 

Table 8.—institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Citizen Noncitizen

 All institutions1 91.8 8.2

Public doctoral2 88.2 11.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 85.9 14.1

Public master’s 93.1 6.9

Private not-for-profit master’s 95.3 4.7

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 94.4 5.6

Public associate’s 98.5 1.5

Other3 95.0 5.0

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 90.3 9.7

Agriculture/home economics 94.7 5.3

Business 90.5 9.5

Education 96.3 3.7

Engineering 83.3 16.7

Fine arts 93.4 6.6

Health sciences 93.3 6.7

Humanities 90.3 9.7

Natural sciences 83.5 16.5

Social sciences 91.7 8.3

All other fields 95.4 4.7

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Citizenship status
Tables 

19 

Table 9.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by U.S. citizenship status, 

Table 9.—institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Citizen Noncitizen

 All institutions1 97.0 3.0

Public doctoral2 94.9 5.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 95.0 5.1

Public master’s 96.9 3.1

Private not-for-profit master’s 98.1 1.9

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 97.6 2.4

Public associate’s 97.9 2.1

Other3 95.0 5.0

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 96.2 3.8

Agriculture/home economics 100.0 #

Business 97.5 2.5

Education 98.1 1.9

Engineering 92.0 8.0

Fine arts 97.8 2.2

Health sciences 97.6 2.4

Humanities 91.7 8.3

Natural sciences 94.5 5.5

Social sciences 94.5 5.5

All other fields 98.6 1.4

# Rounds to zero.

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Citizenship status
Tables 

20 

Table 10.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by academic rank, institution

Table 15.—type, and program area: Fall 2003

 Academic rank

Other ranks/

Full Associate Assistant Instructor not

Institution type and program area professor professor professor or lecturer applicable

 All institutions1 29.5 22.4 23.1 15.6 9.3

Public doctoral2 33.4 25.4 24.1 10.4 6.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 34.6 25.5 24.7 9.3 6.0

Public master’s 31.1 23.2 28.6 12.4 4.7

Private not-for-profit master’s 24.9 27.4 32.8 8.4 6.5

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 28.8 24.6 29.9 8.1 8.7

Public associate’s 21.5 11.3 10.2 39.5 17.5

Other3 23.9 23.3 21.1 10.7 21.1

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 31.3 25.0 26.0 10.3 7.4

Agriculture/home economics 35.3 25.3 20.5 8.6 10.3

Business 30.6 26.3 27.1 11.3 4.8

Education 23.8 21.6 28.4 11.1 15.1

Engineering 40.3 27.9 21.6 5.6 4.7

Fine arts 28.0 26.0 25.2 10.6 10.3

Health sciences 22.6 25.8 34.7 11.8 5.1

Humanities 31.2 22.7 25.8 14.2 6.2

Natural sciences 37.1 26.4 23.3 7.6 5.7

Social sciences 37.3 24.5 27.0 4.8 6.4

All other fields 27.1 24.4 21.5 15.6 11.4

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Academic rank was collected differently

in NSOPF:04 compared with previous NSOPF cycles. Respondents with another unspecified rank were no longer allowed to 

specify their other rank. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Tables 

21 

Table 11.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by academic rank, institution 

Table 16.—type, and program area: Fall 2003

 Academic rank

Other ranks/

Full Associate Assistant Instructor not

Institution type and program area professor professor professor or lecturer applicable

 All institutions1 4.6 2.9 3.4 42.2 46.9

Public doctoral2 6.3 4.5 8.1 45.0 36.0

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 5.6 4.9 9.1 31.9 48.6

Public master’s 6.4 2.3 2.0 40.7 48.7

Private not-for-profit master’s 2.7 3.4 2.7 30.3 60.9

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 4.6 4.2 5.5 32.5 53.3

Public associate’s 3.4 1.5 1.0 49.5 44.6

Other3 7.1 4.9 5.2 33.3 49.4

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 5.4 3.9 5.3 36.5 48.8

Agriculture/home economics 8.1 2.9 2.4 49.9 36.7

Business 6.2 3.0 2.2 30.2 58.4

Education 4.1 2.2 3.1 34.8 55.9

Engineering 6.3 7.3 3.6 35.8 47.1

Fine arts 4.0 4.0 4.6 40.5 46.9

Health sciences 7.7 9.5 21.2 33.5 28.2

Humanities 5.0 2.3 2.6 43.9 46.3

Natural sciences 5.8 4.6 3.7 36.7 49.3

Social sciences 6.2 3.8 5.8 33.7 50.5

All other fields 4.8 2.4 2.5 35.7 54.7

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Academic rank was collected differently

in NSOPF:04 compared with previous NSOPF cycles. Respondents with another unspecified rank were no longer allowed to 

specify their other rank. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Tables 

22 

Table 12.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by tenure status, institution 

Table 17.—type, and program area: Fall 2003

No tenure

On tenure Not on system at

Institution type and program area Tenured track tenure track institution

 All institutions1 49.3 21.3 20.9 8.5

Public doctoral2 53.0 20.4 25.9 0.7

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 47.1 19.6 28.8 4.5

Public master’s 53.8 28.3 17.0 1.0

Private not-for-profit master’s 41.9 28.1 21.5 8.6

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 42.9 25.0 21.6 10.5

Public associate’s 49.1 15.6 9.3 26.0

Other3 39.4 17.3 18.7 24.6

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 49.5 22.6 23.4 4.5

Agriculture/home economics 58.1 20.0 19.5 2.3

Business 51.9 26.3 17.4 4.5

Education 37.7 26.4 29.1 6.8

Engineering 60.3 23.5 13.6 2.6

Fine arts 45.8 24.5 18.0 11.7

Health sciences 31.5 20.3 41.1 7.1

Humanities 52.2 22.9 22.0 3.0

Natural sciences 57.2 20.8 19.3 2.7

Social sciences 57.2 24.6 15.3 2.9

All other fields 46.1 20.7 29.2 4.1

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Tenure status
Tables 

23 

Table 13.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by tenure status, institution

Table 18.—type, and program area: Fall 2003

No tenure

On tenure Not on system at

Institution type and program area Tenured track tenure track institution

 All institutions1 2.7 1.5 86.6 9.2

Public doctoral2 5.1 1.4 92.6 0.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 2.3 1.3 92.6 3.8

Public master’s 3.8 1.0 92.3 2.9

Private not-for-profit master’s 0.9 1.1 92.6 5.4

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 2.8 1.3 86.9 9.0

Public associate’s 2.4 1.9 82.9 12.8

Other3 2.3 0.6 73.7 23.4

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 3.0 1.1 89.4 6.5

Agriculture/home economics 1.4 # 98.2 0.4

Business 1.2 0.3 85.2 13.3

Education 1.8 1.6 91.6 5.1

Engineering 7.5 # 92.5 #

Fine arts 1.2 1.0 89.2 8.6

Health sciences 4.1 2.5 82.8 10.6

Humanities 4.9 0.8 90.6 3.6

Natural sciences 5.1 1.4 89.5 4.0

Social sciences 2.6 1.7 89.7 6.0

All other fields 2.1 0.3 93.2 4.4

# Rounds to zero.

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Tenure status
Tables 

24 

Table 14.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by highest educational

Table 19.—credential attained, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

 

Doctoral or Master’s Bachelor’s

Institution type and program area first-professional degree or less

 All institutions1 67.9 26.6 5.5

Public doctoral2 85.5 12.8 1.7

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 86.9 10.8 2.3

Public master’s 76.1 21.7 2.2

Private not-for-profit master’s 68.2 29.5 2.4

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 71.0 26.0 2.9

Public associate’s 18.8 63.2 18.0

Other3 52.8 36.0 11.2

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 78.9 18.3 2.8

Agriculture/home economics 79.7 18.0 2.3

Business 76.4 21.9 1.7

Education 72.6 23.7 3.7

Engineering 87.6 9.3 3.2

Fine arts 39.2 50.6 10.2

Health sciences 79.6 17.9 2.6

Humanities 83.4 16.0 0.7

Natural sciences 89.8 9.1 1.1

Social sciences 93.5 5.5 1.0

All other fields 63.2 30.8 6.1

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Highest credential attained
Tables 

25 

Table 15.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by highest educational 

Table 20.—credential attained, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

 

Doctoral or Master’s Bachelor’s

Institution type and program area first-professional degree or less

 All institutions1 25.3 53.2 21.5

Public doctoral2 43.9 44.0 12.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 48.9 39.8 11.3

Public master’s 28.1 58.0 14.0

Private not-for-profit master’s 28.1 64.7 7.2

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 26.6 62.0 11.4

Public associate’s 13.8 53.3 32.9

Other3 25.8 52.3 21.9

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 34.1 53.2 12.7

Agriculture/home economics 24.2 57.8 18.0

Business 21.6 71.0 7.5

Education 28.6 66.5 4.9

Engineering 49.5 32.9 17.7

Fine arts 9.3 58.4 32.4

Health sciences 52.2 35.2 12.6

Humanities 34.0 57.5 8.5

Natural sciences 39.4 45.5 15.0

Social sciences 51.6 45.2 3.2

All other fields 37.5 47.6 14.9

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Highest credential attained
Tables 

26 

Table 16.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by principal activity, 

Table 21.—institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Teaching Research Administration Other1

 All institutions2 67.8 12.4 10.5 9.3

Public doctoral3 51.6 25.3 11.0 12.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 48.6 25.0 11.8 14.6

Public master’s 81.9 2.0 10.7 5.4

Private not-for-profit master’s 82.6 0.6 11.1 5.7

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 83.4 0.7 10.7 5.2

Public associate’s 85.1 0.1 7.6 7.3

Other4 79.2 1.4 13.2 6.2

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 63.9 15.2 11.2 9.7

Agriculture/home economics 48.9 25.8 13.1 12.3

Business 74.5 12.0 11.7 1.8

Education 66.3 4.8 21.0 7.9

Engineering 58.7 27.5 10.1 3.6

Fine arts 83.2 1.3 10.6 4.8

Health sciences 36.8 14.4 13.0 35.8

Humanities 82.6 3.8 10.2 3.5

Natural sciences 56.7 32.1 6.9 4.3

Social sciences 68.3 16.0 9.8 5.9

All other fields 68.5 5.5 13.5 12.6

1 Includes clinical service, sabbatical, technical activities, other institutional activities such as library services, community

public service, subsidized performance, and artist-in-residence appointments.

2 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 3

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

4

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Principal activity
Tables 

27 

Table 17.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by principal activity, 

Table 22.—institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Teaching Research Administration Other1

 All institutions2 91.3 1.1 0.8 6.8

Public doctoral3 81.0 5.3 1.6 12.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 83.1 2.7 1.5 12.7

Public master’s 92.7 0.6 0.6 6.2

Private not-for-profit master’s 94.3 0.2 0.4 5.1

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 92.0 0.9 1.9 5.2

Public associate’s 94.1 # 0.4 5.5

Other4 94.2 1.0 0.9 3.9

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 89.1 2.0 1.1 7.9

Agriculture/home economics 90.1 1.6 1.0 7.3

Business 96.9 1.2 0.4 1.6

Education 84.9 0.5 2.5 12.1

Engineering 88.0 7.9 1.6 2.6

Fine arts 96.8 0.2 0.8 2.2

Health sciences 59.7 3.0 1.6 35.7

Humanities 95.6 1.5 1.3 1.7

Natural sciences 89.5 6.5 0.9 3.1

Social sciences 94.6 1.8 # 3.6

All other fields 94.0 0.1 0.5 5.5

#Rounds to zero.

1 Includes clinical service, sabbatical, technical activities, other institutional activities such as library services, community

public service, subsidized performance, and artist-in-residence appointments.

2 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 3

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

4

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to totals because

of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Principal activity
Tables 

28 

Table 18.—Average number of hours instructional faculty and staff reported working per week at all jobs, 

Table 18.—by employment status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

 

Institution type and program area Full time Part time

 All institutions2 53.4 40.4

Public doctoral3 55.5 42.9

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 55.2 42.4

Public master’s 53.3 38.4

Private not-for-profit master’s 51.8 42.4

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 53.9 39.3

Public associate’s 49.3 39.0

Other4 51.4 42.5

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 54.3 41.5

Agriculture/home economics 55.4 43.9

Business 53.7 44.1

Education 53.7 37.7

Engineering 56.1 44.4

Fine arts 53.4 40.9

Health sciences 56.5 42.8

Humanities 52.9 38.4

Natural sciences 54.3 40.1

Social sciences 54.7 41.7

All other fields 53.4 46.1

1 The average number of hours worked per week includes all paid and unpaid hours worked at the postsecondary institution

and all paid and unpaid hours worked outside of the institution, regardless of employment status at the sampled institution.

2 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 3

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

4

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Average hours worked per week1
Tables 

29 

Table 19.—Among full-time instructional faculty and staff, average percentage of time spent on various

Table 19.—activities at the institution, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003

Teaching Research Administrative and

Institution type and program area activities activities other activities

 All institutions1 61.7 18.2 20.1

Public doctoral2 50.8 28.2 21.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 49.3 28.5 22.3

Public master’s 66.4 14.3 19.4

Private not-for-profit master’s 68.7 10.9 20.4

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 67.7 12.0 20.3

Public associate’s 79.8 3.5 16.8

Other3 70.3 8.8 20.9

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 57.7 21.5 20.8

Agriculture/home economics 52.6 24.0 23.4

Business 61.6 20.9 17.6

Education 60.0 15.0 25.1

Engineering 56.2 26.2 17.6

Fine arts 67.1 13.7 19.2

Health sciences 49.1 19.1 31.8

Humanities 64.6 17.5 17.9

Natural sciences 54.5 29.7 15.8

Social sciences 55.4 25.8 18.8

All other fields 60.2 15.5 24.3

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Individuals were only asked about 

work time at the sampled institution, whereas previous cycles of NSOPF asked about individuals’ total work time from all jobs.

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Percent of time spent on:
Tables 

30 

Table 20.—Among part-time instructional faculty and staff, average percentage of time spent on various

Table 20.—activities at the institution, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003

Teaching Research Administrative and

Institution type and program area activities activities other activities

 All institutions1 90.0 3.4 6.6

Public doctoral2 82.6 8.4 9.0

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 86.3 4.2 9.4

Public master’s 92.3 2.5 5.2

Private not-for-profit master’s 91.1 2.3 6.6

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 89.7 2.6 7.7

Public associate’s 92.4 2.1 5.5

Other3 88.2 4.4 7.4

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 88.2 4.3 7.5

Agriculture/home economics 89.8 4.1 6.0

Business 89.9 3.0 7.2

Education 90.8 2.7 6.5

Engineering 84.4 9.4 6.3

Fine arts 90.0 3.4 6.5

Health sciences 79.8 5.6 14.6

Humanities 88.8 4.8 6.4

Natural sciences 86.7 5.8 7.5

Social sciences 87.7 5.3 7.0

All other fields 91.0 3.2 5.8

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Individuals were only asked about 

work time at the sampled institution, whereas previous cycles of NSOPF asked about individuals’ total work time from all jobs.

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Percent of time spent on:
Tables 

31 

Table 21.—Average number of classroom hours and student contact hours per week in for-credit classes

Table 21.—for full-time instructional faculty and staff, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003

 

Average student

Average classroom contact hours

Institution type and program area hours per week per week1

 All institutions2 11.1 308

Public doctoral3 8.1 287

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 7.8 273

Public master’s 10.9 294

Private not-for-profit master’s 11.6 274

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 10.6 223

Public associate’s 18.1 431

Other4 11.5 280

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 9.4 279

Agriculture/home economics 8.8 268

Business 10.0 318

Education 10.0 230

Engineering 7.9 197

Fine arts 11.0 244

Health sciences 10.5 344

Humanities 9.3 240

Natural sciences 9.1 323

Social sciences 8.2 279

All other fields 9.8 261

1 Number of hours per week spent teaching for-credit classes multiplied by the number of students in those classes. 2 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 3

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

4

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: This table includes only the 89 percent of faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities who taught credit classes. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Tables 

32 

Table 22.—Average number of classroom hours and student contact hours per week in for-credit classes for

Table 22.—part-time instructional faculty and staff, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003

 

Average student

Average classroom contact hours

Institution type and program area hours per week per week1

 All institutions2 7.7 180

Public doctoral3 6.2 194

Private not-for-profit doctoral3 6.2 200

Public master’s 7.0 180

Private not-for-profit master’s 7.6 133

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 7.3 118

Public associate’s 8.5 182

Other4 7.9 238

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 7.0 180

Agriculture/home economics 4.9 156

Business 7.0 156

Education 7.7 150

Engineering 11.4 557

Fine arts 6.9 149

Health sciences 7.6 256

Humanities 6.4 149

Natural sciences 6.7 180

Social sciences 6.1 192

All other fields 7.0 149

1 Number of hours per week spent teaching for-credit classes multiplied by the number of students in those classes. 2 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 3

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

4

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: This table includes only the 89 percent of faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities who taught credit classes.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Tables 

33 

Table 23.—Average number of publications and presentations in the past 2 years by full-time instructional

Refereed or Nonrefereed Published Books, Presentations

juried or nonjuried reviews of monographs, and

Institution type and program area publications publications material and reports exhibits

 All institutions1 2.1 1.1 0.8 0.5 5.3

Public doctoral2 3.6 1.5 1.0 0.6 6.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 3.8 1.3 1.3 0.5 6.5

Public master’s 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 4.8

Private not-for-profit master’s 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.3 4.5

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 4.1

Public associate’s 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.9

Other3 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.6 5.7

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 2.6 1.3 0.9 0.5 5.9

Agriculture/home economics 3.4 3.9 0.8 0.9 8.7

Business 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 3.6

Education 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.6 6.4

Engineering 4.4 2.5 0.7 0.9 5.9

Fine arts 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 14.7

Health sciences 3.1 1.2 1.0 0.5 6.6

Humanities 1.7 1.0 1.6 0.5 4.2

Natural sciences 4.1 1.0 0.7 0.4 5.0

Social sciences 2.3 1.1 1.1 0.7 5.1

All other fields 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.6 4.4

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). All instructional faculty and staff are 

included in averages, regardless of whether they had that type of activity. Information about publications and presentations

was collected differently in NSOPF:04 compared with previous NSOPF cycles. Respondents were no longer asked to identify

whether they had joint or sole authorship of their publications. Removing this distinction may have affected the number

of publications respondents reported.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Publications and presentations

Table 28.—faculty and staff, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003
Tables 

34 

Table 24.—Average number of publications and presentations in the past 2 years by part-time instructional

Table 29.—faculty and staff, by institution type and program area: Fall 2003

Refereed or Nonrefereed Published Books, Presentations

juried or nonjuried reviews of monographs, and

Institution type and program area publications publications material and reports exhibits

 All institutions1 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.4 4.4

Public doctoral2 1.2 1.3 0.4 0.5 4.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.5 4.4

Public master’s 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.4 5.7

Private not-for-profit master’s 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.5 6.2

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.3 4.9

Public associate’s 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 3.0

Other3 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 6.8

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.5 5.4

Agriculture/home economics 0.8 2.4 0.1 0.4 5.3

Business 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.8 3.5

Education 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.3 4.3

Engineering 2.1 1.7 0.4 1.0 4.9

Fine arts 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.3 17.2

Health sciences 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 3.8

Humanities 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.2 3.2

Natural sciences 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.5 2.9

Social sciences 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.6 4.4

All other fields 0.5 1.5 0.4 0.5 4.9

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). All instructional faculty and staff are 

included in averages, regardless of whether they had that type of activity. Information about publications and presentations

was collected differently in NSOPF:04 compared with previous NSOPF cycles. Respondents were no longer asked to identify

whether they had joint or sole authorship of their publications. Removing this distinction may have affected the number

of publications respondents reported.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Publications and presentations
Tables 

35 

Table 25.—Average income of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by source of income, institution type,

Table 30.—and program area: 2003

Other

Total Basic salary income Outside Other

earned from from consulting outside

Institution type and program area income institution institution income income

 All institutions1 $80,700 $66,800 $5,200 $2,200 $6,600

Public doctoral2 91,700 76,400 6,100 2,700 6,500

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 108,100 87,700 6,800 3,700 9,900

Public master’s 69,200 58,200 4,200 1,500 5,300

Private not-for-profit master’s 71,300 57,600 4,000 2,200 7,500

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 64,000 54,200 2,700 1,300 5,800

Public associate’s 64,000 52,600 5,000 1,200 5,200

Other3 66,400 54,800 3,000 2,200 6,400

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 84,400 69,900 5,200 2,500 6,800

Agriculture/home economics 77,100 67,400 3,000 1,900 4,800

Business 98,400 77,700 8,000 3,900 8,700

Education 71,000 57,700 4,900 1,800 6,600

Engineering 101,700 80,400 8,700 5,200 7,400

Fine arts 65,800 53,300 2,900 2,800 6,900

Health sciences 113,800 94,400 5,600 2,900 10,900

Humanities 66,400 57,500 3,100 1,100 4,700

Natural sciences 86,800 73,700 5,600 2,000 5,500

Social sciences 81,700 66,800 5,800 2,600 6,500

All other fields 75,400 61,600 4,500 2,500 6,800

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). All instructional faculty and staff are 

included in averages, regardless of whether they had that type of activity. Income is for the 2003 calendar year for instructional 

faculty and staff employed in the fall of 2003. Income excludes all reported nonmonetary income. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Source of income
Tables 

36 

Table 26.—Average income of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by source of income, institution 

Other

Total Basic salary income Outside Other

earned from from consulting outside

Institution type and program area income institution institution income income

 All institutions1 $52,800 $11,000 $900 $3,000 $37,900

Public doctoral2 63,300 17,500 1,300 3,500 41,000

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 73,200 15,600 1,000 5,300 51,200

Public master’s 47,000 10,100 800 2,300 33,900

Private not-for-profit master’s 58,400 9,300 800 4,000 44,400

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 53,500 10,200 800 3,100 39,400

Public associate’s 44,800 9,200 800 2,300 32,500

Other3 58,000 9,500 1,300 3,400 43,800

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 58,700 12,400 1,000 3,600 41,800

Agriculture/home economics 44,100 10,900 700 2,900 29,600

Business 81,300 10,400 1,000 5,200 64,600

Education 57,500 9,800 1,100 2,100 44,600

Engineering 67,000 16,100 1,400 4,400 45,000

Fine arts 43,700 9,900 900 5,600 27,400

Health sciences 75,500 22,500 1,200 4,200 47,600

Humanities 38,200 11,600 1,000 1,300 24,300

Natural sciences 55,100 14,000 1,100 2,800 37,100

Social sciences 56,700 11,100 1,200 3,800 40,600

All other fields 66,600 10,000 600 4,300 51,800

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). All instructional faculty and staff are 

included in averages, regardless of whether they had that type of activity. Income is for the 2003 calendar year for instructional 

faculty and staff employed in the fall of 2003. Income excludes all reported nonmonetary income. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table 31.—type, and program area: 2003

Source of income
Tables 

37 

Table 27.—Average income from the institution other than basic salary for instructional faculty and staff

Table 32.—who earned that type of income, by employment status, institution type, and program area: 2003

Institution type and program area Full time Part time

 All institutions1 $9,800 $6,000

Public doctoral2 12,700 7,500

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 14,700 6,600

Public master’s 7,800 5,400

Private not-for-profit master’s 7,000 4,500

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 5,300 6,100

Public associate’s 8,000 5,700

Other3 6,000 7,400

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 10,400 6,200

Agriculture/home economics 8,400 ‡

Business 12,600 8,100

Education 8,300 6,000

Engineering 16,000 ‡

Fine arts 5,800 4,400

Health sciences 15,300 8,900

Humanities 6,400 5,600

Natural sciences 11,900 6,200

Social sciences 10,700 9,800

All other fields 8,000 4,200

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities) who earned income from the institution 

other than their basic salary (52 percent of full-time and 15 percent of part-time faculty). This included income from additional 

teaching activities, e.g., for summer session, or from supplements not included in basic salary, such as compensation for 

administration, research, or coaching sports. Income is for the 2003 calendar year for instructional faculty and staff employed

in the fall of 2003. Income excludes all reported nonmonetary income. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Other income from institution
Tables 

38 

Table 28.—Average consulting income for instructional faculty and staff who earned that type of income, 

Table 33.—by employment status, institution type, and program area: 2003

Institution type and program area Full time Part time

 All institutions1 $7,300 $11,300

Public doctoral2 7,700 12,300

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 10,300 15,800

Public master’s 5,100 8,200

Private not-for-profit master’s 7,600 11,300

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 5,100 10,900

Public associate’s 5,600 10,500

Other3 7,500 11,400

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 7,600 11,700

Agriculture/home economics 5,300 ‡

Business 12,300 17,200

Education 5,100 6,900

Engineering 10,800 14,400

Fine arts 6,300 11,300

Health sciences 8,700 16,200

Humanities 4,500 5,400

Natural sciences 7,200 10,800

Social sciences 8,000 12,600

All other fields 7,700 15,400

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities) who earned income from consulting (30

percent of full-time and 27 percent of part-time faculty). Income is for the 2003 calendar year for instructional faculty and 

staff employed in the fall of 2003. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Consulting income
Tables 

39 

Table 29.—Average income from outside the institution other than consulting income for instructional

Table 34.—faculty and staff who earned that type of income, by employment status, institution type, and

Table 34.—program area: 2003

Institution type and program area Full time Part time

 All institutions1 $12,400 $44,800

Public doctoral2 12,200 51,300

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 17,200 62,100

Public master’s 10,500 39,700

Private not-for-profit master’s 13,500 50,600

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 10,800 45,400

Public associate’s 11,000 38,600

Other3 11,700 49,600

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 12,700 49,400

Agriculture/home economics 9,900 34,200

Business 15,400 70,700

Education 12,900 49,800

Engineering 14,000 53,800

Fine arts 11,100 32,300

Health sciences 19,800 59,800

Humanities 8,700 30,800

Natural sciences 11,300 47,000

Social sciences 11,400 46,900

All other fields 12,300 59,100

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000 

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g., teaching 

one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities) who earned income from outside the 

institution other than consulting income (53 percent of full-time and 85 percent of part-time faculty). This included income 

from employment at another academic institution; legal or medical services or psychological counseling; self-owned business, 

other than consulting; professional performances or exhibitions; speaking fees and honoraria; royalties or commissions; and 

income from any other employment. Income is for the 2003 calendar year for instructional faculty and staff employed in the 

fall of 2003. Income excludes all reported nonmonetary income.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Other outside income
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
41 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary includes descriptions of the variables that were used in the tables of this E.D. TAB. The 2004 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Data Analysis System (DAS) was used to generate the tables in this 

report. Readers may refer to appendix B for more information on the DAS application. 

Variables are listed in the glossary index below by general topic area and in the order in which they appear in the 

tables. The glossary that follows is organized alphabetically by variable name (displayed in capital letters to the right 

of the variable label). 

GLOSSARY INDEX

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Age ................................................................... X01Q72 

Age category..................................................... X03Q72 

Race/ethnicity ................................................... X06Q74 

Gender .....................................................................Q71 

Citizenship status ....................................................Q81 

FACULTY AND INSTITUTION CHARACTERISTICS

Institution type..................................................X121Q0 

Institutional level ..............................................X102Q0 

Program area.....................................................X02Q16 

Employment status.....................................................Q5 

Principal activity.................................................X01Q4 

Any instructional responsibilities for credit........X01Q1 

Academic rank......................................................... Q10 

Tenure status............................................................ Q12 

Highest credential attained.................................X01Q17 

WORKLOAD AND COMPENSATION

Hours worked per week .....................................X01Q31 

Percent of time spent on teaching activities.......X01Q32 

Percent of time spent on research activities ...........Q32C 

Percent of time spent on administrative and other 

 activities..............................................................Q32D 

Number of credit classes taught ..........................Q35A1 

Classroom hours per week.................................X01Q37 

Student contact hours per week .........................X02Q37 

Refereed or juried publications...........................Q52BA 

Nonrefereed or nonjuried publications ............... Q52BB 

Published reviews of material............................. Q52BC 

Books, monographs, and reports.........................Q52BD

Presentations and exhibits..................................X03Q52 

Total earned income ........................................Q66SUM 

Basic salary from institution ..................................Q66A 

Other income from institution............................... Q66B 

Outside consulting income....................................Q66D 

Other outside income........................................X06Q66 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

42 

Academic rank Q10

Respondents were asked, “During the 2003 Fall Term, was your academic rank, title, or position at [institution 

name]...” In 2004, the response options for academic rank changed from previous cycles of NSOPF. In 1999, 

respondents were allowed to fill in their responses to the “other specify” category and these responses were recorded 

on the file. In some cases, respondents reported information in the “other specify” category that was then reassigned 

to one of the existing categories of rank. In 2004, respondents could check the “other” category, but did not specify 

their rank, title, or position. 

Full professor 

Associate professor 

Assistant professor 

Instructor or lecturer 

Other ranks/not applicable 

Tenure status Q12

Respondents were asked, “During the 2003 Fall Term at [institution name], were you...” 

Tenured 

On tenure track 

Not on tenure track 

No tenure system at institution 

Percent of time spent on research activities Q32C

Respondents were asked, “For the [number of paid and unpaid] hours per week you worked during the 2003 Fall 

Term at [institution name] we would like you to allot this time—using percentages—into four broad categories: 

instruction with undergraduates, instruction with graduate and first-professional students, research, and other 

activities.” Individuals were only asked about work time at the sampled institution, whereas previous cycles of 

NSOPF asked about individuals’ total work time from all jobs. 

 “What percentage of your time was spent on research activities, other forms of scholarship, or grants at this 

 institution?” 

Percent of time spent on administrative and other activities Q32D

Respondents were asked, “For the [number of paid and unpaid] hours per week you worked during the 2003 Fall 

Term at [institution name] we would like you to allot this time—using percentages—into four broad categories: 

instruction with undergraduates, instruction with graduate and first-professional students, research, and other 

activities.” Individuals were only asked about work time at the sampled institution, whereas previous cycles of 

NSOPF asked about individuals’ total work time from all jobs. 

 “What percentage of your time was spent on all other activities at this institution like administration, professional 

 growth, service, and other activities not related to teaching or research?” 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

43 

Number of credit classes taught Q35A1

This variable was used to restrict the sample used in tables 21 and 22 to those who taught classes for credit. 

Respondents were asked, “Next, we would like to ask you about the classes or sections you taught during the 2003 

Fall Term at [institution name]. Please do not include individualized instruction. Questions about independent study, 

intern supervision, and one-on-one instruction in performance, clinical, or research settings come later. (If none, 

select no classes.) How many classes/sections for credit towards degree did you teach?” 

Employment status Q5

Respondents were asked, “During the 2003 Fall Term, did [institution name] consider you to be employed full time 

or part time?” 

Full time 

Part time 

Refereed or juried publications Q52BA

Respondents were asked, “Of the [career total] articles or creative works published in refereed journals or juried 

media in your career, how many were done in the last 2 years?” 

Nonrefereed or nonjuried publications Q52BB

Respondents were asked, “Of the [career total] articles or creative works published in nonrefereed journals or 

nonjuried media in your career, how many were done in the last 2 years?” 

Published reviews of material Q52BC

Respondents were asked, “Of the [career total] reviews of books, articles, or creative works chapters in edited 

volumes published in your career, how many were in the last 2 years?” 

Books, monographs, and reports Q52BD

Respondents were asked, “Of the [career total] textbooks, other books, monographs, and client reports you published 

during your career, how many were done in the last 2 years?” 

Basic salary from institution Q66A

Respondents were asked, “For the 2003 calendar year, please estimate your gross compensation before taxes. Do not 

include non-monetary compensation. (Enter dollar amount. If not sure, give your best estimates. If not applicable, 

enter 0.) First, your compensation from [institution name]: What is your basic salary during the calendar year from 

this institution?” 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

44 

Other income from institution Q66B

Respondents were asked, “For the 2003 calendar year, please estimate your gross compensation before taxes. Do not 

include non-monetary compensation. (Enter dollar amount. If not sure, give your best estimates. If not applicable, 

enter 0.) Next, your compensation from other sources: How much compensation did you receive from other income 

from this institution not included in basic salary (e.g., for summer session, overload courses, administration, 

research, coaching sports, etc.)?” 

Outside consulting income Q66D

Respondents were asked, “For the 2003 calendar year, please estimate your gross compensation before taxes. Do not 

include non-monetary compensation. (Enter dollar amount. If not sure, give your best estimates. If not applicable, 

enter 0.) Next, your compensation from other sources: How much were you paid for outside consulting or freelance 

work?” 

Total earned income Q66SUM

This derived variable represents the total earned income for the 2003 calendar year as reported by the respondent. It 

is calculated based on the reported income in basic salary from the institution, other income from the institution, 

income from another academic institution, income from consulting or freelance work, income from other 

employment, or income from other sources (e.g., investment income, royalties/commissions, pensions, real estate, 

loans, alimony, or child support). 

Gender Q71

Self-reported gender of respondent. 

Male 

Female 

Citizenship status Q81

Respondents were asked, “Are you a United States citizen?” 

Citizen 

Noncitizen 

Any instructional responsibilities for credit X01Q1

This derived variable was created to indicate whether respondents had any instructional duties for courses available 

for credit at the institution from which they were sampled during the 2003 fall term. 

Yes 

No 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

45 

Highest credential attained X01Q17

This derived variable was created in order to describe the highest degree or award achieved by a respondent. 

 Doctoral or first-professional Includes doctoral and first-professional degrees 

 Master’s degree Master’s degree 

 Bachelor’s or less Includes bachelor’s, associate’s, and less than associate’s degrees 

Hours worked per week X01Q31

This derived variable represents the total number of hours per week the respondent reported working, including 

hours spent on paid and unpaid activities both at and outside of the institution. 

Percent of time spent on teaching activities X01Q32

This derived variable represents the total percentage of their time respondents reported spending in teaching 

activities, including both the percentage of time spent teaching undergraduates and the percentage of time spent 

teaching graduate or first-professional students. Individuals were only asked about work time at the sampled 

institution, whereas previous cycles of NSOPF asked about individuals’ total work time from all jobs. 

Classroom hours per week X01Q37

This derived variable is a calculation of the total number of hours the respondent spent teaching for-credit classes 

each week (maximum of 5 classes). 

Principal activity X01Q4

This derived variable was created to indicate respondents’ primary activity at their sampled institution during the 

2003 fall term. 

Teaching 

Research 

Administration 

 Other (Includes public service, clinical service, on sabbatical, other activities) 

Age X01Q72

This derived variable was created to report a respondent’s age in 2004, which was calculated by subtracting the 

respondent’s birth year from the survey year. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

46 

Program area X02Q16

Respondents were asked, “What is your principal field or discipline of teaching at [institution name]?” Respondents 

were then asked to select a general area and a specific discipline from a list of codes produced based on their 

answer. This derived variable condenses the list of 32 general areas and 2 separately identified subgroups into 10 

program areas. 

Agriculture and home economics Agriculture/natural resources/related 

 Family/consumer sciences, human sciences 

Business Business/management/marketing/related 

Education Education 

Engineering Engineering technologies/technicians 

Fine arts Arts—visual and performing 

Health sciences Health professions/clinical sciences 

Humanities English language and literature/letters 

 Foreign languages/literature/linguistics 

 History 

 Philosophy and religion 

Natural sciences Biological and biomedical sciences 

 Physical sciences 

 Mathematics and statistics 

 Computer/info sciences/support tech 

Social sciences Psychology 

 Area/ethnic/cultural/gender studies 

 Social sciences (except psychology and history) 

All other programs No principal teaching field 

 Architecture and related services 

 Communication/journalism/communication tech 

 Construction trades 

 Legal professions and studies 

 Library science 

 Mechanical/repair technologies/techs 

 Multi/interdisciplinary studies 

 Parks/recreation/leisure/fitness studies 

 Precision production 

 Personal and culinary services 

 Public administration/social services 

 Science technologies/technicians 

 Security and protective services 

 Theology 

 Transportation and materials moving 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

47 

Student contact hours per week X02Q37

This derived variable determines the respondent’s total student contact hours per week. For each for-credit class the 

respondent taught (up to a maximum of 5 classes), the average number of hours per week spent teaching was 

multiplied by the number of students enrolled in the class. The results were added together to obtain the total student 

contact hours per week. 

Presentations and exhibits X03Q52

This derived variable combines the total number of presentations at conferences and workshops or exhibitions or 

performances in the fine or applied arts that the respondent had in the past 2 years. 

Age category X03Q72

This derived variable is a categorical classification of respondent’s age in 2004 (X01Q72). 

Under 35 

35–44 

45–54 

55–64 

65–70 

71 or older 

Other outside income X06Q66

This derived variable was created to report a respondent’s income from sources (other than outside consulting) 

outside their sampled institution for the 2003 calendar year. Includes income from employment at another academic 

institution, income from any other employment (except consulting), and income from other sources (e.g., investment 

income, royalties/commissions, pensions, real estate, loans, alimony, or child support). 

Race/ethnicity X06Q74

Respondent’s self-reported race/ethnicity. Respondents were asked to pick one or more race categories to identify 

themselves. The categories were American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native 

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. A separate item asked about Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Those who 

identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino are categorized as Hispanic regardless of race. 

White White, not Hispanic or Latino 

Black Black or African American, not Hispanic or Latino 

Asian/Pacific Islander Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, not Hispanic or 

Latino 

Hispanic Hispanic or Latino (regardless of race) 

Other American Indian or Alaska Native or More than one race, not Hispanic 

or Latino 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

48 

Institutional level X102Q0

This derived variable was created from the 2000 Institutional Characteristics IPEDS data to indicate the highest 

degree granted by the institution (4-year or 2-year) for the institutions sampled for NSOPF:04. (Some institutions 

may have changed level by fall 2003.) This variable was used to restrict the cases in the program area rows to those 

who were employed in 4-year institutions. 

Institution type X121Q0

This derived variable identifies the type of institution in which the respondent was employed. It was derived using 

the 2000 Carnegie Classification combined with the control (public or private not-for-profit) of the institution. The 

Carnegie code is listed in parentheses after each description. For more information about the Carnegie Classification 

system adopted in 2000, see The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2001). 

Public doctoral Includes public institutions in the following categories: 

 Doctoral/Research Universities–Extensive (15) 

Doctoral/Research Universities–Intensive (16) 

Medical schools and medical centers (52) 

Private not-for-profit doctoral Includes private not-for-profit institutions in the following categories: 

Doctoral/Research Universities–Extensive (15) 

Doctoral/Research Universities–Intensive (16) 

Medical schools and medical centers (52) 

Public master’s Includes public institutions in the following categories: 

 Master’s Colleges and Universities I (21) 

Master’s Colleges and Universities II (22) 

Private not-for-profit master’s Includes private not-for-profit institutions in the following categories: 

 Master’s Colleges and Universities I (21) 

Master’s Colleges and Universities II (22) 

Private not-for-profit 

baccalaureate Includes private not-for-profit institutions in the following categories: 

Baccalaureate Colleges–Liberal Arts (31) 

Baccalaureate Colleges–General (32) 

Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges (33) 

Public associate’s Includes public institutions in the following category: 

Associate’s Colleges (40) 

Other Includes institutions in the following categories: 

Public baccalaureate (31, 32, and 33)

Private not-for-profit associate’s (40) 

Theological seminaries and other specialized faith-related institutions 

(51) 

Other separate health profession schools (53) 

Schools of engineering and technology (54) 

Schools of business and management (55) 

Schools of art, music, and design (56) 

Schools of law (57) 

Teachers colleges (58) 

Other specialized institutions (59) 

Tribal colleges (60) 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

49 

[To reflect the emergence of bachelor’s degrees being granted at 2-year institutions, the 2000 Carnegie 

Classification included a new category called “Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges.” These institutions are defined 

as colleges at which most of the degrees awarded are subbaccalaureate, but at least 10 percent of degrees awarded 

were bachelor’s degrees. This category includes 0.6 percent of faculty in NSOPF:04.] 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
51 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

Overview 

This E.D. TAB uses data from the fourth cycle of the National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF) conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) in 2003–04. NSOPF was designed to provide a national profile of 

faculty and instructional staff: their professional backgrounds, responsibilities, workloads, 

salaries, benefits, and attitudes. Previous cycles were conducted in 1987–88, 1992–93, and 

1998–99. Additional information on the first three cycles of NSOPF is available at the NSOPF 

web page (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/). 

Sample Design 

NSOPF:04 consisted of a sample of about 35,000 faculty and instructional staff across a 

sample of 1,080 institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This section provides 

information about the sample design for the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). The forthcoming NSOPF:04 methodology report will provide more detailed 

information. 

This administration of NSOPF:04 employed a two-stage sampling methodology for 

selection of eligible faculty and instructional staff. The first sampling stage consisted of all 

eligible institutions, while the second sampling stage included all faculty and instructional staff 

from the sampled institutions. 

Institution Sample and Selection 

The institutions eligible for NSOPF:04 included those in the traditional sector of 

postsecondary education: degree-granting institutions that were eligible to participate in the 

federal financial aid programs included in Title IV of the Higher Education Act, that provide 

formal instructional programs of at least 2 years’ duration, that are public or private not-forprofit, and that are designed primarily for students who have completed the requirements for a 

high school diploma or its equivalent. NSOPF:04 does not include private for-profit or less-than2-year institutions. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

52 

The institution universe for NSOPF:04 was taken from the 2000–01 Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Institutional Characteristics (IPEDS-IC) file. In 

order to allow precise survey estimates for institutional sectors of interest, this universe of 

institutions was stratified based on institution type and level of degree offered. Institution type 

distinguished between public and private not-for-profit, while level of degree offered used the 

2000 Carnegie Classification system. Table B-1 summarizes the number of eligible institutions 

for each of the resulting 10 primary institutional strata, based on the IPEDS-IC file. 

The institution sampling frame for NSOPF:04 was constructed from the IPEDS-IC files. 

The institutions on the sampling frame were partitioned into 10 institutional strata based on 

institutional control, highest level of offering, and Carnegie Classification. Ultimately, a sample 

of 1,080 institutions1 was selected using probability proportional to size (PPS) selection 

methodology based on the number of faculty and students at each institution, using Chromy’s 

sampling algorithm (1979). Sample sizes and their corresponding sampling rates were 

established using a customized cost/variance optimization procedure, which aimed to identify the 

allocation that would accommodate all analytical objectives of this survey while minimizing data 

collection costs. Table B-1 summarizes the distribution of the resulting sample of institutions for 

NSOPF:04. The selected institutions were contacted and asked to provide lists of eligible faculty 

and instructional staff for their institutions. Table B-2 shows the distribution of sampled and 

eligible institutions2 by institutional characteristics, as well as their corresponding unweighted 

and weighted response rates. 

Faculty and Instructional Staff Sample and Selection 

The second stage of the sample selection for NSOPF:04 included faculty and instructional 

staff in the postsecondary institutions selected at the first stage. “Faculty” refers to employees 

with faculty status, who may or may not have instructional responsibilities. Instructional staff, 

also included, are those with instructional responsibilities regardless of faculty status. 

Instructional responsibilities included teaching classes either for credit or not for credit, 

providing individual instruction, serving on thesis or dissertation committees, advising or 

otherwise supervising first-professional, graduate, or undergraduate students. In addition, eligible 

individuals surveyed by the 2003–04 NSOPF included all faculty and instructional staff 

• who were permanent, temporary, adjunct, visiting, acting, or postdoctoral appointees; 

• who were employed full or part time by the institution; 

 

1 In order to account for the institutions that became eligible for NSOPF:04 after construction of the institution sampling frame 

from the Winter:02 IPEDS, some institutions were added to the sample. Moreover, the 44 sample institutions that had an 

unknown Carnegie code at the time of sample selection were reassigned to their appropriate strata. Therefore, there are no longer 

any institutions with unknown Carnegie codes in the sample, but some still remain in the universe. 

2 Some institutions either merged or closed after sample selection, and therefore were ineligible for NSOPF:04. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

53 

Table B-1.—Distribution of NSOPF:04 institution universe and sample, by control and Carnegie 

Table B–2—Classification

Carnegie

Classification Universe Sample Universe Sample Universe Sample

 Total 3,380 1,080 1,700 680 1,680 400

Doctoral 300 300 190 190 110 110

Master’s 590 200 270 120 320 80

Baccalaureate 570 160 90 30 480 130

Associate’s 1,180 350 1,030 340 150 10

Other/Unknown1 730 70 110 10 620 60

1

There were 44 sample institutions that had an unknown Carnegie code at the time of sample selection that were subsequently 

reassigned to their appropriate strata. Therefore, there are no longer any institutions with unknown Carnegie codes in the 

sample, but some still remain in the universe.

NOTE: The universe and sample counts reflect institutions that were added after the main sample was selected to account

for institutions that became eligible for NSOPF:04 since construction of the institution sampling frame from the Winter:02 

IPEDS. Universe and sample numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary

Faculty (NSOPF:04).

Total Public Private not-for-profit

Table B-2.—Counts of sampled, eligible, and participating NSOPF:04 institutions with response rates, by

Table B-3.—institution type 

ParticiInstitution type Sampled Eligible2 pating Unweighted Weighted

 All institutions 1,080 1,070 980 91.3 90.6

Public

 Doctoral 190 190 180 92.7 93.2

 Master’s 120 120 100 89.7 89.1

 Baccalaureate 30 30 30 92.9 88.4

 Associate’s 340 330 290 89.1 87.4

 Other 10 10 10 100.0 100.0

Private not-for-profit

 Doctoral 110 110 100 92.0 95.6

 Master’s 80 80 80 92.6 86.8

 Baccalaureate 130 130 120 94.6 93.1

 Associate’s 10 10 10 75.0 86.0

 Other 60 60 60 93.3 91.8

1

Based on original unrounded numbers.

2

Some institutions either merged or closed after sample selection, and therefore were ineligible for NSOPF:04.

NOTE: Sampled, eligible, and participating institution counts are rounded to the nearest 10. Details may not sum to totals

because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Response rate (percent)1 Institution count
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

54 

• who were tenured, nontenured but on the tenure track, or nontenured and not on the 

tenure track; 

• who were in professional schools (e.g., medical, law, dentistry, etc.); or 

• who were on paid sabbatical leave. 

Under the above eligibility criteria, the list of ineligible individuals for NSOPF:04 

included staff 

• who were graduate or undergraduate teaching or research assistants; 

• who had instructional duties outside the United States, unless they were on sabbatical 

leave; 

• who were on leave without pay; 

• who were not paid by the institution, such as those in the military or part of a religious 

order; or 

• who were supplied by independent contractors or who volunteer their services. 

The institution sample selection was based on a PPS selection methodology, where each 

institution was assigned a composite measure of size (MOS) that reflected the number of eligible 

faculty and instructional staff in each of the following six categories: 

• Hispanic; 

• Non-Hispanic Black; 

• Asian and Pacific Islander; 

• Full-time female; 

• Full-time male; or 

• All other. 

Faculty were assigned to the first of these strata that applied to them. Faculty counts needed 

for MOS calculations were obtained from the Fall Staff Survey Component of the Winter 2001–

02 IPEDS Data Collection (Winter:02 IPEDS). Sampling frames for selection of faculty and 

instructional staff were constructed institution by institution. Each sampled institution was asked 

to provide a complete listing of their faculty and instructional staff eligible for NSOPF:04. While 

most such lists were delivered electronically, a number of lists were provided on hard copies, or 

had to be constructed using online sources and institution directories. 

The sample of faculty was selected using an equal probability stratified systematic 

sampling, within cells indexed by institutional and faculty strata. A customized cost/variance 

optimization program was used to determine the desired allocation of respondents to institution-
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

55 

by-person strata, which aimed to secure at least the same level of precision for key estimates as 

those achieved during the previous administration of the survey. Table B-3 shows the 

distribution of the sampled and eligible faculty members by institutional characteristics, as well 

as their corresponding unweighted and weighted response rates. 

Table B-3.—Counts of sampled, eligible, and responding NSOPF:04 faculty with response rates, by 

Table B-3.—institution type

Institution type Sampled Eligible2 Responding2 Unweighted Weighted

 All faculty 35,629 34,330 26,110 76.1 75.6

Institutional level

 2-year 9,188 8,830 6,440 73.0 73.7

 4-year non-doctoral 8,747 8,430 6,720 79.7 78.6

 4-year doctoral 17,694 17,070 12,950 75.8 75.0

Institutional control

 Public 23,280 22,450 17,120 76.2 76.0

 Private not-for-profit 12,349 11,880 8,990 75.7 74.7

Institutional sector

 Public

 Doctoral 9,827 9,500 7,460 78.6 78.1

 Master’s 3,485 3,350 2,620 78.1 78.5

 Baccalaureate 693 680 510 75.4 67.4

 Associate’s 9,129 8,770 6,420 73.1 73.7

 Other 146 140 110 73.7 73.3

 Private not-for-profit

 Doctoral 4,652 4,470 3,160 70.8 68.2

 Master’s 3,020 2,890 2,270 78.6 78.5

 Baccalaureate 3,218 3,120 2,520 80.8 78.7

 Associate’s 242 240 190 79.8 91.0

 Other 1,217 1,160 850 73.1 70.6

1

Based on original unrounded numbers.

2

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary

Faculty (NSOPF:04).

Response rate (percent)1 Faculty count
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

56 

Data Quality Procedures 

Perturbation 

To protect the confidentiality of NCES data that contain information about specific 

individuals, NSOPF:04 data were subject to perturbation procedures to minimize disclosure risk. 

Perturbation procedures, which have been approved by the NCES Disclosure Review Board, 

preserve the central tendency estimates, but may result in slight increases in nonsampling errors. 

Imputation of Missing Data 

All NSOPF:04 variables with missing data used in this E.D. TAB, as well as those included 

in the related Data Analysis System (DAS) release, have been imputed. Item imputation for 

NSOPF:04 was performed in several steps. In the first step, using a cold-deck imputation 

method, missing values of gender, race, and ethnicity were filled based on the sampling frame 

information or institutional record data. These three key demographic variables were imputed 

prior to any other variables, since they were used as key predictors for all other variables on the 

data file. 

After all logical and cold-deck imputation procedures were performed, the remaining 

variables were imputed using a weighted sequential hot-deck method. Initially, variables were 

separated into two groups: conditional and unconditional variables. The first group 

(unconditional) consisted of variables that apply to all respondents, while the second group 

(conditional) consisted of variables that apply to only a subset of the respondents. That is, 

conditional variables were subject to gate questions. Such variables were then categorized with 

respect to the complexity of their conditionality. Next, missing values of all variables were 

imputed in the order from the lowest to the highest percentage missing and level of 

conditionality. 

All variables that had less than 1 percent missing were imputed using imputation classes 

defined by a combination of gender, race, and ethnicity and were sorted by institution type, 

institution size, and the faculty sampling stratum. The imputation classes for the remaining 

unconditional variables (that had more than 1 percent missing) were determined using ChiSquare Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) to identify the matching criteria closely related 

to the variable being imputed (Kass 1980). For this purpose, key demographic variables that 

were logically imputed and all imputed variables with less than 1 percent missing were used as 

predictors. Overall, 146 variables from the faculty questionnaire were imputed, including 27 

variables with less than 1 percent of the cases imputed, 11 variables with 1 to 5 percent imputed, 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

57 

94 variables with 5 to 10 percent imputed, and 14 variables with more than 10 percent of the 

cases imputed. 

Weighting 

All estimates in this E.D. TAB are weighted to represent the target population described in 

the sample design section. The weights compensate for the unequal probability of selection of 

institutions and faculty members in the NSOPF sample. The weights also adjust for frame 

multiplicity at the institution and faculty levels,3 unknown faculty eligibility, nonresponse, and 

poststratification. In order to compute the final faculty analysis weight, STUDYWT, first an 

institution-level component weight was computed to reflect the selection process for the 

institution from which a faculty was sampled. Next, the resulting component weights were used 

to calculate the faculty weights. All weight components, including those reflecting selection 

probabilities and adjustment factors, are summarized in table B-4. 

 

3 It was determined after institution sample selection that in some cases, either an institution had merged with another institution, 

or faculty lists for two or more campuses were submitted as one combined faculty list. In these instances, the institution weights 

were adjusted for the joint probability of selection. Likewise, faculty members who taught at more than one institution during the 

NSOPF year also had multiple chances of selection. If it was determined that a faculty member had taught at more than one 

institution, the faculty’s weight was adjusted to account for multiple chances of selection. 

Table B-4.—Summary of weight components for NSOPF:04

Weight component Purpose

Institution sampling weight Account for the institution’s probability of selection.

Institution multiplicity adjustment Adjust the weights for institutions that had multiple

chances of selection.

Institution poststratification adjustment Adjust the institution weights to match published

totals to ensure population coverage.

Faculty sampling weight Account for the faculty’s probability of selection.

Faculty multiplicity adjustment Adjust the weights for faculty members who taught at

more than one institution.

Faculty unknown eligibility adjustment Adjust the weights for nonresponding faculty members

with unknown eligibility.

Faculty nonresponse adjustment Adjust the weights to compensate for nonresponding

faculty members.

Faculty poststratification adjustment Adjust the faculty weights to match known published

totals to ensure population coverage.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

58 

Quality of Estimates 

Survey weights are computed with the goal of removing any bias that might result due to 

differential nonresponse and undercoverage. In order to measure the efficacy of bias-reducing 

adjustments, a series of analyses were conducted at the item and record levels. In the subsequent 

sections, highlights of these analyses are summarized. 

Unit Response Rates and Bias Analysis 

 Unit and item response rates for NSOPF:04 were reviewed. Those with a response rate 

below 85 percent were evaluated for the potential magnitude of nonresponse bias. NSOPF:04 has 

two stages of data collection: institution and faculty. As seen in table B-2, the overall and stratum 

level institution weighted response rates exceeded 85 percent; hence, no nonresponse bias 

analysis was conducted at the institution level. However, at the faculty and item levels, the 

weighted response rates within certain strata were less than 85 percent. Consequently, 

nonresponse bias analyses were conducted at the faculty and item levels when the corresponding 

weighted response rates were below 85 percent at the national or stratum levels. 

The bias in an estimated mean based on respondents, R y , is the difference between this 

estimate and the target parameter, μ, which is the mean that would result if a complete census of 

the target population was conducted and all units responded. This bias can be expressed as 

follows: 

B(yR ) = yR − μ

However, for variables that are available from the frame, μ can be estimated by μˆ without 

sampling error, in which case the bias in R y can then be estimated by: 

( ) μˆ Bˆ yR = yR −

Moreover, an estimate of the population mean based on respondents and nonrespondents can be 

obtained by: 

( ) R NR μˆ = 1−ηˆ y +ηˆ y

whereηˆis the weighted unit nonresponse rate, based on weights prior to nonresponse adjustment. 

Consequently, the bias in R y can then be estimated by: 

( ) R R NR B(y ) = ˆ y − y ˆ η

That is, the estimate of the nonresponse bias is the difference between the mean for respondents 

and nonrespondents multiplied by the weighted nonresponse rate, using the faculty-level design 

weight prior to nonresponse adjustment. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

59 

Faculty-Level Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

A faculty respondent is defined as any sample member who is determined to be eligible for 

the study and has valid data for the selected set of key analytical variables. As shown in table B3, for the approximately 34,330 eligible sample faculty members the unweighted response rate 

was 76.1 percent, with a weighted response rate of 75.6 percent. Since the faculty weighted 

response rate was below 85 percent for virtually all institution types, a nonresponse bias analysis 

was conducted for faculty members from all institution types. The nonresponse bias was 

estimated for the variables known for both respondents and nonrespondents within each 

institution type. Information on nonrespondents was obtained from the sampling frames provided 

by the institutions. These variables included the following: 

Faculty strata: 

• Non-Hispanic Black 

• Hispanic 

• Asian 

• Other full-time females 

• Other full-time males 

• Other part-time faculty 

• Unknown 

Bureau of Economic Analysis Code (OBE) Region: 

• New England CT ME MA NH RI VT 

• Mid East DE DC MD NJ NY PA 

• Great Lakes IL IN MI OH WI 

• Plains IA KS MN MO NE ND SD 

• Southeast AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC SC TN VA WV 

• Southwest AZ NM OK TX 

• Rocky Mountains CO ID MT UT WY 

• Far West AK CA HI NV or WA 

• Outlying areas AS FM GU MH MP PR PW VI 

The steps for nonresponse bias analysis included estimating the nonresponse bias and 

testing (adjusting for multiple comparisons) to determine if the bias is significant at the .05 level. 

Second, nonresponse adjustment factors were computed using a subset of variables listed above. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

60 

The nonresponse adjustments were designed to significantly reduce or eliminate nonresponse 

bias for variables included in the corresponding models. Third, after the weights were computed, 

any remaining bias was estimated for the variables listed above and statistical tests were 

performed to determine the significance of any remaining nonresponse bias. 

As shown in table B-5, the faculty weighting adjustments have reduced, and in some cases 

nearly eliminated, bias for faculty members for all institution types. Significant bias was reduced 

for the variables known for most respondents and nonrespondents, which are considered key 

analytical variables and correlated with many of the other variables. 

Item-Level Bias Analysis 

Item response rates (IRR) are calculated as the ratio of the number of respondents for 

whom an in-scope response was obtained (I

x

 for item x) to the number of respondents who are 

asked to answer that item. The number asked to answer an item is the number of unit level 

respondents (I) minus the number of respondents with a valid skip item for item x (Vx

). When an 

Table B-5.—Summary of faculty nonresponse bias analysis for NSOPF:04, by institution type

Percent Percent

Institution type Mean Median significant

1 Mean Median significant1

 All faculty 0.09 0.05 26.6 0.06 0.02 9.0

Public

 Doctoral 0.04 0.02 69.6 0.02 0.01 34.8

 Master’s 0.06 0.05 13.0 0.02 0.01 #

 Baccalaureate 0.09 0.06 8.7 0.15 0.13 4.4

 Associate’s 0.06 0.05 26.1 0.03 0.01 4.4

 Other 0.12 0.04 100.0 0.06 0.02 #

Private not-for-profit

 Doctoral 0.06 0.05 56.5 0.03 0.03 13.0

 Master’s 0.07 0.07 17.4 0.04 0.02 13.0

 Baccalaureate 0.07 0.06 18.2 0.03 0.03 #

 Associate’s 0.24 0.15 35.0 0.14 0.05 10.0

 Other 0.08 0.05 18.2 0.13 0.06 9.1

#Rounds to zero.

1

The percent significant reflects the ratio of the number of biased estimates to the number of biased and unbiased estimates. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary

Faculty (NSOPF:04).

Relative bias before Relative bias after

weight adjustments weight adjustments
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

61 

abbreviated questionnaire4 is used to convert refusals, the eliminated questions are treated as 

item nonresponse. 

x

x

x

I V

I IRR − =

A faculty member is defined to be an item respondent for an interview variable if that 

faculty member has data for that variable, including logical imputation and recoding based on 

information obtained elsewhere. Overall, the rates of missing data were low to moderate: 

nonresponse was less than 15 percent for most items. With the exception of selected items such 

as the income item, which was expected to have higher rates of refusal due to its sensitive nature, 

the primary reason item nonresponse exceeds 15 percent is that each applies to a relatively small 

subset of respondents and these items were not included in the abbreviated instrument. The 

abbreviated questionnaire was administered to about 1,600 responding faculty members. For 

more about item nonresponse rates in NSOPF:04, consult chapter 4 of the methodology report. 

A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted for those variables with a response rate of less 

than 85 percent (nonresponse above 15 percent) overall or for any institutional stratum (table B6). The nonresponse bias was estimated for variables known for both respondents and 

nonrespondents and tested (adjusting for multiple comparisons) to determine if the bias was 

significant at the .05 level. The percentage significant reflects the ratio of the number of biased 

estimates to the number of biased and unbiased estimates. As noted above, respondents are often 

more reluctant to answer income questions, which are perceived as more personal. The high rates 

of significant bias shown at public doctoral granting institutions may be due to high variability in 

faculty salaries or low response by faculty to the income items. 

In addition to interview items—those variables that come straight from the survey 

instrument—this E.D. TAB contains derived variables that convert or combine information from 

one or more interview items into a new variable. Derived variables were created only after the 

data had been cleaned, perturbed, and imputed. None of the derived variables in this E.D. TAB 

were based on interview variables that had more than 30 percent of their cases imputed. 

Standard Errors 

In order to facilitate computation of standard errors for both linear and nonlinear statistics, 

a vector of bootstrap sample weights has been added to the analysis file. These weights are zero 

for units not selected in a particular bootstrap sample; weights for other units are inflated for the 

bootstrap subsampling. The initial analytic weights for the complete sample are also included for 

 

4 Thus, missing values for the approximately 1,600 faculty members who completed the abbreviated questionnaire were imputed. 
Table B-6.—Summary of item nonresponse bias analysis for all NSOPF:04 faculty, by institution type

All Bacca- Asso- 

Variable/Statistics faculty Doctoral Master’s laureate ciate’s Other Doctoral Master’s lQ32C (Percent of time spent on research activities) Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 8.7 † † † † Q32D (Percent of time spent on administrative  or other activities) Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 8.7 † † † † Q35A1 (Number of credit classes taught) Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 8.7 † † † † Q52BA (Refereed or juried publications) Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 8.7 † † † † Q52BB (Nonrefereed or nonjuried publications) Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 8.7 † † † † Q52BC (Published reviews of material) Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 13.0 † † † † 

See notes at end of table.

Public Private 
Table B-6.—Summary of item nonresponse bias analysis for all NSOPF:04 faculty, by institution type—Continued 

All Bacca- Asso- 

Variable/Statistics faculty Doctoral Master’s laureate ciate’s Other Doctoral Master’s lQ52BD (Books, monographs and reports) Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 13.0 † † † † Q66A (Basic salary from institution) Mean relative bias 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.03  Median relative bias 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.02  Percent significant bias 36.4 43.5 13.0 13.0 8.7 17.4 13.0 34.8 Q66B (Other income from institution) Mean relative bias 0.02 † † 0.03 0.06 † 0.08 †  Median relative bias 0.02 † † 0.02 0.05 † 0.06 †  Percent significant bias 42.4 † † 13.0 8.7 † 13.0 † Q66D (Outside consulting income) Mean relative bias 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.04  Median relative bias 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03  Percent significant bias 33.3 30.4 13.0 13.0 13.0 21.7 13.0 17.4 

† Not applicable.NOTE: The item nonresponse bias analysis measures the bias remaining after adjustments. Included are survey variables in this E.D. TAB with an oresponse rate of less than 85 percent.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04).

Public Private 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

64 

the purposes of computing the desired estimates. The vector of replicate weights allows for 

computing additional estimates for the sole purpose of estimating a variance. Assuming B sets of 

replicate weights, the variance of any estimate, θ

ˆ, can be estimated by replicating the estimation 

procedure for each replicate and computing a simple variance of the replicate estimates; i.e., 

B

Var

B

b

b

2

1

) ˆ ˆ (

)ˆ (

θ θ

θ

−

=

∑−

where θ b

ˆ is the estimate based on the bth replicate weight and B is the number of replicates. Once 

the replicate weights are provided, this estimate can be produced by most survey software 

packages (e.g., SUDAAN [RTI 2004]). 

The replicate weights were produced using a methodology and computer software 

developed by Kaufman (2004). This methodology allows for finite population correction factors 

at two stages of sampling. Application of this method incorporated the finite population 

correction factor at the first stage only where sampling fractions were generally high. At the 

second stage, where the sampling fraction was generally low, the finite population correction 

factor was set to 1.0. 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this E.D. TAB were produced using the NSOPF:04 Data 

Analysis System (DAS). The DAS application on the Web makes it possible for users to specify 

and generate their own tables. With DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented 

in this E.D. TAB. In addition to the table estimates, DAS calculates proper standard errors5 and 

weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B-7 contains standard errors that 

correspond to estimates in table 1 of the E.D. TAB. Table B-8 shows estimated population 

counts for subgroups of NSOPF respondents analyzed in this E.D. TAB. If the number of valid 

cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (fewer than 30 cases), DAS prints the message 

“low n” instead of the estimate. All standard errors for estimates presented in this E.D. TAB can 

be viewed at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS/library/reports.asp. In addition to tables, DAS will also 

produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to be used for linear regression models. 

Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the design effects (DEFTs) for each 

variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally compute regression coefficients 

 

5 The NSOPF:04 sample is not a simple random sample, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating 

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and 

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

65 

based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors must be adjusted with the 

design effects to take into account the stratified sampling method used in the survey. 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS/. For more information 

about the NSOPF:04 Data Analysis System, contact: 

Aurora D’Amico, Postsecondary Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006–5652 

(202) 502–7334, Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov

Table B-7.—Standard errors for table 1: Percentage distribution of instructional faculty and staff, by 

Table B-7.—employment status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area Full time Part time

 All institutions 0.17 0.17

Public doctoral 0.28 0.28

Private not-for-profit doctoral 0.37 0.37

Public master’s 0.35 0.35

Private not-for-profit master’s 0.26 0.26

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 0.50 0.50

Public associate’s 0.30 0.30

Other 0.99 0.99

 All program areas in 4-year institutions 0.20 0.20

Agriculture/home economics 3.07 3.07

Business 2.30 2.30

Education 1.62 1.62

Engineering 2.28 2.28

Fine arts 2.07 2.07

Health sciences 1.43 1.43

Humanities 1.42 1.42

Natural sciences 1.16 1.16

Social sciences 1.29 1.29

All other fields 1.23 1.23

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Employment status
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

66 

Statistical Procedures 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this E.D. TAB using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,6 or 

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values 

 

6 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 

Table B-8.—Estimated population counts and percentage distribution of instructional faculty and staff, 

Table B-8.—by employment status, institution type, and program area: Fall 2003

Institution type and program area All Full time Part time

 All institutions (in thousands)1 1,093.1 619.8 473.2

Public doctoral2 24.8 34.0 12.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 11.1 13.3 8.2

Public master’s 13.1 14.6 11.1

Private not-for-profit master’s 8.9 7.0 11.3

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 6.1 6.8 5.2

Public associate’s 29.3 18.5 43.6

Other3 6.7 5.9 7.8

 All program areas in 4-year institutions

 (in thousands) 773.6 506.3 267.4

Agriculture/home economics 1.9 2.3 1.3

Business 8.0 6.5 10.8

Education 9.7 7.5 14.0

Engineering 4.5 5.5 2.8

Fine arts 8.7 7.1 11.7

Health sciences 12.4 13.2 10.9

Humanities 13.6 13.7 13.5

Natural sciences 18.7 21.9 12.7

Social sciences 10.5 11.2 9.2

All other fields 11.9 11.1 13.2

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions, and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 

2000 Carnegie Classification.

3

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and 

medical centers.

NOTE: Instructional faculty and staff includes only faculty and staff with instructional responsibilities for credit (e.g.,

teaching one or more classes for credit, or advising or supervising students’ academic activities). Detail may not sum to 

totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Instructional faculty and staff
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

67 

for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

 t =

1 2

2

2

2

1

1 2

se +se - 2(r)se se

E - E 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.7 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

t =

2 2 2

sub tot 2 sub

sub tot

se se p se

E E

+ −

− 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup. The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of respondents would produce a large t

statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this E.D. TAB 

 

7 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

68 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced no more than one 

time out of twenty when there was no actual difference in the quantities in the underlying 

population. When we test hypotheses that show t values at the .05 level or smaller, we treat this 

finding as rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two quantities. 

Failing to detect a difference, however, does not necessarily imply the values are the same or 

equivalent.