The Changing Face of Higher Education

Is There an International Crisis in the Humanities?

Dennis Ahlburg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351996853
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Over the last decade, a heated debate has raged in the US and the UK over whether the humanities are in crisis, and, if there is one, what form this crisis takes and what the response should be. Questioning how there can be such disagreement over a fundamental point, The Changing Face of Higher Education explores this debate, asking whether the humanities are in crisis after all by objectively evaluating the evidence at hand, and opening the debate up to a global scale by applying the questions to twelve countries from different continents.

Each carefully chosen contributor considers the debate from the perspective of a different country. The chapters present data on funding, student enrolment in the humanities, whether the share of total enrolment in this area is falling, and answer the following questions:

• 
  
  

• What does each country mean by the 'humanities'?

• 
  
  

• Is there a 'crisis' in the humanities in this country?

• 
  
  

• What are the causes for the crisis?

• 
  
  

• What are the implications for the humanities disciplines?

Uniquely offering an objective evaluation of whether this crisis exists, the book will appeal to international humanities and higher education communities and policy-makers, including postgraduate students and academics.

1

Introduction

DENNIS A. AHLBURG

The genesis of this book lay in my intention while on sabbatical to update Richard Easterlin’s 1995 paper on the absolute and relative rise of undergraduate enrolments in business programmes in the US. Clearly, if business enrolments went up as a share of all enrolments the share of some other discipline or disciplines must have gone down. What was it that declined? As I read more widely I discovered a growing literature about a ‘crisis in the humanities’ much of which was polemical rather than factual. In the introduction to their recent edited volume Humanities in the Twenty-First Century, Belfiori and Upchurch (2013: 1, 2) noted that monographs and edited volumes on the state of the humanities “have enjoyed a brisk surge in popularity in the US and the UK” and that most writing about the crisis in the humanities has “a clear activist agenda, campaigning when not militant in intent”.

What characterizes these books, apart from their militant intent, is a lack of definition of what they mean by ‘the humanities’, what they mean by ‘a crisis in the humanities’, and either a lack of data to support their position or a misinterpretation of data. The humanities are often treated as if no other discipline exists and the ‘crisis’ is an event unrelated to the fortunes of any other discipline. Further, most books and articles on the humanities make claims about the reasons for the crisis, if they accept that one exists, but provide little analysis to support their causal claims. Claims of ‘crisis’ are not new, at least in the US, where they stretch back at least to the 1920s. The causes are always the same: students choosing professional degrees over humanities; sciences attracting a disproportionate share of funding; modes of evaluation that favour the sciences; and an overproduction of doctoral graduates. Almost all writing on the subject focuses on the US or the UK. Thus, we do not know if the crisis (if there is one) affects only the US and UK or whether there is a global crisis in the humanities. For these reasons, I saw a clear need for a book that objectively evaluates the evidence for whether a crisis exists and one that looks beyond the US and UK. In particular there was a need for a book with contributors on a number of countries who defined what each country means by the ‘humanities’, whether there is a crisis in the humanities and what form the crisis takes based on data not impressions, what are the causes of the crisis (if there is one), and what other disciplines are attracting potential students of the humanities. If there is a crisis, what are the implications for humanities disciplines, higher education, higher education institutions, and society?

Many books and articles on the state of the humanities either take as a starting point the existence of a crisis and then proceed to outline what should be done about it or they deny that a crisis exists. For example, William Chace, past president of Emory University, wrote, “if nothing is done to put an end to this process of disintegration, the numbers [of humanities students] will continue in a steady downward spiral” (2009). The eminent University of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum wrote in her 2010 book that “the humanities and the arts are being cut away, in both primary and secondary and college and university education in virtually every nation of the world” (Nussbaum 2010: 2, emphasis added). However, there are leading humanities scholars in the US and UK such as Stefan Collini and Peter Mandler of Cambridge, David Armitage of Harvard, Michael Meranze of UCLA, and Michael Berube of Penn State who reject or downplay the notion of a crisis in the humanities. In the US, Meranze (2015: 1311) claims, “the evidence of a crisis in [humanities] enrolment is lacking”. Mandler of Cambridge, writing of the situation in the UK stated: “overall, the humanities survived the rundown [in government funding] surprisingly well in terms of market share” (Mandler 2015: 423).

How can it be that such well-regarded scholars disagree over such a fundamental point as whether a crisis exists or not? This book addresses this issue objectively. The book looks at how different countries (and institutions) define the humanities differently. For example, Peter Mandler of Cambridge (2015) concluded that the humanities market share has held up well even though he presents data showing that the percentage of students graduating with a degree in traditional humanities subjects (languages, literature, history, philosophy, and religion) has declined. His claim depends on the inclusion of subjects such as creative arts and design, communications, and education as ‘humanities’ disciplines. Thus, he defines away the crisis by an inclusion of disciplines that many humanists would reject as constituting the humanities. Berube from Penn State does the same but admits that many humanities scholars would reject a broader definition of ‘humanities’ (2013). Scholars are also not clear what they mean by a ‘crisis’. Is a crisis defined as a decline in the number of students studying and graduating with degrees in the humanities or is it defined by the share of all degrees granted that are in the humanities (‘market share’), or does the crisis take some other form (identity, reputation, funding, graduate programmes)? In their chapter in this volume Harry Brighouse and David Arbelaez define a ‘crisis’ as a departure from the norm and the departure is bad for somebody – students, faculty, or society. That is, the current state is much worse in some important way than the normal state. This definition appears to be that implied by many of the writings on the humanities and that of the authors of the chapters in this book. What constitutes the ‘normal state’ of the humanities in the US is discussed by Ahlburg and Roberts in their chapter.

For a discussion of the state of the humanities to proceed in an intelligent fashion we must be clear what we mean by ‘the humanities’ and what we mean by ‘crisis’. We should also be clear about the causes of the crisis. If the humanities are in crisis why and what disciplines are attracting students? There is an assertion in the US that any decline in enrolments in the humanities is due to women choosing pre-professional degrees such as business, communications, and social work. But this claim has not been rigorously evaluated. In Britain the humanities have been cast in opposition to the sciences since well before C. P. Snow’s work. But are they still in opposition? What impact has growth in business studies and media studies had on the humanities?

Questions of definition matter. Some definitions of the humanities include history and some do not. History is a popular discipline and its inclusion markedly increases the enrolment and share of humanities, as does the inclusion of media studies and other subjects. In fact, some see the inclusion of ‘new’ fields as the saviour of the humanities. Collini (2017) reminds us that the term ‘humanities’ did not come into general use in its modern sense until the middle of the twentieth century and that we should not speak of the humanities as though it were “a timeless category”. In their chapter Brighouse and Arbelaez note that the basis for defining the humanities may be stipulative, that is, designated by universities as constituting departments of ‘humanities’, or principled, which is by subject matter and method of investigation, or historical, that is, the humanities are what has been called ‘humanities’ over time. Equally importantly, they note the humanities do not have a monopoly on teaching “the deepest human values”. Such arguments divide the disciplines, pitting one against the other. As Collini notes, the disciplines have “much to gain by articulating their common interest in the university as an enterprise devoted principally to the extension and deepening of human understanding” (Collini 2017: 225).

Data, where it exists, is often available only for majors rather than for students that take one or more courses in the humanities. Thus, it is possible that there could be a ‘crisis’ in the number of majors but not in the number of students taking courses in the humanities. This distinction is relevant in systems like that of the US where students can study a range of subjects in addition to their major. It is of less importance in systems such as the UK and Japan where courses are taken only in a single discipline.

The debate over whether a crisis is measured by numbers or share is critical. As a former Dean and University President, I know that resource allocation is sensitive to shares of students and not just absolute numbers of students studying a discipline. As Russell Berman notes in his chapter, as student interest in a field declines, even relatively, this can be “taken as grounds for spending cuts that might eliminate particular fields of study”. However, he does not equate a falling share with a crisis while others in this volume do. Indeed, Berman argues that for a falling share to signal a crisis a claim would need to be made and substantiated that the humanities deserve a particular higher fraction of total enrolment. Collini is similarly phlegmatic: “we should not regard the mere fact that a smaller proportion of students may take courses in the humanities as spelling the end of civilization as we know it” (Collini 2017: 229, emphasis in original). True but it may spell the end of some disciplines in some institutions, particularly those experiencing financial pressure.

The definition of crisis is further complicated when student enrolment, either absolute or share, is declining nationally but at some institutions it is increasing. Therefore, should one talk about ‘local crises’ rather than a national or global crisis? This clearly is a problem for an institution but hardly a ‘societal crisis’.

Although student enrolment is taken as a critical measure of whether a crisis exists there are other quantitative measures that may indicate a crisis. One such measure is the number of faculty in the humanities and, for a number of writers in the humanities, whether these faculty members are full time and have tenure or are on a tenure track. For instance, as Russell Berman shows for Israel, the number of students studying the humanities at the undergraduate level increased over the last 15 years but the number of faculty decreased leading to a substantial increase in the student to faculty ratio. The same increase in this ratio occurred in Palestine with potential negative impacts on faculty–student interaction. In contrast, in the US employment in the humanities increased 54 per cent between 1999 and 2013 as the number of graduates in the humanities rose but then increased by less than 1 per cent over the next two years as the number of graduates fell. Over the last decade humanities faculty have been between 11 and 12 per cent of total faculty. A highly contentious issue in the US and the UK is the percentage of these faculty that are full-time. In 2004 (the last year for which data are available by discipline), 53 per cent of humanities faculty in the US were full-time, among the lowest of all disciplines. In the UK enrolment increased by 33 per cent but full-time faculty only increased by 8 per cent. Although part-time faculty rose this increase did not compensate for the disproportionately small increase in full-time faculty (Brighouse and Arbelaez). The argument here is that part-time faculty in the humanities cobble together courses at a number of institutions and have little time for student interaction, undermining the value of a humanities education, which depends on small group setting and discussion sections, although I am sure colleagues in other fields would make the same argument about their field. Some research suggests that the increase in part-time faculty has a negative effect on student learning and graduation (Kezar and Maxey 2013).

Although this book focuses on quantitative measures of ‘crisis’, the concept of ‘crisis’ could also be examined qualitatively. In his chapter, Russell Berman suggests that a close examination of syllabi and pedagogy rather than simply how many students complete a humanities major could determine whether a crisis exists. He asserts that one could make a “high road” argument that excellent humanities courses irrespective of enrolment could be sufficient to rebut the allegation of a crisis. The “high road” argument is valid but fraught with difficulties: what is ‘excellent’? Who determines whether a course meets the standard of ‘excellence’? When resources are scarce are excellent humanities courses more deserving of resources than excellent science or business courses? And, of course, as market forces and business methods become more prominent in universities it is not clear that ‘excellence’ will trump ‘market share’. As Stefan Collini, in a number of important books, asks us, “What are universities for?” (Collini 2012, 2017).

The “high road” argument also depends, from society’s point of view, on the humanities supplying something of distinctive value to society. Brighouse and Arbelaez discuss four potential contributions of the humanities to society and in her excellent book Helen Small offers an extensive discussion of these and other contributions (Small 2013). Brighouse and Arbelaez also argue that while it is not critical for every individual to be schooled in the humanities it is critical that those who are should be sufficiently dispersed throughout the population. This argument suggests that ‘market share’ is important. In a recent article, David Brooks (2017: 19) appears to argue that, at least in the US – and I think one could argue that his concern applies to a number of other countries as well – that we are already suffering from an inadequate dispersal of the skills that a humanities education can impart. He argued that the leaders of today were

raised in the heyday of naked liberalism [and] trained in social sciences that take the individual as their mental starting point. They have trouble thinking about our shared social and moral formative institutions and how such institutions could be reconstituted.

Perhaps broader education in the humanities and some of the social sciences could help “build new national narratives, revive family life, restore community bonds and shared moral culture” (p. 19) Such benefits are in addition to the economic benefits or what Brighouse and Arbelaez call “efficiency-enhancing” contributions that follow from an education in the humanities.

Another more general threat to universities, and to the humanities in particular, is political repression and censorship that limit critical approaches, particularly in public universities. Russell Berman discusses this threat in his chapter on Palestine and Israel and Michel Wieviorka discusses the withdrawal of French intellectuals from public life in his chapter. Political forces and censorship are on the rise in the US and perhaps other countries. Academics without job security in public institutions are particularly vulnerable to the meddling of politicians and those in private institutions to the ire of donors when they express opinions that may be unpopular. Unfortunately, censorship by fellow academics and students is also on the rise. A recent study of US student attitudes by Jon Villaseñor (2017) found that a majority believe that it is acceptable to act to stop expression they consider offensive. While not yet a ‘crisis’, the humanities disproportionately feel these forces working against free expression of ideas.

As mentioned earlier, almost all discussion of the crisis in the humanities has focused on the US and the UK. The one exception is a collection of papers published in the American Historical Review in 2015. Thus, it is not clear on what basis Nussbaum and Armitage made the claim about the decline of the humanities in virtually every nation in the world. Writing about the crisis in the humanities in the US, Harvard historian David Armitage (2015: 209) declared that the humanities “are on the defensive throughout and beyond the English-speaking world”. To establish whether there is an international crisis in the humanities and, if so, what form it takes this book includes contributions on countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Oceania, Latin America, and Africa.

To guide the individual contributions I posed the following questions for the contributors to consider:

1 What disciplines are regarded as the huma...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Series editors’ introduction
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 An Australian humanities crisis?
• 3 Is there a crisis in the humanities in Brazil? Ambivalences and fragilities of a late higher education system
• 4 The humanities as the default option in higher education: the case of Egypt
• 5 The crisis of the humanities and social sciences in France today
• 6 To be or not to be? Crisis and the humanities in Germany
• 7 Much ado about very little: the [2015] Japanese government order that Japanese national universities abolish their humanities and social science programmes
• 8 The humanities in Mexico: no crisis, but no shining future either
• 9 Palestinian and Israeli universities: is there a crisis of the humanities?
• 10 Hopeless entanglement: the short history of the academic humanities in South Africa
• 11 Is there a crisis in the humanities in the UK?
• 12 The ‘crisis in the humanities’: fact or fiction?
• 13 Conclusion
• Index