U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

NCES 2002–160

The Gender and

Racial/Ethnic

Composition of

Postsecondary

Instructional Faculty

and Staff, 1992–98

E.D. Tabs
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

NCES 2002–160

The Gender and

Racial/Ethnic

Composition of

Postsecondary

Instructional Faculty

and Staff, 1992–98

E.D. Tabs

August 2002

Denise Glover

Basmat Parsad

Westat

Linda J. Zimbler

Project Officer

National Center for

Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Grover J. Whitehurst

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Deputy 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

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006–5651

August 2002

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

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

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002). The Gender and Racial/Ethnic

Composition of Postsecondary Instructional Faculty and Staff, 1992–98, (NCES 2002–160), by Denise Glover and

Basmat Parsad. Project Officer: Linda J. Zimbler. Washington, DC: 2002.

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

Or call toll free 1–877–4ED–Pubs

Content Contact:

Linda J. Zimbler

(202) 502–7481

Linda.zimbler@ed.gov
iii

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the many individuals who helped make this report possible. First, many

thanks to Linda Zimbler, the NCES statistician for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, for her

helpful comments, suggestions, and assistance throughout the preparation and writing process. We would

also like to gratefully acknowledge our Westat colleagues: Jennifer Jones, for research assistance; Ethel

Sanniez, for the DAS runs; Carol Litman, for her editorial assistance; and Sylvie Warren, for formatting

the final report and tables.

We would also like to thank the following individuals who provided technical and editorial

comments on this report: C. Dennis Carroll, Debra Gerald, Paula R. Knepper, Mary McPhail, Andrew G.

Malizio, Ann Mullen, and Karen O’Conor, U.S. Department of Education; and David Hurst of the

Education Statistics Services Institute.

v

Foreword

This publication utilizes data from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99),

a study of faculty and instructional staff in postsecondary institutions in the United States. The 1999

NSOPF and its predecessors, the 1988 and 1993 NSOPFs, were conducted by the National Center for

Education Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education to fill the information gap about this

important segment in postsecondary education. Additional support for NSOPF has been provided by the

National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science Foundation. Since its inception,

NSOPF has stimulated wide interest at the federal, state, institution, and individual levels. Organizations

and individual researchers have obtained faculty data that provided them with national estimates and

knowledge in general about faculty backgrounds, responsibilities, workloads, compensation, and

attitudes.

A number of publications based on NSOPF:99 data are planned or have been recently released.

Topics of these publications include the use of the Internet/technology by faculty; faculty and staff who

taught classes to undergraduates; distance education taught by faculty; minority and women faculty; parttime faculty; retirement and other departure plans of faculty; changes in the tenure status of faculty; and

institutional policies and practices regarding faculty in degree-granting institutions.

As soon as publications are released from NSOPF, they can be found and downloaded at the

NSOPF Web Site: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf. Finally, researchers are encouraged to conduct their

own in-depth analysis of the data. For information about using NSOPF:99 data, please read the Technical

Notes to this report.

C. Dennis Carroll Andrew G. Malizio

Associate Commissioner Program Director

Postsecondary Statistics Division Postsecondary Longitudinal and

 Sample Survey Studies

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................... iii

Foreword ................................................................................................................... v

List of Compendium Tables....................................................................................... vii

List of Appendix Tables............................................................................................. ix

Summary.................................................................................................................... 1

Changes in the Composition of Faculty by Gender............................................. 1

Gender Changes by Level of Institution.............................................................. 2

Full-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 2

Part-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 2

Gender Changes by Type and Control of Institution.......................................... 2

Full-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 2

Part-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 2

Gender Changes by Program Area in 4-Year Institutions .................................. 3

Full-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 3

Part-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 3

Gender Changes by Program Area in 2-Year Institutions .................................. 3

Full-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 3

Part-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 3

Changes in the Composition of Faculty by Race/Ethnicity.................................. 4

Race/Ethnicity Changes by Level and Type of Institution.................................. 4

Race/Ethnicity Changes by Control of Institution.............................................. 4

Race/Ethnicity Changes by Program Area In 4-Year Institutions ...................... 4

Full-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 4

Part-Time Faculty..................................................................................... 5

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

Compendium of Tables....................................................................................... 9
Appendixes

A Technical Notes........................................................................................ A-1

B Standard Error Tables............................................................................... B-1

C Glossary................................................................................................... C-1

List of Compendium Tables

1A Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by

gender and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998........................... 11

1B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by

gender and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998........................... 12

2A Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by

gender and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998......... 13

2B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by

gender and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998......... 14

3A Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year

institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998........... 15

3B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year

institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998........... 16

4A Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year

institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998........... 17

4B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year

institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998........... 18

5A Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by

race/ethnicity and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998................. 19

5B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by

race/ethnicity and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998................. 20

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

race/ethnicity and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998 21

6B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by

race/ethnicity and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998 22

7A Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year

institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998. 23

7B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year

institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998. 24
List of Compendium Tables (continued)

8A Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year

institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998. 25

8B Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year

institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998. 26

List of Appendix Tables

A1 Weighted sample sizes (in thousands), full-time and part-time instructional

faculty and staff, by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998.................. A-10

B1 Standard errors for table 2A, percentage distribution of full-time

instructional faculty and staff, by gender and by type and control of

institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998............................................................ B-5

B2 Standard errors for table 2B, percentage distribution of part-time

instructional faculty and staff, by gender and by type and control of

institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998............................................................ B-6

B3 Standard errors for table 3A, percentage distribution of full-time

instructional faculty and staff in 4-year institutions, by gender and by

program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998 ....................................................... B-7

B4 Standard errors for table 5A, percentage distribution of full-time

instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity and by type of institution:

Fall 1992 and fall 1998.............................................................................. B-8

B5 Standard errors for table 5B, percentage distribution of part-time

instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity and by type of institution:

Fall 1992 and fall 1998.............................................................................. B-9

B6 Standard errors for table 7A, percentage distribution of full-time

instructional faculty and staff in 4-year institutions, by race/ethnicity and

by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998................................................... B-10

1

Summary

The literature examining gender and race/ethnicity issues for faculty in postsecondary education

has relied largely on data from two national studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): the 1988 and 1993 National Study of Postsecondary

Faculty (NSOPF:88 and NSOPF:93), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Fall Staff

Surveys (IPEDS-S). These studies have consistently shown that the vast majority of full- and part-time

faculty were White, non-Hispanic males (U.S. Department of Education, 1997; U.S. Department of

Education, 2000).

The purpose of this E.D. Tab is to describe how the gender and racial/ethnic composition of fulland part-time instructional faculty and staff has changed between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998. In

addition to this more focused report, two new NCES publications use data from NSOPF:99 to explore

gender and racial/ethnic differences among faculty by several outcome variables such as salary, tenure

status, and academic rank: Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Salary and Other Characteristics of

Postsecondary Faculty (U.S. Department of Education 2002a) and Tenure Status of Postsecondary

Instructional Faculty and Staff, 1992–98 (U.S. Department of Education 2002b).

The data for this report are analyzed by institution level, type and control, and academic program.1

The analyses are based on instructional faculty and staff; that is, faculty and staff with some for-credit

teaching responsibilities. The first part of the summary will focus on changes in the gender composition

of instructional faculty and staff, and the second part will discuss changes in the racial/ethnic composition

of instructional faculty and staff.2

All comparative statements in this report have been tested for statistical significance and are

significant at the 0.05 level. However, not all statistically significant comparisons are presented in the

text. In this report, some differences that appear large may not be statistically significant due in part to

the relatively large standard errors surrounding the estimates because of small sample sizes.

Changes in the Composition of Faculty by Gender

Data from the NSOPF:99 indicate that some changes occurred in the gender composition of both

full- and part-time instructional faculty and staff between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998. Among

full-time faculty over the 6-year period, the percentage who were female increased by 3 percent from

33 percent to 36 percent across all institutions (table 1A). Similar changes in the gender composition of

part-time faculty occurred between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998 (table 1B). Across all institutions,

there was an increase in the percentage of part-time faculty who were female (from 45 to 48 percent).

 

1

 Institution types are based on the Carnegie classification and whether the institution is public or private not-for-profit. To improve readability,

the phrase “not-for-profit” may be excluded when referring to “private not-for-profit” institutions. Private for-profit institutions are not part of

the population for the NSOPF study. See the Technical Notes for a discussion of the institution types and the Glossary for a description of

program areas used in this report.

2

 American Indian/Alaska Native respondents made up only 0.8 percent of the overall sample. Because the group is so small, analyses involving

the comparison of this group to others, particularly if subdivided further, are inadvisable because the resulting standard errors are very large and

very few apparent differences would achieve statistical significance. For this reason, this report excludes the American Indian/Alaska Native

category from analysis, though estimates for this group are shown in the tables.
2

Gender Changes by Level of Institution

Full-Time Faculty

Similar to the overall percentage of full-time instructional faculty who were female, the percentage

of female full-time instructional faculty in 4-year institutions increased by 3 percent over the 6-year

period, and the percentage in 2-year institutions increased by 5 percent (table 1A).

In spite of this gain, the gender gap persisted among full-time faculty in 4-year institutions in the

fall of 1998 (67 percent male vs. 33 percent female), as it did across all types of postsecondary institutions

(64 percent male vs. 36 percent female). In 2-year institutions in the fall of 1998, there was no significant

difference between the proportion of male and female full-time instructional faculty (50 percent each);

whereas in the fall of 1992, full-time instructional faculty were more likely to be male than female (54

percent male vs. 46 percent female).

Part-Time Faculty

Several changes occurred in the gender composition of part-time instructional faculty (table 1B).

Across institutions, there was an increase in the percentage of faculty who were female (from 45 percent

to 48 percent). Over the 6-year period, the percentage of female faculty who taught in 2-year institutions

increased 5 percent (from 44 percent in 1992 to 49 percent in 1998). Mirroring the pattern that existed

among male and female full-time faculty, the gender gap that existed between male and female part-time

faculty in the fall of 1992 (56 percent male vs. 44 percent female) was no longer significant by the fall of

1998 (51 percent male vs. 49 percent female; table 1B).

Gender Changes by Type and Control of Institution

Full-Time Faculty

The analysis of the gender composition of faculty between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998 by

type and control of institution revealed that most, but not all, of the changes occurred in public

institutions. The proportion of females among full-time faculty increased in public institutions (from 34

percent in 1992 to 37 percent in 1998; table 1A). The percentage of female faculty who taught full-time

in public research, public comprehensive, public 2-year, and private doctoral institutions increased

between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998 (table 2A). Over the 6-year period, the increase in the

percentage of female faculty was larger for those teaching in private doctoral institutions than for female

faculty teaching in either public comprehensive or public 2-year institutions.

Part-Time Faculty

Among part-time instructional faculty, the only gender changes that occurred over the 6-year

period were an increase in the proportion of female faculty overall (from 45 to 48 percent) and an increase

in the proportion of female faculty who taught in public 2-year institutions (from 43 to 48 percent; table

2B).
3

Gender Changes by Program Area in 4-Year Institutions

Full-Time Faculty

Between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998, the percentage of female full-time faculty teaching in

4-year institutions across all program areas increased by 3 percent over the 6-year period (from 30 to 33

percent; table 3A). For example, over this 6-year period, there was an increase in the percentage of

female faculty teaching in the social sciences (from 26 to 30 percent). Although in the fall of 1998, male

full-time faculty were more likely than female full-time faculty in 4-year institutions to teach in the

natural sciences (79 percent vs. 21 percent), the proportion of female full-time faculty teaching in this

area increased over the 6-year period. 3 In the fall of 1992, education was the only area in which there

were no significant differences between male and female faculty (table 3A). By the fall of 1998, female

faculty outnumbered male faculty in this area.

Part-Time Faculty

Across all program areas, there were no significant changes in the proportion of male and female

part-time faculty teaching at 4-year institutions between 1992 and 1998 (table 3B). In specific program

areas, however, some gender changes did occur, with the proportion of female faculty increasing in some

areas and decreasing in others. For example, in the fall of 1992, part-time male faculty were more likely

than their female counterparts to teach in the fine arts. By the fall of 1998, no differences were detected

between male and female faculty teaching in this program area. Conversely, in the fall of 1992, no

differences were detected in the proportion of male and female faculty teaching in the social sciences.

However, in the fall of 1998, part-time male faculty were more likely than their female counterparts to

teach in the social sciences. The differences in the proportions of male and female part-time faculty

teaching in the health sciences in both the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998 were not significant.

Gender Changes by Program Area in 2-Year Institutions

Full-Time Faculty

Consistent with the findings for 4-year institutions, the proportion of female faculty teaching full

time in 2-year institutions increased in the natural sciences (from 33 to 42 percent), the social sciences

(from 34 to 46 percent), and education (from 68 to 81 percent) between the fall of 1992 and the fall of

1998 (table 4A). While male faculty dominated most remaining areas in both years, female faculty were

more likely than their male counterparts to teach in the areas of education and the health sciences in both

1992 and 1998.

Part-Time Faculty

Among part-time faculty teaching business in 2-year institutions, the percentage of female faculty

increased between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998 (35 to 49 percent; table 4B). However, the

percentage of female part-time faculty who taught engineering in 2-year institutions declined over the

6-year period (from 13 to 2 percent). Within program years, there were more male than female part-time

faculty teaching business and the social sciences in 2-year institutions in the fall of 1992. However, by

 

3

 The apparent change in the proportion of female faculty teaching in the field of engineering between the fall of 1992 and 1998 is not statistically

significant.
4

the fall of 1998, no differences were detected between male and female part-time faculty teaching in these

areas. Conversely, there were more female part-time faculty in 2-year institutions than male part-time

faculty teaching in the humanities in the fall of 1992, but by the fall of 1998, there were no significant

differences between male and female part-time faculty teaching in the humanities (table 4B).

Changes in the Composition of Faculty by Race/Ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic faculty continued to hold the vast majority of full-time positions in

postsecondary institutions (87 percent in 1992 and 85 percent in 1998; table 5A). The only identifiable

change overall was in the percentage of Hispanic full-time faculty across all institutions, which increased

between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998.

Race/Ethnicity Changes by Level and Type of Institution

Examining changes by institution level and type shows that there was an increase in the percentage

of Hispanic full-time faculty teaching in 4-year institutions between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998

(table 5A). The percentage of White, non-Hispanic full-time faculty teaching in 4-year institutions

declined between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998 (from 87 to 85 percent). There was also an increase

in the percentage of Hispanic full-time faculty teaching in public institutions during the 6-year period

(table 5A).

There were no changes in minority and White, non-Hispanic full-time faculty teaching in 2-year

institutions between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998.

Race/Ethnicity Changes by Control of Institution

Examining changes by control of institution shows that there was a decline in the percentage of

White, non-Hispanic full-time faculty teaching at public research institutions over the 6-year period (from

88 to 85 percent; table 6A). There were no significant differences between minority and White, nonHispanic part-time faculty by control of institution (table 6B).

Race/Ethnicity Changes by Program Area in 4-Year Institutions

Full-Time Faculty

In individual program areas, several changes occurred in the racial/ethnic composition of

instructional faculty and staff in 4-year institutions. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander full-time

faculty teaching in the social sciences increased between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998 (from 3 to 6

percent; table 7A). The percentage of Hispanic full-time faculty declined from 3 to 1 percent among

those teaching in the fine arts, while Hispanic faculty increased from 4 to 6 percent among those teaching

in the humanities. Over the 6-year period, there was a decline in the percentage of White, non-Hispanic

full-time faculty who taught in the humanities and social sciences.
5

Part-Time Faculty

There were also several changes in individual program areas among part-time minority and White,

non-Hispanic faculty and staff who taught in 4-year institutions. The percentage of Black, non-Hispanic

part-time faculty decreased in two program areas—education and the fine arts—and increased in the

social sciences (table 7B). The percentage of Hispanic part-time faculty in 4-year institutions who taught

in “all other fields” (i.e., other than agriculture/home economics, business, education, engineering, fine

arts, health sciences, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences) increased during the 6-year period

(from 2 to 5 percent), as did the percentage of White, non-Hispanic part-time faculty teaching the fine arts

(from 90 to 94 percent).

There were no significant differences between minority and White, non-Hispanic faculty who

taught part-time or full-time in 2-year institutions between the fall of 1992 and the fall of 1998. 4

 

4

 Compared to 4-year institutions, estimates for 2-year institutions were based on small sample sizes and generally had larger standard errors.

Thus, some differences that appear large for 2-year institutions were less likely to be statistically significant.
6
7

References

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Instructional Faculty and

Staff in Higher Education Institutions: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992, NCES 97-470, by Rita J.

Kirshstein, Nancy Matheson, and Zhongren Jing. Project Officer, Linda Zimbler. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Fall Staff in

Postsecondary Institutions, 1995, NCES 98-228, by Shep Roey and Rebecca Rak-Skinner. Project

Officer, Rosa Fernandez and Sam Barbett. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Salary, Promotion, and

Tenure Status of Minority and Women Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities, NCES 2000-173,

by Michael Nettles, Laura Perna, and Ellen M. Bradburn. Project Officer, Linda Zimbler.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a). Gender and Racial/

Ethnic Differences in Salary and Other Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty; Fall 1998,

NCES 2002-170, by Ellen M. Bradburn and Anna C. Sikora. Project Officer, Linda Zimbler.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002b). Tenure Status of

Postsecondary Instructional Faculty and Staff: 1992–98, NCES 2002-210, by Basmat Parsad and

Denise Glover. Project Officer, Linda Zimbler. Washington, DC.
8
9

Compendium of Tables
10
11

Table 1A.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender and by

type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Type of institution Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All institutions*.............................................................. 66.8 63.7 33.2 36.3

All 4-year institutions........................................................ 70.2 67.0 29.8 33.0

All 2-year institutions........................................................ 54.4 49.6 45.6 50.4

All public institutions........................................................ 66.5 62.8 33.5 37.2

All private not-for-profit institutions................................. 67.5 65.9 32.5 34.1

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

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
12

Table 1B.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender and by

type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Type of institution Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All institutions*.............................................................. 55.4 52.2 44.6 47.9

All 4-year institutions........................................................ 55.0 53.1 45.0 46.9

All 2-year institutions........................................................ 55.9 50.9 44.2 49.1

All public institutions........................................................ 55.3 51.0 44.7 49.0

All private not-for-profit institutions................................. 55.8 54.7 44.2 45.3

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

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
13

Table 2A.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender and by

type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Type and control of institution Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All institutions1 ............................................................... 66.8 63.7 33.2 36.3

Public research ................................................................... 76.7 70.5 23.3 29.5

Private not-for-profit research............................................ 69.1 73.9 30.9 26.2

Public doctoral2 .................................................................. 69.9 66.7 30.1 33.3

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 .......................................... 76.4 63.6 23.6 36.4

Public comprehensive......................................................... 66.1 61.7 33.9 38.3

Private not-for-profit comprehensive................................. 64.9 63.3 35.1 36.7

Private not-for-profit liberal arts........................................ 61.1 62.2 38.9 37.9

Public 2-year...................................................................... 54.7 50.1 45.3 49.9

Other3................................................................................. 70.5 67.9 29.5 32.1

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

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

3

Public liberal arts, private not-for-profit 2-year, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
14

Table 2B.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by gender and by

type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Type and control of institution Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All institutions1 ............................................................... 55.4 52.2 44.6 47.9

Public research ................................................................... 56.7 55.2 43.3 44.8

Private not-for-profit research............................................ 58.7 60.3 41.3 39.8

Public doctoral2 .................................................................. 55.4 49.6 44.6 50.4

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 .......................................... 63.1 58.6 36.9 41.4

Public comprehensive......................................................... 49.0 46.5 51.0 53.5

Private not-for-profit comprehensive................................. 56.4 59.1 43.6 40.9

Private not-for-profit liberal arts........................................ 46.6 44.0 53.4 56.1

Public 2-year...................................................................... 56.6 51.8 43.4 48.2

Other3................................................................................. 56.0 54.3 44.0 45.8

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

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

3

Public liberal arts, private not-for-profit 2-year, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary

Faculty (NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
15

Table 3A.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year institutions,

by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Program area Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All program areas in 4-year institutions......................... 70.2 67.0 29.8 33.0

Agriculture/home economics ............................................. 77.3 81.8 22.7 18.2

Business............................................................................. 76.4 73.2 23.6 26.9

Education............................................................................ 52.7 45.9 47.3 54.1

Engineering........................................................................ 94.2 90.8 5.8 9.2

Fine arts.............................................................................. 67.3 68.4 32.7 31.6

Health sciences................................................................... 58.5 57.5 41.5 42.5

Humanities ......................................................................... 62.2 58.8 37.8 41.2

Natural sciences.................................................................. 83.3 79.2 16.7 20.8

Social sciences.................................................................... 73.9 69.7 26.1 30.3

All other fields.................................................................... 68.4 66.6 31.6 33.4

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
16

Table 3B.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year

institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Program area Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All program areas in 4-year institutions......................... 55.0 53.1 45.0 46.9

Agriculture/home economics ............................................. (#) (#) (#) (#)

Business............................................................................. 75.0 70.3 25.0 29.7

Education............................................................................ 35.6 33.0 64.4 67.0

Engineering........................................................................ 95.9 94.8 4.1 5.2

Fine arts.............................................................................. 55.0 47.5 45.0 52.5

Health sciences................................................................... 51.3 48.0 48.7 52.0

Humanities ......................................................................... 40.8 41.3 59.2 58.7

Natural sciences.................................................................. 68.7 64.4 31.3 35.6

Social sciences.................................................................... 53.7 59.7 46.3 40.3

All other fields.................................................................... 56.8 59.8 43.2 40.3

#Too small to report.

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
17

Table 4A.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year institutions,

by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Program area Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All program areas in 2-year institutions......................... 54.4 49.6 45.6 50.4

Agriculture/home economics ............................................. 63.8 73.9 36.2 26.1

Business............................................................................. 49.1 43.1 50.9 56.9

Education............................................................................ 32.4 19.5 67.6 80.5

Engineering........................................................................ 92.6 90.3 7.4 9.7

Fine arts.............................................................................. 65.4 69.1 34.6 30.9

Health sciences................................................................... 15.0 10.1 85.0 89.9

Humanities ......................................................................... 48.8 45.7 51.2 54.3

Natural sciences.................................................................. 67.4 58.3 32.6 41.7

Social sciences.................................................................... 65.7 54.5 34.3 45.5

Vocational training............................................................. 86.6 84.1 13.4 15.9

All other fields.................................................................... 55.7 51.4 44.3 48.6

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
18

Table 4B.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year

institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Program area Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All program areas in 2-year institutions......................... 55.9 50.9 44.2 49.1

Agriculture/home economics ............................................. (#) (#) (#) (#)

Business............................................................................. 65.3 50.6 34.7 49.4

Education............................................................................ 26.7 16.0 73.3 84.0

Engineering........................................................................ 87.1 97.6 12.9 2.4

Fine arts.............................................................................. 46.3 50.6 53.7 49.4

Health sciences................................................................... 27.5 28.6 72.5 71.4

Humanities ......................................................................... 41.2 47.5 58.8 52.5

Natural sciences.................................................................. 67.3 61.6 32.7 38.4

Social sciences.................................................................... 61.8 48.4 38.2 51.6

Vocational training............................................................. 87.1 85.5 12.9 14.5

All other fields.................................................................... 58.1 48.1 41.9 51.9

#Too small to report.

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
19

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

and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity1

Type of institution and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All institutions2....................................................... 0.7 5.8 5.1 3.3 85.1

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.7 6.4 4.9 3.0 85.0

All 2-year institutions................................................ 0.7 3.4 5.8 4.5 85.6

All public institutions................................................ 0.7 6.2 5.1 3.7 84.4

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.7 4.9 5.0 2.5 86.9

1992

All institutions2....................................................... 0.5 5.2 5.2 2.6 86.5

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.3 5.8 4.9 2.2 86.8

All 2-year institutions................................................ 1.0 3.4 6.2 4.0 85.4

All public institutions................................................ 0.6 5.3 5.4 2.9 85.9

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.3 5.2 4.7 2.0 87.8

1

In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

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

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
20

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

and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity1

Type of institution and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All institutions2....................................................... 1.0 3.2 4.5 3.7 87.6

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.9 3.8 4.0 3.0 88.2

All 2-year institutions................................................ 1.0 2.3 5.3 4.7 86.7

All public institutions................................................ 1.2 3.1 4.7 4.2 86.7

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.3 3.2 4.2 2.6 89.7

1992

All institutions2....................................................... 0.6 3.2 4.8 3.0 88.4

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.4 3.7 5.1 2.3 88.6

All 2-year institutions................................................ 0.9 2.7 4.5 3.8 88.1

All public institutions................................................ 0.6 3.5 4.7 3.5 87.6

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.5 2.6 5.1 1.7 90.1

1

In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

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

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
21

Table 6A.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity

and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity1

Type and control of institution and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All institutions2....................................................... 0.7 5.8 5.1 3.3 85.1

Public research ........................................................... 0.5 8.5 3.2 3.4 84.5

Private not-for-profit research.................................... 0.2 7.0 3.7 3.5 85.6

Public doctoral3.......................................................... 1.3 6.0 3.9 3.0 85.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral3.................................. 0.7 9.2 4.4 3.9 81.8

Public comprehensive................................................. 0.5 5.9 7.4 3.6 82.6

Private not-for-profit comprehensive......................... 1.2 3.7 4.5 2.7 87.8

Private not-for-profit liberal arts................................ 1.1 2.9 6.4 1.6 88.1

Public 2-year.............................................................. 0.8 3.4 6.0 4.6 85.3

Other4......................................................................... 0.6 4.6 7.1 1.3 86.4

1992

All institutions2....................................................... 0.5 5.2 5.2 2.6 86.5

Public research ........................................................... 0.1 6.9 2.8 2.2 88.0

Private not-for-profit research.................................... 0.2 9.0 5.0 2.1 83.7

Public doctoral3.......................................................... 0.8 6.1 3.1 2.5 87.6

Private not-for-profit doctoral3.................................. 0.2 7.1 4.9 3.7 84.1

Public comprehensive................................................. 0.5 5.1 9.1 2.6 82.7

Private not-for-profit comprehensive......................... 0.2 3.3 3.5 1.6 91.3

Private not-for-profit liberal arts................................ 0.5 2.8 5.4 1.3 90.0

Public 2-year.............................................................. 1.0 3.3 6.2 4.1 85.5

Other4......................................................................... 0.5 5.2 3.7 1.4 89.2

1

In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

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

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

4

Public liberal arts, private not-for-profit 2-year, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
22

Table 6B.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity

and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity1

Type and control of institution and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All institutions2....................................................... 1.0 3.2 4.5 3.7 87.6

Public research ........................................................... 1.9 4.6 2.9 3.5 87.1

Private not-for-profit research.................................... (#) 2.5 3.3 4.3 89.9

Public doctoral3.......................................................... 2.3 3.1 3.6 3.1 87.9

Private not-for-profit doctoral3.................................. 0.4 7.1 3.4 2.3 86.8

Public comprehensive................................................. 1.2 5.5 4.1 3.8 85.5

Private not-for-profit comprehensive......................... 0.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 93.1

Private not-for-profit liberal arts................................ 0.2 3.2 6.9 3.1 86.7

Public 2-year.............................................................. 1.0 2.3 5.3 4.8 86.6

Other4......................................................................... 0.2 2.9 4.6 2.0 90.3

1992

All institutions2....................................................... 0.6 3.2 4.8 3.0 88.4

Public research ........................................................... # 6.6 2.5 3.2 87.8

Private not-for-profit research.................................... 0.4 3.0 4.4 2.7 89.5

Public doctoral3.......................................................... 0.4 3.3 3.3 1.6 91.4

Private not-for-profit doctoral3.................................. 0.2 3.5 7.2 1.5 87.7

Public comprehensive................................................. 0.7 4.1 7.2 3.0 85.0

Private not-for-profit comprehensive......................... 0.5 2.5 5.0 1.1 90.9

Private not-for-profit liberal arts................................ 0.1 1.6 5.8 2.9 89.6

Public 2-year.............................................................. 0.8 2.7 4.6 4.0 88.0

Other4......................................................................... 1.1 3.8 3.2 1.1 90.8

# Too small to report.

1

In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

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

3

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

4

Public liberal arts, private not-for-profit 2-year, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: This table 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).Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
23

Table 7A.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year institutions,

by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity*

Program area and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All program areas in 4-year institutions................. 0.7 6.4 4.9 3.0 85.0

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... 1.2 3.5 4.1 1.5 89.8

Business..................................................................... 1.6 6.8 5.7 1.1 84.9

Education.................................................................... 1.0 3.1 8.3 3.1 84.6

Engineering................................................................ 0.5 16.8 2.5 3.5 76.8

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.5 2.3 7.1 1.2 88.9

Health sciences........................................................... 0.8 6.9 4.1 3.4 84.8

Humanities ................................................................. 0.3 4.8 4.8 6.2 83.8

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.3 9.2 2.6 2.3 85.5

Social sciences............................................................ 1.1 5.5 5.7 2.8 84.9

All other fields............................................................ 0.9 3.1 6.3 2.2 87.6

1992

All program areas in 4-year institutions................. 0.3 5.8 4.9 2.2 86.8

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... 0.8 2.7 4.1 1.6 90.8

Business..................................................................... 0.6 5.9 3.7 1.4 88.5

Education.................................................................... 0.5 1.2 9.2 2.1 87.1

Engineering................................................................ 0.2 18.9 3.0 2.5 75.4

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.5 2.6 6.1 2.7 88.2

Health sciences........................................................... 0.2 6.6 4.6 2.3 86.4

Humanities ................................................................. 0.3 3.4 4.2 3.9 88.2

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.3 9.1 3.6 1.7 85.3

Social sciences............................................................ 0.4 3.2 5.5 2.2 88.6

All other fields............................................................ 0.3 3.4 6.2 1.7 88.4

*In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
24

Table 7B.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 4-year

institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity*

Program area and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All program areas in 4-year institutions................. 0.9 3.8 4.0 3.0 88.2

Agriculture/home economics .....................................

Business..................................................................... (#) 2.9 3.3 0.6 93.2

Education.................................................................... 2.3 0.3 3.6 2.3 91.5

Engineering................................................................ (#) 10.5 7.0 7.9 74.6

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.7 1.0 2.2 1.7 94.4

Health sciences........................................................... 1.9 5.0 2.1 1.8 89.3

Humanities ................................................................. 1.2 4.4 2.3 4.5 87.7

Natural sciences.......................................................... (#) 5.5 7.7 1.8 85.0

Social sciences............................................................ 0.9 1.7 8.6 3.9 84.9

All other fields............................................................ 0.5 5.6 3.1 4.7 86.1

1992

All program areas in 4-year institutions................. 0.4 3.7 5.1 2.3 88.6

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... (#) (#) (#) (#) (#)

Business..................................................................... 0.3 1.9 4.5 2.4 90.9

Education.................................................................... 1.0 1.0 7.0 1.2 89.9

Engineering................................................................ (#) 12.2 1.5 2.6 83.6

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.6 2.6 5.3 1.7 89.8

Health sciences........................................................... 0.2 5.1 6.1 1.5 87.1

Humanities ................................................................. 0.1 2.6 4.1 4.7 88.5

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.6 7.1 4.0 2.3 86.0

Social sciences............................................................ 0.5 3.4 6.1 2.4 87.7

All other fields............................................................ 0.2 2.4 5.7 1.6 90.2

# Too small to report.

* In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
25

Table 8A.—Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year institutions,

by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity*

Program area and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All program areas in 2-year institutions................. 0.7 3.4 5.8 4.5 85.6

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... (#) (#) 4.0 0.8 95.3

Business..................................................................... 0.5 0.7 4.3 3.1 91.5

Education.................................................................... (#) 6.9 10.6 4.4 78.1

Engineering................................................................ 1.7 10.9 1.4 7.1 78.9

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.8 2.5 4.9 0.9 91.0

Health sciences........................................................... 0.5 2.3 5.7 2.8 88.8

Humanities ................................................................. 0.5 4.3 3.7 7.5 84.0

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.2 3.9 5.1 5.3 85.5

Social sciences............................................................ 2.4 2.4 12.6 4.1 78.4

Vocational training..................................................... 2.6 0.6 5.8 4.8 86.3

All other fields............................................................ 0.1 4.6 5.8 2.8 86.6

1992

All program areas in 2-year institutions................. 1.0 3.4 6.2 4.0 85.4

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... (#) 3.7 2.6 3.3 90.4

Business..................................................................... 2.0 2.0 5.2 2.2 88.6

Education.................................................................... 3.3 3.4 10.2 8.8 74.3

Engineering................................................................ 2.8 6.1 2.2 5.9 83.0

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.6 3.2 4.1 1.2 90.9

Health sciences........................................................... 0.3 3.7 9.9 2.3 83.9

Humanities ................................................................. 0.9 2.7 4.2 4.7 87.6

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.7 5.4 3.6 2.7 87.7

Social sciences............................................................ 0.6 3.5 9.4 5.4 81.1

Vocational training..................................................... 0.7 2.0 3.4 4.4 89.6

All other fields............................................................ 0.5 1.7 8.1 5.3 84.5

# Too small to report.

* In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
26

Table 8B.—Percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty and staff in 2-year

institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity*

Program area and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All program areas in 2-year institutions................. 1.0 2.3 5.3 4.7 86.7

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... (#) (#) (#) (#) (#)

Business..................................................................... (#) 1.3 8.2 2.3 88.2

Education.................................................................... 0.8 0.8 8.7 6.3 83.4

Engineering................................................................ 2.5 3.6 1.0 17.3 75.7

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.6 1.1 4.2 5.9 88.2

Health sciences........................................................... 0.5 1.4 4.0 2.1 92.1

Humanities ................................................................. 1.5 2.9 3.1 7.2 85.4

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.9 3.5 4.7 2.9 88.1

Social sciences............................................................ 0.9 (#) 7.4 6.1 85.6

Vocational training..................................................... 3.8 1.3 6.2 3.4 85.3

All other fields............................................................ (#) 3.1 6.1 3.0 87.8

1992

All program areas in 2-year institutions................. 0.9 2.7 4.5 3.8 88.0

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... (#) (#) (#) (#) (#)

Business..................................................................... 0.8 2.3 5.7 2.9 88.3

Education.................................................................... 0.8 2.4 10.1 3.6 83.3

Engineering................................................................ 4.3 2.0 2.5 1.2 90.1

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.6 1.9 4.8 4.2 88.4

Health sciences........................................................... 1.2 1.8 4.8 1.8 90.3

Humanities ................................................................. 1.4 2.9 2.6 6.8 86.3

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.8 4.0 4.2 2.6 88.4

Social sciences............................................................ 0.6 2.6 7.4 3.0 86.4

Vocational training..................................................... 0.1 1.3 3.5 6.3 88.8

All other fields............................................................ # 2.7 3.3 2.7 91.3

# Too small to report.

* In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority racial/ethnic category they selected (see Technical Notes for more

information).

NOTE: This table 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). Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
A-1

APPENDIX A

Technical Notes
A-2
A-3

Technical Notes

Overview

Since the fall of 1987, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) has sponsored three cycles of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) to

provide national profiles of postsecondary faculty, including their professional backgrounds,

responsibilities, workloads, salaries, benefits, and attitudes. This report analyzes data from the second

and third cycles of NSOPF.

The first cycle of NSOPF (NSOPF:88), conducted in 1987–88, sampled 480 institutions

(including 2-year, 4-year, doctorate-granting, and other colleges and universities), over 3,000 department

chairpersons, and over 11,000 faculty. The second cycle (NSOPF:93), administered in 1992–93, was

limited to surveys of institutions and faculty, but with a substantially expanded sample of 974 public and

private, not-for-profit degree-granting postsecondary institutions and 31,354 faculty and instructional

staff.5 A similar sample was designed for the most recent study (NSOPF:99); it included 960 degreegranting postsecondary institutions and a final sample of 19,813 faculty and instructional staff from those

institutions. (See table A1 on p. A-10 for weighted sample sizes.) Additional information about NSOPF

is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/.

Institution Universe

The institution universe for NSOPF:99 included

• Title IV degree-granting institutions;6

• Public and private not-for-profit institutions;7

• Institutions that confer associate’s, bachelor’s, or advanced degrees; and

• Institutions that are located in the United States.

The universe excluded institutions that offered only less-than-2-year programs, those that did not

participate in federal Title IV student aid programs, those that were private for-profit, and those located

outside the United States (for example, in U.S. territories). It also excluded institutions that offer

instruction only to employees of the institutions, tribal colleges, and institutions that offer only

correspondence courses. According to the NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS), 3,396 institutions met these criteria and were eligible for the NSOPF:99 sample.

 

5

 For more details on the sample and methodology for NSOPF:93, see R. Kirshstein, N. Matheson, and Z. Jing, Instructional Faculty and Staff in

Higher Education Institutions: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992. (NCES 97–470), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, 1997.

6

 The U.S. Department of Education is no longer distinguishing among institutions based on accreditation level. As a result, NCES now

subdivides the postsecondary institution universe into schools that are eligible to receive Title IV federal financial assistance and those that are

not.

7

 Private for-profit institutions are not included even though they may be Title IV degree-granting institutions.
A-4

Faculty Universe

Unlike NSOPF:88, which was limited to faculty whose assignment included instruction, the

faculty universe for NSOPF:93 and NSOPF:99 was expanded to include all those who were designated as

faculty, whether or not their responsibilities included instruction, and other (nonfaculty) personnel with

instructional responsibilities. Under this definition, researchers and administrators and other institutional

staff who hold faculty positions, but who do not teach, were included in the sample. Instructional staff

without faculty status also were included. Teaching assistants were not included in any cycle of NSOPF.

Sample Universe

As in NSOPF:93, the NSOPF:99 sample was selected through a two-stage stratified, clustered

probability design. The first-stage sampling frame consisted of the 3,396 postsecondary institutions in

IPEDS8that were public or private, not-for-profit Title IV institutions and provided formal degree

programs of at least 2 years’ duration. While the IPEDS universe includes private institutions that are

both for-profit and not-for-profit, the institutional universe for NSOPF:99 excluded private for-profit

institutions.

The 3,396 institutions in the NSOPF:99 universe were stratified based on the highest degrees they

offered and the amount of federal research dollars they received. These strata distinguished public and

private institutions, as well as several types of institutions based on the Carnegie Foundation’s

classification system. 9 The following institutional categories were used in this report:

• Public research: Publicly controlled institutions among the leading universities in federal

research funds. Each of these universities awards substantial numbers of doctorates across

many fields.

• Private not-for-profit research: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions among the

leading universities in federal research funds. Each of these universities awards substantial

numbers of doctorates across many fields.

• Public doctoral: Publicly controlled institutions that offer a full range of baccalaureate

programs and doctoral degrees in at least three disciplines, but tend to be less focused on

research and receive fewer federal research dollars than the research universities. In this

report, this group also includes publicly controlled institutions classified by the Carnegie

Foundation as specialized medical schools.

• Private not-for-profit doctoral: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that offer a

full range of baccalaureate programs and doctoral degrees in at least three disciplines, but

tend to be less focused on research and receive fewer federal research dollars than the

research universities. In this report, this group also includes privately controlled institutions

classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools.

• Public comprehensive: Publicly controlled institutions that offer liberal arts and

professional programs; these institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are

 

8

For more information on IPEDS data, go to the NCES Web Site (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds).

9

 See the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994.
A-5

committed to graduate education through the master's degree. They award 20 or more

master's degrees annually in one or more disciplines.

• Private not-for-profit comprehensive: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that

offer liberal arts and professional programs; these institutions offer a full range of

baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the master's degree.

They award 20 or more master's degrees annually in one or more disciplines.

• Private not-for-profit liberal arts: Privately controlled not-for-profit institutions that are

smaller than comprehensive colleges and universities; they primarily offer bachelor's degrees,

although some offer master's degrees.

• Public 2-year: Publicly controlled institutions that offer certificate or degree programs only

through the associate’s degree level.

• Other: Public liberal arts, private 2-year,10 and religious and other specialized institutions,

except medical.

Data Collection Procedures

Prior to collecting data from faculty, it was first necessary to obtain cooperation from the sampled

institutions. Each institution was asked to provide lists of all faculty and instructional staff at their

institution and to complete an Institution Questionnaire.

Institution coordinators were asked to provide a list of full- and part-time faculty and instructional

staff that included all personnel who had faculty status or instructional responsibilities during the 1998

fall term (i.e., the term that included November 1, 1998).

Response Rates

Of the 960 institutions in the sample, one was ineligible because it had merged with another

institution. A total of 818 institutions provided lists of faculty and instructional staff, for a weighted list

participation rate of 88.4 percent. A total of 865 institutions returned the institution questionnaire, for a

weighted response rate of 92.8 percent. Institution weights were based on the inverse of the institutional

probability of selection.

Initially, 28, 576 faculty and instructional staff were selected from institutions that provided a list

of their faculty and instructional staff. Subsequently, a subsample of 19,813 faculty and instructional staff

was drawn for intensive followup. Approximately 18,000 faculty and instructional staff questionnaires

were completed for a weighted response rate of 83.0 percent. The overall weighted faculty response rate

(institution list participation rate multiplied by the faculty questionnaire response rate) was 73.4 percent.

 

10 Public liberal arts and private not-for-profit 2-year institutions have been placed in the “other” category because there are relatively few of them

in the United States.
A-6

Faculty nonresponse bias analyses indicated no significant bias. Item nonresponse occurred when

a respondent did not answer one or more survey questions. The item nonresponse rates were generally

low for the faculty questionnaire.11

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NSOPF:99 Data Analysis System

(DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own tables from the

NSOPF:99 data. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this report. In

addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors12 and weighted sample sizes for

these estimates. For example, table B1 contains standard errors that correspond to table 2A in the essay of

this report, and was generated by the DAS. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable

estimate (less than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate.

In addition to tables, the 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 based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors must be adjusted with the

design effects to take into account the NSOPF:99 stratified sampling method.

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS. For more information about the

NSOPF:99 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

Sources of Error and Statistical Procedures Used

The survey estimates provided in the NSOPF:99 analytical reports are subject to two types of error:

sampling errors and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because the estimates are based on a

sample of individuals in the population rather than on the entire population. The standard error measures

the variability of the sample estimator in repeated sampling, using the same sample design and sample

size.

 

11 For a full description of faculty and item nonresponse, see the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: Methodology Report (NCES

2001–151).

12 The NSOPF:99 samples are not simple random samples and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating sampling errors 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. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor

series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series method.
A-7

Standard errors for all estimates presented in this report’s tables were computed using a technique

known as Taylor series approximation. Standard errors for selected characteristics are presented in tables

B1–B6 in appendix B. Standard errors for all other estimates presented in this report are available upon

request. The DAS software as well as other specialized computer programs, such as SUDAAN13 and

CENVAR,14 calculate variances with the Taylor-series approximation method.

Since the estimates in this report are based on a sample, observed differences between two

estimates can reflect either of two possibilities: differences that exist in the population at large and are

reflected in the sample, or differences due solely to the composition of the sample that do not reflect

underlying population differences. To minimize the risk of erroneously interpreting differences due to

sampling alone as signifying population differences (a Type I error), the statistical significance of

differences between estimates was tested using a t-test. Statistical significance was determined by

calculating t values for differences between pairs of means or proportions and comparing these with

published values of t for two-tailed hypothesis testing, using a 5 percent probability of a Type I error (a

significance level of .05).15

The t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the following formula:

se +se

E - E

t =

2

2

2

1

1 2

(1)

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors.

Note that this formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not independent, a

covariance term must be added to the formula:

E - E

se +se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

(2)

where r is the correlation between the two variables.16 The denominator in this formula will be at its

maximum when the two estimates are perfectly negatively correlated, that is, when r = –1. This means

that a conservative dependent test may be conducted by using –1 for the correlation in this formula, or

1 2

2

2

2

1 2

(se1) (se ) 2se se

E E

t

+ +

−

= . (3)

The estimates and standard errors are obtained from the 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

 

13B V. Shah, B. G. Barnwell, and G. S. Bieler, SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 6.4, Research Triangle Institute, 1995.

14U.S. Bureau of the Census, CENVAR IMPS Version 3.1, 1995.

15A Type I error occurs when one erroneously concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population from

which the sample was drawn.

16U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993.
A-8

sample members in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a small difference compared

across a large number of sample members would produce a large t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making multiple

comparisons between categories of an independent variable. For example, when making paired

comparisons between different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these comparisons

taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more than one difference

between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for statistical significance, one must

apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those comparisons taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p < .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison,

where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the individual

comparison would have p < .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible comparisons, the

significance level for all the comparisons would sum to p < .05. 17

For example, when comparing males and females, only one comparison is possible. In this family,

k=1, and there is no need to adjust the significance level. When faculty members are divided into five

racial/ethnic groups and all possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance level for each

test within this family of comparisons must be p < .05/10, or p < .005. The formula for calculating family

size (k) is as follows:

k =

j(j −1)

2

(4)

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. For example, in the case of a variable

with five categories such as race/ethnicity, one substitutes 5 for j in equation 4:

k =

5(5 −1)

2

=10

Different schools of thought exist on the application of the Bonferroni adjustment: while some

would use an experiment-wise calculation of k, where all the dependent variables were considered

simultaneously in selecting a critical value, here the calculation of k and the accompanying critical value

were restricted to a single dependent variable at a time, since the Bonferroni adjustment is already a

conservative strategy.

Sample estimates also are subject to bias from nonsampling errors. It is more difficult to measure

the magnitude of these errors. They can arise for a variety of reasons: nonresponse, undercoverage,

differences in the respondent’s interpretation of the meaning of questions, memory effects, misrecording

of responses, incorrect editing, coding, and data entry, time effects, or errors in data processing. Whereas

general sampling theory can be used, in part, to determine how to estimate the sampling variability of a

statistic, nonsampling errors are not easy to measure. Measurement of nonsampling errors usually

requires the incorporation of a methodological experiment into the survey or the use of external data to

assess and verify survey results.

To minimize the potential for nonsampling errors, the faculty and institution questionnaires (as well

as the sample design, data collection, and data processing procedures) were field-tested with a national

 

17The standard that p < .05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the comparisons should sum to

p < .05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p < .05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean

Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56 (1961): 52–64.
A-9

probability sample of 162 postsecondary institutions and 512 faculty members in 1997-98. An extensive

item nonresponse analysis was also conducted followed by additional evaluation of the instruments and

survey procedures.18 An item nonresponse analysis was also conducted for the full-scale surveys. See the

1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: Methodology Report (NCES 2002–154) for a detailed

description of the item nonresponse analysis.

In addition, for the full-scale surveys, a computer-based editing system was used to check data for

range errors, logical inconsistencies, and skip patterns that were not properly followed by respondents.

For improperly followed skip patterns, values were logically assigned on the basis of the presence or

absence of responses within the skip pattern, given the responses. Some small inconsistencies between

different data elements remained in the data files. In these situations, it was impossible to resolve the

ambiguity as reported by the respondent.

 

18A complete description of the field test design and results can be found in Abraham, Sameer Y., Steiger, Darby M. , Montgomery, Margarethe,

Kuhr, Brian D., Tourangeau, Roger, Montgomery, Bob, and Chattopadhyay, Manas. (2000). 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:99): Field Test Report (NCES 2000-01), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Working Paper.
A-10

Table A1.—Weighted sample sizes (in thousands), full-time and part-time instructional faculty and

staff, by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Type of institution and year Total Full-time Part-time

1998

All institutions* ..................................................... 976 560 416

All 4-year institutions................................................ 692 453 239

All 2-year institutions................................................ 284 107 177

All public institutions................................................ 684 395 289

All private not-for-profit institutions........................ 293 166 127

1992

All institutions* ..................................................... 905 528 377

All 4-year institutions................................................ 614 412 202

All 2-year institutions................................................ 291 116 175

All public institutions................................................ 636 373 263

All private not-for-profit institutions........................ 269 155 114

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

NOTE: This table 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, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
B-1

APPENDIX B

Standard Error Tables
B-2
B-3

Table of Contents for

 Standard Error Tables

Table Page

B1 Standard errors for table 2A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional

faculty and staff, by gender and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and

fall 1998............................................................................................................. B-5

B2 Standard errors for table 2B, percentage distribution of part-time instructional

faculty and staff, by gender and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and

fall 1998............................................................................................................. B-6

B3 Standard errors for table 3A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional

faculty and staff in 4-year institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992

and fall 1998....................................................................................................... B-7

B4 Standard errors for table 5A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional

faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall

1998 ................................................................................................................ B-8

B5 Standard errors for table 5B, percentage distribution of part-time instructional

faculty and staff, by race/ethnicity and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall

1998 ................................................................................................................ B-9

B6 Standard errors for table 7A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional

faculty and staff in 4-year institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area:

Fall 1992 and fall 1998........................................................................................ B-10
B-4
B-5

Table B1.—Standard errors for table 2A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty

and staff, by gender and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Type and control of institution Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All institutions1 ............................................................... 0.52 0.60 0.52 0.60

Public research ................................................................... 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.00

Private not-for-profit research............................................ 2.41 2.01 2.41 2.01

Public doctoral2 .................................................................. 1.15 1.69 1.15 1.69

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 .......................................... 1.67 2.88 1.67 2.88

Public comprehensive......................................................... 0.85 1.41 0.85 1.41

Private not-for-profit comprehensive................................. 1.86 2.09 1.86 2.09

Private not-for-profit liberal arts........................................ 2.43 1.86 2.43 1.86

Public 2-year...................................................................... 1.01 1.33 1.01 1.33

Other3................................................................................. 3.21 3.62 3.21 3.62

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

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

3

Public liberal arts, private not-for-profit 2-year, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: This table 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, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
B-6

Table B2.—Standard errors for table 2B, percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty

and staff, by gender and by type and control of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Type and control of institution Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All institutions1 ............................................................... 0.83 1.08 0.83 1.08

Public research ................................................................... 4.16 3.50 4.16 3.50

Private not-for-profit research............................................ 5.79 4.62 5.79 4.62

Public doctoral2 .................................................................. 3.93 5.56 3.93 5.56

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 .......................................... 3.61 3.48 3.61 3.48

Public comprehensive......................................................... 2.08 2.95 2.08 2.95

Private not-for-profit comprehensive................................. 2.16 3.19 2.16 3.19

Private not-for-profit liberal arts........................................ 2.87 4.33 2.87 4.33

Public 2-year...................................................................... 1.22 1.62 1.22 1.62

Other3................................................................................. 3.41 3.82 3.41 3.82

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

2

Includes institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as specialized medical schools and medical centers.

3

Public liberal arts, private not-for-profit 2-year, and other specialized institutions, except medical schools and medical centers.

NOTE: This table 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, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary

Faculty (NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
B-7

Table B3.—Standard errors for table 3A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty

and staff in 4-year institutions, by gender and by program area: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Gender

Program area Male Female

1992 1998 1992 1998

All program areas in 4-year institutions......................... 0.56 0.62 0.56 0.62

Agriculture/home economics ............................................. 3.90 3.16 3.90 3.16

Business............................................................................. 1.65 2.03 1.65 2.03

Education............................................................................ 1.99 2.59 1.99 2.59

Engineering........................................................................ 1.06 1.92 1.06 1.92

Fine arts.............................................................................. 1.86 2.49 1.86 2.49

Health sciences................................................................... 1.94 1.87 1.94 1.87

Humanities ......................................................................... 1.33 1.80 1.33 1.80

Natural sciences.................................................................. 0.99 1.16 0.99 1.16

Social sciences.................................................................... 1.33 1.65 1.33 1.65

All other fields.................................................................... 1.52 2.00 1.52 2.00

NOTE: This table 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, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
B-8

Table B4.—Standard errors for table 5A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty

and staff, by race/ethnicity and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity1

Type of institution and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All institutions2....................................................... 0.09 0.30 0.36 0.24 0.53

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.11 0.34 0.42 0.25 0.60

All 2-year institutions................................................ 0.19 0.62 0.62 0.71 1.14

All public institutions................................................ 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.31 0.63

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.35 1.02

1992

All institutions2....................................................... 0.06 0.25 0.39 0.18 0.52

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.06 0.29 0.46 0.18 0.59

All 2-year institutions................................................ 0.20 0.49 0.68 0.50 1.10

All public institutions................................................ 0.08 0.30 0.45 0.23 0.60

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.09 0.48 0.80 0.25 1.04

1 In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority category they selected (see Technical Notes for more information).

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

NOTE: This table 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, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
B-9

Table B5.—Standard errors for table 5B, percentage distribution of part-time instructional faculty

and staff, by race/ethnicity and by type of institution: Fall 1992 and fall 1998

Race/ethnicity1

Type of institution and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All institutions2....................................................... 0.21 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.70

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.28 0.64 0.45 0.35 0.89

All 2-year institutions................................................ 0.32 0.35 0.72 0.74 1.14

All public institutions................................................ 0.30 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.91

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.13 0.60 0.66 0.44 1.01

1992

All institutions2....................................................... 0.11 0.31 0.36 0.35 0.60

All 4-year institutions................................................ 0.11 0.49 0.58 0.31 0.86

All 2-year institutions................................................ 0.20 0.37 0.42 0.65 0.83

All public institutions................................................ 0.14 0.39 0.38 0.48 0.72

All private not-for-profit institutions......................... 0.18 0.47 0.83 0.32 1.07

1 In 1998, respondents were allo wed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority category they selected (see Technical Notes for more information).

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

NOTE: This table 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, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
B-10

Table B6.—Standard errors for table 7A, percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty

and staff in 4-year institutions, by race/ethnicity and by program area: Fall 1992 and

fall 1998

Race/ethnicity*

Program area and year American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

1998

All program areas in 4-year institutions................. 0.11 0.34 0.42 0.25 0.60

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... 1.15 1.13 1.38 0.74 2.23

Business..................................................................... 1.12 1.02 1.09 0.36 1.81

Education.................................................................... 0.36 0.95 1.65 0.65 1.87

Engineering................................................................ 0.33 2.19 0.59 1.48 2.37

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.31 0.64 1.40 0.37 1.62

Health sciences........................................................... 0.23 0.76 0.64 0.62 1.27

Humanities ................................................................. 0.16 1.21 1.01 0.93 1.67

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.13 0.74 0.50 0.51 1.08

Social sciences............................................................ 0.32 0.90 0.83 0.51 1.33

All other fields............................................................ 0.29 0.64 0.88 0.63 1.30

1992

All program areas in 4-year institutions................. 0.06 0.29 0.46 0.18 0.59

Agriculture/home economics ..................................... 0.78 0.98 1.17 1.12 1.93

Business..................................................................... 0.27 0.83 0.64 0.33 1.19

Education.................................................................... 0.23 0.30 1.24 0.78 1.45

Engineering................................................................ 0.24 2.10 0.91 0.63 2.51

Fine arts...................................................................... 0.25 0.96 0.94 0.70 1.51

Health sciences........................................................... 0.11 0.82 0.85 0.53 1.20

Humanities ................................................................. 0.11 0.52 0.53 0.41 0.82

Natural sciences.......................................................... 0.12 0.73 0.68 0.26 1.11

Social sciences............................................................ 0.17 0.47 0.73 0.49 0.98

All other fields............................................................ 0.16 0.87 0.82 0.37 1.22

*In 1998, respondents were allowed to report more than one race/ethnicity category; however, very few (about 1 percent) respondents reported

more than one category. Those persons were placed into the largest minority category they selected (see Technical Notes for more information).

NOTE: This table 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, 1993 and 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty

(NSOPF:93; NSOPF:99).
C-1

APPENDIX C

Glossary
C-2
C-3

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the Data

Analysis System (DAS), an NCES software application that generates tables from the NSOPF data. A

description of the DAS software can be found in appendix A.

In the index below, the variables are organized by the order they appear in the summary. The glossary is

in alphabetical order by the variable label.

Glossary Index to Variables Used in this Summary

Variable Page Number in Summary

Gender 1

Full- or part-time employment 1

Instructional faculty and staff 1

Level of institution 2

Type and control of institution 2

Program area (principal field of teaching) 3

Race/ethnicity 4

Glossary (NSOPF: 99 and NSOPF: 93)

Full- or part-time employment at this institution (Q5 in NSOPF:99 and A4 in NSOPF:93)

Faculty responses to the question, “During the 1998 Fall Term, did this institution consider you to be

employed part-time or full- time?”

Part-time

Full-time

Gender (Q81 in NSOPF:99 and F51 in NSOPF:93)

Faculty response to the question “Are you male or female?”

Male

Female
C-4

Instructional faculty and staff (X01Z1 in NSOPF: 99 and NSOPF: 93)

This derived variable was created from NSOPF:93 faculty survey data and included faculty who answered

yes to the question for the Fall of 1992 and 1998: “During Fall Term, did you have any instructional

duties at this institution?” Instructional duties for credit included teaching one or more classes for credit,

or advising, or supervising academic activities for credit, e.g., individualized instruction.”

Level of institution, 4-year versus 2-year X06Z0 in NSOPF:99 and X06 in NSOPF:93

This derived variable reflects the type of institution (2- or 4-year) sampled for NSOPF:99.

Four year

Two year

Principal field of teaching 4-year institutions X02Z14 in NSOPF:99 and

X01A12 in NSOPF:93

2-year institutions X01Z14 in NSOPF:99 and

X02A12 in NSOPF:93

To identify the general program area of a respondent’s principal field of teaching, this derived variable

was created from variable Q14 in NSOPF:99, and Q12 in NSOPF:93. The variables are different for 4-

year and 2-year institutions because vocational training is offered by 2-year but not 4-year institutions.

Program in 4-year institutions Program in 2-year institutions

Agriculture & home economics Agriculture & home economics

Business Business

Education Education

Engineering Engineering

Fine arts Fine arts

Health sciences Health sciences

Humanities Humanities

Natural sciences Natural sciences

Social sciences Social sciences

All other programs Vocational training

All other programs
C-5

Race/ethnicity, recoded (X03Z84 in NSOPF:99 and X02F53 in NSOPF: 93)

This derived variable was created to categorize individuals into one and only one racial/ethnic category.

In 1988 and 1993, respondents were asked to pick only one race category to identify themselves. They

also were asked to identify if they were of Hispanic origin. In 1999, respondents were asked to pick one

or more race categories to identify themselves. They also were asked to identify if they were of Hispanic

origin. Very few individuals picked more than one racial/ethnic category (about 1 percent). For those

individuals who picked more than one racial/ethnic category, a coding scheme was devised to place them

into one and only one racial/ethnic category. If respondents identified themselves as Hispanic and Black

or Hispanic and White, they were coded as Hispanic. Otherwise, they were coded according to the

following scheme: if respondents indicated they were Black or African American and any other race,

they were coded as Black. If they were Asian or Pacific Islander and any other race (except for Black),

they were coded as Asian. If they were Native American or Alaska Native and any other race (except for

Black or Asian), they were coded as Native American.

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian or Pacific Islander

Black, not of Hispanic origin

Hispanic

White, not of Hispanic origin

Type and control of institution (X02Z0 in NSOPF:99 and X02 in NSOPF:93)

This variable was used to identify control of institution according to a modified Carnegie classification.

The 1994 Carnegie classification was used. See a description of each type of Carnegie classification

under the “Sample Universe” section of the Technical Notes.

Public research control=public and carnegie=11 or 12

Private research control=private and carnegie=11 or 12

Public doctoral control=public and carnegie=13, 14, or 52

Private doctoral control=private and carnegie=13, 14, or 52

Public comprehensive control=public and carnegie=21 or 22

Private comprehensive control=private and carnegie=21 or 22

Private liberal arts control=private and carnegie=31 or 32

Public 2-year control=public and carnegie=40

Other control=public and carnegie=31 or 32, or

control=private and carnegie=40, or

carnegie=51 or 53-65
C-6