humanities at the crossroads: the indiana case study survey report
TRANSCRIPT
Humanities at the Crossroads:
The Indiana Case Study Survey Report
Felicia M. Sullivan, Nancy N. Conner, Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg,
Peter Levine and Elizabeth Lynn
CIRCLE at the Jonathan M. Tisch College
of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University
Medford, MA
in cooperation with
January 2014
1
Humanities at the Crossroads: The Indiana Case Study Survey
by Felicia M. Sullivan, Nancy N. Conner, Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Peter Levine and Elizabeth
Lynn
“Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens. It must therefore foster and
support a form of education, and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to
make people of all backgrounds and wherever located masters of their technology and
not its unthinking servants.”
-- National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-209)
The humanities have been defined by the National Endowment for the Humanities as a specific
set of disciplines, including literature, languages, history, philosophy, archaeology, comparative
religion, ethics, and art history. These disciplines are taught and practiced both by university-
based scholars and by people who work in schools, libraries, museums, religious
denominations, and neighborhood organizations, among other places. Ever since ancient times,
defenders of the humanities have argued that they have civic, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual
value for people and communities. Indiana Humanities and other state humanities councils
support the humanities in ways that engage laypeople as well as students and scholars.
Within this broad and far-reaching sector, the “academic humanities” encompass college and
university humanities departments, centers, and institutes. The “public humanities” in turn
encompass the activities and infrastructures of all other institutions that provide humanities
programs, including K-12 schools. According to Julie Ellison, in an essay for the Humanities in
American Life, connecting the desires and interest of the public with the academy is one of the
critical challenges facing the sector as it attempts to “illuminate this ‘shuttle zone’ at the campus-
public interface.”1
Humanities at the Crossroads is a national initiative to better understand the status and future of
the academic and public humanities in American life, and to investigate the variety of ways the
humanities have been practiced, transformed, supported, evaluated and justified over the past
50 years. The Indiana Case Study, a component of Humanities at the Crossroads, examines the
humanities ecosystem of one state, through research and statewide discussions.
Indiana Humanities, with researchers from The Center for Information and Research on Civic
Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of
Citizenship and Public Service, collected survey data in the late summer and early fall of 2013 on
humanities-related institutions in the state of Indiana, addressing these key questions:
● How many organizations are involved with the humanities in Indiana?
● What kinds of organizations are they?
● Whom do they serve and strive to serve?
1 Ellison, J. (2009). “This American Life: How are the Humanities Public?” Humanities Indicators. The American Academy of Arts
and Sciences - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/essays/ellison.pdf
2
● What programs and activities do they sponsor?
● How do they collaborate and what kind of statewide network do they form in support of
the humanities?
● Where are they located?
● What do their leaders think about the state of the humanities in Indiana?
This research was meant to help Indiana Humanities and its partners understand and
strengthen the network of humanities organizations in their state, to raise the visibility of
Indiana’s public humanities, and to provide a research project model that could be adapted and
adopted by other states.
Humanities at the Crossroads has received support from the Carnegie Corporation, the Lilly
Endowment, the MacArthur Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, in
cooperation with DePauw University and CIRCLE at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College
of Citizenship and Public Service.
Method and Data
Indiana Humanities, with the help of Nicholas Kappas, an intern from the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, compiled an initial
outreach list of more than 1,800 contacts. Most of these contacts were individuals affiliated with
organizations thought to provide public humanities-related programming, and a small number
(127) were individuals, primarily county historians and community foundation directors, thought
to be knowledgeable about humanities initiatives in their local areas
In assembling this contact database, Indiana Humanities staff made a conscientious effort to
include museums, libraries, public schools, ethnic and cultural organizations, historical societies,
community foundations, public media entities, arts councils, government agencies and
statewide associations, as well as academic departments, research centers and programs
within higher education. Affiliates of the Indiana Historical Society, Indiana Landmarks and the
Association of Indiana Museums were included in the contact list as were project directors who
were recent grant recipients of Indiana Humanities. Publicly available information was used to
contact liberal arts departments of colleges and universities, humanities institutes, school
superintendents, public libraries, arts councils, government agencies, public media, and
member organizations of the Nationalities Council of Indiana. Fig.1 illustrates the institutional
composition of contacts resulting from this effort.
3
Figure 1
The survey population was reached primarily via email and the survey completed online by
almost all respondents. A small number (123) of paper surveys were sent via U.S. post to
individuals and organizations thought to have limited access to the Internet. A number of
respondents from the initial contact list nominated additional potential survey participants. All
together, this “snowball” sampling method, along with the original contact list, produced 2,147
individuals thought to be involved in the humanities within the state of Indiana. Of this list, 390
provided consent and answered a sufficient number of questions for study inclusion. This
represented an 18.2% response rate. Further detail related to the survey population can be
found in Appendix A.
Survey Results
The survey revealed a sector composed of small and long-established organizations. Almost
two thirds were small with five or fewer full-time staff, and over a quarter had no full-time staff
whatsoever. Most organizations (83%) were at least 20 years old and nearly a quarter (22%)
were 100 years old or older. Almost two thirds were nonprofits (44.4%) or higher education
institutions (17.7%). Another quarter was comprised of units of government (14.6%) and
4
libraries (10.3%). Among the respondents in higher education, over a third (35.5%) were
academic departments, with the rest fairly evenly split among centers, administrative teams, and
libraries. A few (11.3%) were units of higher education at the college or school level (e.g. School
of Communications).
Small staffing levels were complemented by small organizational boards and advisors. Almost
half (46.4%) had a board of directors numbering between 6 and 15 members. One quarter
(25.4%) did not have a board, and most (71%) of these were entities within colleges,
universities, or state agencies. Most (74.4%) did not have advisory members.
In the survey, “humanities” was defined for respondents as a term that:
generally means literature, languages, history, philosophy, archaeology, comparative religion,
ethics, art history, and similar subjects. It does not include the arts themselves--only the study of
them. (A dance performance is not an example of the humanities, but a lecture about dance can
be.) The humanities need not be done by professionals; anyone can lead or participate in a
humanities activity. The humanities take many forms, from lectures and publications to exhibits
and informal book groups.
Provided with this definition, not all of the organizations sampled said that they actually provide
humanities programming. Three quarters (76.7%) said they offer humanities-related
programming. Of these organizations, only 19.5% said the humanities represent more than half
of their programming. Almost 71% said they dedicate 25% or less of their budget to humanities
activities with almost half (46.2%) saying less than ten percent of their programming is
humanities-related. In short, the humanities are supported in Indiana by organizations that
also – and often primarily – do other things.
On the whole, these organizations said they serve a general population (54.1%). Adults
(62.3%), families (51%) and senior citizens (53.3%) are other main constituencies.
Organizations said they are most interested in recruiting families (100%) and teens (35.6%).
Less than 30% of organizations indicated they already serve minority, low- income or immigrant
communities as a regular constituency outside of a general population.
"The humanities" include many disciplines, of which English and other languages and literatures
enlist the most college educators and students. The Modern Language Association is by far the
largest disciplinary association in the academic humanities. However, our survey of grassroots
groups found that most of the organizations are involved with history. History appears to be the
predominant programming offered by public humanities organizations in Indiana. About 82% of
survey respondents offered one or more history programs, including local and state history,
family history (such as genealogy and cultural heritage), national history, and world history.
History is certainly valuable and is valued by many Americans. However, for organizations like
Indiana Humanities that strive to strengthen the humanities and to connect higher education to
grassroots groups, the dominance of history may create two challenges. First, it is hard to brand
a field as "the humanities" if most nonprofits are focused on history, a discipline that has a
5
reputation and popular market of its own. Indeed, 77.7% of the respondents said that they never
(51.1%) or only sometimes (26.6%) use the term “humanities” with their constituencies.
Second, it is hard to connect the humanities, as offered by institutions of higher education, to
the public if the colleges and universities offer an array of disciplines, most of which are not fully
represented in public humanities. This may help to explain why the public does not easily grasp
the concept of the humanities, as opposed to the concept of history – and may also point to
unrealized opportunities for richer public engagement with disciplines other than history going
forward.
As table 1 details, however, the range of topics offered by survey respondents does reach
beyond history, although topics that appear more cultural in nature (e.g. Latino studies) may
also incorporate elements of historical exploration.
Table 1
Humanities Topic Offered
Local history
Number of
organizations
270
Percent of
organizations
69.2%
State history 188 48.2%
Family history, genealogy, and heritage 182 46.7%
National history 143 36.7%
The history or analysis of architecture 105 26.9%
The history or analysis of art 100 25.6%
The history or analysis of literature 95 24.4%
Archaeology 87 22.3%
Women/gender 79 20.3%
Foreign or world history 78 20.0%
The history or analysis of music 76 19.5%
American Indian or indigenous studies 69 17.7%
African-American or African studies 66 16.9%
The history or theory of performance (theater, dance,
etc.) 64 16.4%
Theology or religion 60 15.4%
Foreign language and linguistics 59 15.1%
6
Political or legal theory 59 15.1%
Philosophy or ethics 55 14.1%
Other 43 11.0%
Latino studies 42 10.8%
Asian studies 36 9.2%
Furthermore, "history" may be a broader category than it appears. Respondents mentioned
offering a wide range of activities, including services directly related to history (maintaining sites
and records, preservation, offering historical tours), but also many civic opportunities
(discussions, volunteering, dialogue), connections to core public institutions (libraries and
schools), and appreciations of culture (folk life, cultural awareness, cultural heritage, festivals).
The most prevalent types of reported activity (see table 2) were discussion groups, forums,
lectures, conferences and other such gatherings related to the humanities (55.9% of those
offering humanities programming engage in at least one of these types of activity) and volunteer
opportunities at the organizations themselves (54.5%).
Indeed, the public humanities may be better understood as a set of practices than as a
set of disciplines. In the academy and in federal law, the humanities are defined as disciplines,
but when tied to civic life – to the needs of citizens rather than scholars or students – they are
actively appropriated (and primarily valued) as practices, such as public discussion, that cross
disciplinary lines. Given the importance of these activities for public discourse and community
engagement, the public humanities can be considered essential conveners of civic life. These
organizations thus can be seen as civic hubs.
Table 2
Type of Activities Offered Number of
organizations Percent of
organizations
Discussion groups, forums, lectures, conferences, etc. related to
the humanities 167 55.9%
Opportunities for members or patrons to volunteer at the
organization (e.g., Volunteer or Service Day) 163 54.5%
Historical commemorations 149 49.8%
Maintaining, preserving, or explaining historical sites and records 148 49.5%
Historic preservation & conservation work 144 48.2%
Library activities related to the humanities 143 47.8%
Programs about folklife & traditional arts 129 43.1%
Opportunities for members or patrons to volunteer in the
community 128 42.8%
7
Tours of historical or cultural sites 127 42.5%
Cultural heritage celebrations 126 42.1%
Websites or other electronic media on humanities topics (created
by your organization) 124 41.5%
Opportunities for civic dialogue or community discussions 123 41.1%
School assemblies or guest speakers related to social studies,
language arts or world cultures 123 41.1%
Curatorial work and museum exhibitions 119 39.8%
Providing information or opinions relevant to the humanities 118 39.5%
Cultural & ethnic awareness events 113 37.8%
Festivals 110 36.8%
Activities involving genealogy 109 36.5%
News or editorials about the humanities (created by your
organization) 99 33.1%
Field trips related to social studies, language arts or world
cultures 96 32.1%
Book clubs 91 30.4%
Advocacy for the humanities 90 30.1%
Conservation of museum collections 86 28.8%
Museum acquisitions 86 28.8%
Museum education 84 28.1%
Public courses on humanities subjects 82 27.4%
Maintaining or creating historical memorials and monuments 74 24.7%
Publishing humanities scholarship in books, magazines, etc. 67 22.4%
Historical reenactments 64 21.4%
Museum audience services 61 20.4%
Broadcasts (TV or radio) on humanities topics (created by your
organization) 47 15.7%
Cultural exchanges with a foreign country 33 11.0%
In addition to understanding the scope and range of humanities programming in Indiana, the
survey also asked respondents to share their perceptions of the health and vitality of the
8
humanities in their own county. On the whole, respondents were fairly optimistic about the state
of the humanities in their communities. Although the survey did not capture the reasons for this
optimism, state leaders believe that in some respects the public humanities contribute to the
sense of place that every community is trying to enhance. Respondents were inclined to be
either neutral or positive about the humanities being accessible for everyone in their county (fig.
2). They were also positively inclined to state that the humanities were as popular as in the past
or becoming more popular.
This last point is countered by national trends in historic park and historic site visits which have
been on the decline since 1982.2 While visits to art museums surged in the 1990s and 2000s,
by 2008 they had returned to 1980s levels.3 Yet, data collected by the Humanities Indicator
Project would suggest that the public is at least generally favorable towards literature and fine
arts.4
Figure 2
Unfortunately, respondent perceptions of the current funding environment were not as rosy (fig.
2). Almost 90% felt that funding for the humanities is either flat or in decline. This perception is
supported by a 2013 Urban Institute report5 which showed that from 2001 to 2011, the arts,
culture and humanities sector had seen a 1.7% positive change in revenue with the last five
years experiencing a decline by 7.2%. During this same decade, all other sectors had increased
2 Humanities Indicators: Historic Site Visits - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/hrcoVC.aspx#topV13.
3 Humanities Indicators - Art Museum Attendance - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/hrcoVC.aspx#topV14
4 Humanities Indicators - Public Attitudes toward the Humanities - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/hrcoVD.aspx
5 Pettijohn, Sarah L. (2013) “The Nonprofit Sector in Brief: Public Charities, Giving and Volunteering in 2013.” Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.
9
their revenues by almost 30% with some sectors, such as health, experiencing over a 50%
increase in revenues.
Respondents indicated that their organizations receive funding from a variety of sources (fig. 3);
the average number of funding sources is three. Very few (6.6%) pull in funding from six or
more sources, and only 21% receive federal funding.
Figure 3
Mapping Indiana’s Humanities Social Network
Individual organizations support the humanities by offering programs of various kinds or by
providing advocacy, public relations, or other support. But a network composed of many
organizations can add up to more than the sum of its parts. A first step toward strengthening a
state’s network of humanities organizations is to analyze the existing network, looking for
important hubs and ties and for significant gaps that should be addressed.
A set of questions in the survey asked respondents to indicate up to 20 organizations that they
work with or engage with on humanities-related programming. Almost half (43.6%) of
respondents did not provide data on other organizations that they worked with and only 10
respondents mentioned more than 10 organizations. The average number of connected
organizations listed by respondents was three. The relational network data derived from the
survey responses were mapped using Gephi, a social network analysis software. Once created,
the map could be analyzed to see which organizations had the most connections to other
organizations, which ones reached out to many organizations, and which ones acted as
connectors or bridges to various parts of the network. Figure 4 is a graphic visualization of
Indiana’s humanities relational network based on survey responses.
10
Figure 4
(A list of the organizations in fig. 4 can be found below in table 3.)
Each dot in fig. 4 represents an organization that either responded to the survey or was
mentioned as an organization that a respondent had worked with in the past. The ties among
dots are relationships among organizations, described in various levels ranging from “know
of/following” to “strong collaboration.” Thus, if two dots are shown as connected by a line, that
means that those organizations have a relationship, even if it is just knowing about the other or
seeing it as a peer. Only the organizations with the most ties are labeled, to make the graph
legible. More connections may exist; however, these ties represent the relationships that
organizations chose to share. Also, organizations that were mentioned as collaborators but
didn’t answer the survey may have ties and connections of their own that are also not part of
this graphical representation.
Indiana’s humanities organizations form a network in which all of the nodes have some relation
to the humanities, yet they cover a diverse range of missions, priorities, capacities, and
11
geographical areas. As with any network, the “quality” of the whole depends partly on its
purpose and nature. In general, a network can be characterized in terms of its density,
resiliency, closeness, and centrality.
Density is defined as the extent to which members of the network are linked to others through
multiple pathways. Generally speaking, a high-density network is a strong network because all
or almost all the member organizations are part of a network that can provide a wide array of
information and opportunities through various relationships and communications. Density is
particularly useful if information needs to flow quickly and thus can find many routes through
which to move from organization A to organization B. High density can make the network
resilient, in that information can still be conveyed efficiently when a member of the network
disappears (along with its connections) for any reason. In short, there are beneficial
redundancies in communication pathways.
Closeness, defined by the network distance (i.e., how direct the connection is between two
organizations), is a metric for the efficiency and ease of communication amongst organizations
within a smaller group or “cluster” of organizations.
Organizational centrality is also important and can take a number of forms. Thus, a central
organization may be one that many others link to, or it may link out to many other organizations,
or it may serve as a bridge between important organizations or clusters. Organizations that are
central have greater potential to serve as conveners, organizers, and disseminators of
information to overlapping networks. A network with organizations that play these “central” roles
is often strong because these key organizations can maintain or enhance the function of the
network by promoting cross-sector collaborations or by appealing to multiple publics.
Overall, the network of Indiana’s humanities organizations is not particularly dense or
highly clustered. Of all possible ties that could exist in this network of 768 organizations, 0.2%,
or 1 in 500, actually exist. The Indiana network had a clustering coefficient measure of 0.015,
when clustering is measured on a scale of 1 to 0, from highly clustered to loosely clustered. In
other words, Indiana’s humanities network is not very clustered at all. Moreover, the fact that
density and clustering are almost the same means that there are not that many cliques or dense
networks within the whole. However, no other state’s humanities organizations have been
mapped, so we can make no comparative assessment of Indiana versus the norm.
Yet many of the state’s humanities organizations do have connections. Almost three quarters
(73%) of the groups (538 nodes) form one large connected community that has very similar
network features to the overall network in terms of density and clustering. Within this large
community, shown in red at the center of fig. 4, the average number of hops from one
organization to another is less than three. This is not an impressively short distance in a world
where “six degrees of separation” is considered normal. Within this network, information can
reach members fairly easily, but considering the relatively small number of organizations, the
pathways could be shorter. Organizations are not connecting with each other as much as they
might. It may be that micro-issues or local communities are the primary concerns for these
12
organizations. It may also be that diversity in content and geographic distance prevent the
formation of more and stronger ties.
Organizations that have many connections, either in from others or out to others, are especially
important to network strength. Table 3 shows the 16 organizations in Indiana’s public
humanities network with the most reported connections, in order of connectedness. Those with
asterisks (*) have a high number of incoming links: many other organizations reported working
with them. Those followed by a pound sign (#) have a high number of outgoing links: they
reported working with many other groups.
Table 3 Organization Number of connections
Indiana Historical Society (*) 43
Indiana Humanities (*) 34
Indiana Landmarks (*) 33
Knox County Public Library (#) 21
Brick Street Poetry Inc. (#) 20
Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. (#) 20
Arts Council of Southern Indiana (#) 16
Howard County Historical Society (#) 14
Historic Southern Indiana (#) 14
Holy Cross College (#) 13
Lanier Mansion State Historic Site 13
County Historians (#) 12
Hamilton County Convention and Visitors Bureau (#) 11
Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites 11
Indianapolis Opera 10
Indiana University 10
As this table suggests, three statewide organizations – Indiana Humanities, Indiana Historical
Society, and Indiana Landmarks – are central to the cohesiveness of the network by having
many incoming connections to other entities as well as bridging across segments of the
network. If these three central organizations were removed from the network, connections
13
between organizations would become significantly more fragmented. Rather than 73% of
organizations being connected to one large community, 59% would be connected. The network
would lose density (.001) and become less clustered (.008), and many more small groupings
would detach from the network. These organizations are critical binding agents within the
context of Indiana’s humanities sector.
Indiana Humanities, the Indiana Historical Society and Indiana Landmarks form a strong triad
and could be stronger. Both Indiana Humanities and the Indiana Historical Society said that they
work with each other. Indiana Humanities indicated a relationship with Indiana Landmarks, but
this was not returned. Likewise Indiana Landmarks indicated a relationship with the Indiana
Historical Society, but that relationship was not returned. Additional collaboration within this triad
would be helpful to maintaining the current condition of the network.
Nine organizations in the main community in the network play important roles as subgroup
connectors (see table 4). These organizations act as intermediaries to other organizations in
their small network, connecting them out to the larger network of organizations. As with the
three statewide organizations, these entities are also important factors in maintaining network
cohesion and resilience.
Table 4
Organization Knox County Public Library
Number of connections
20
Brick Street Poetry Inc. 20
Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. 20
Arts Council of Southern Indiana 15
Howard County Historical Society 14
Historic Southern Indiana 13
Holy Cross College 13
County Historian 12
Hamilton County Convention & Visitors Bureau 11
It should be noted that none of these organizations reports a current collaboration with Indiana
Humanities or the Indiana Historical Society. Only two, Brick Street Poetry and Historic
Southern Indiana, reported ties to Indiana Landmarks. Strengthening the connections of these
nine organizations to the central core triad would likely improve the network’s health and
resiliency.
The organizations (27%) that are not part of the main community in the center form their own
small subgroups comprised of 2 to 22 members that are not evidently linked to the rest. These
14
subgroups are displayed in different colors in fig. 4. Most of these smaller subgroups are
geographically located near one another, often with a community foundation as the hub. Public
libraries, local museums or historical societies, and local higher education institutions were also
key connectors in these small subgroups. Substantial subgroups in the Indiana social sphere
are:
● A cluster of 22 organizations with Holy Cross College as the leading hub.
● A cluster of 13 groups in which the Community Foundation of Wabash County and the
North Manchester Center for History are the leading hubs.
● A 12-node cluster with the Henry County Community Foundation linking to the most
groups.
● A 9-node cluster anchored by the Miami County Museum and Historical Society
● A 9-node cluster featuring Jackson County History and the Jackson County Community
Foundation
● A 9-node cluster featuring the Peabody Public Library and White County Community
Foundation
Libraries, local historical societies (and local historians) as well as community
foundations can play important roles in connecting the smaller communities to the larger
network anchored by Indiana Humanities, Indiana Landmarks, and the Indiana Historical
Society. Interestingly, the most sizable subgroup – the Holy Cross cluster – has no reported
links to the larger network at all.
So far, we have considered how many links each organization has. This would be like counting
how many “friends” each user of Facebook has and treating people with lots of friends as
central to the network. A different way of looking at importance in a network is to ask how many
organizations would have to pass through a given group to communicate with others. For
instance, if Aaron is friends with Ben, who is friends with Cara, then Ben is between Aaron and
Cara and can play an important role in their network. Yet Ben may not have the most friends of
the three. Fig. 5 shows the organizations with the highest “betweenness” scores: the Indiana
Historical Society, Indiana Humanities, Indiana Landmarks, the Big Car Collaborative, WFYI
Public Media, Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites, and the Spirit & Place Festival. These
organizations are all located within Indianapolis, thus having proximity to many potential
partners, and they play important bridging roles in the network as a whole.
15
Figure 5
Humanities Opportunities Across Indiana
The previous section looked at Indiana humanities organizations as a network. Another way to
visualize these organizations is on a traditional geospatial map of the state. Using GIS software,
385 of the 390 organizations in the survey sample were mapped to their main contact location
(or a location nearby - fig. 6 dark green dots). Another 936 organizations that were invited to
take the survey, but did not respond, were also geocoded (fig. 6 - light green dots)6. These
1,321 organizations constitute a little over 60% of the more than 2,100 organizations contacted
for the survey and a number of “hidden” humanities efforts may not have been reached in the
first place. A comprehensive map, then, should have a much greater density of organizations;
as such, county or regional patterns might not hold.
6 Another 826 organizations that were part of the population were not geocoded due to insufficient geospatial data.
16
Figure 6
As the regional map shows, the greatest number of humanities opportunities are available in the
Indianapolis Metro region followed by Gary-South Bend. When looking at a county-by-county
map (fig. 7), most counties (88 of Indiana’s 92) are served by humanities organizations that
responded to the survey. Of respondents, the largest group (18.7%) said they served Marion
County (dark red in fig. 7) which is the Indianapolis area. St. Joseph (5.4%), Hamilton (5.4%),
Delaware (4.9%), Allen (4.9%), Monroe (4.6%), and Elkhart (4.6%) are other counties with
concentrations of humanities programming (light red in fig. 7). Southern regions have fewer to
no opportunities (dark blue in fig.7) with Perry,and Jennings counties joining the non-southern
counties of Union, Rush, Benton, and Jay at the bottom of the pack.
17
Figure 7
All Indiana counties have at least 4 respondent organizations serving them even though the
organizations that provide services to a county may not be headquartered in that county.
Approximately three-fourths (75.1%) of respondents indicated they have a broad geographic
focus spanning beyond a single municipality – county (30.5%), region (22.1%), entire state
(13.3%), multiple municipalities (9.2%). Humanities-related programming is available in all types
of geographic settings – urban, rural and suburban. Specifically 50% of those who responded
said they served urban areas, 54.6% served rural areas, and 32.6% served suburban areas.
18
Regional Snapshots
Survey respondents were analyzed by region, drawing on regional designations provided by the
Indiana Business Research Center7 (see fig. 8). Our regional analysis looked at the distribution
of indicators related to organizational characteristics, constituents served, humanities topics,
and activities offered within each region.8 Detailed graphs showing regional comparisons can
be found in Appendix B.
Figure 8
7 Dufrene, U. and Lambert, T. (2009) “ Indiana Bank Performance During the Current Financial Crisis,” inContext. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana Business Research Center, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Accessed on November 25, 2013 at: http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2009/may-jun/article1.asp.
8 An example to aid understanding data in this section, say Indianapolis Metro region had 100 organizations and Evansville had 10.
Evansville had 5 organizations dedicated to offering local history and Indianapolis Metro had 10. Evansville would have a higher percentage of organizations within its region (50%) offering local history compared to Indianapolis Metro where only 10% of organizations in the region were offering local history.
19
Based on survey responses, each region in the state appears to have a distinct “flavor” to how it
realizes its public humanities agenda (table 5).
Evansville: Serving the Local Community Serving both urban and rural communities, Evansville region organizations indicated a higher percentage of federal funding sources than other regions while at the same time having many fewer sources of funding to draw upon. Beyond the average constituent, organizations in this region were serving teens, Native Americans / Hawaiian Natives, and Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders through key humanities activities focused on advocacy and libraries. Consistent with important constituencies in the region, organizations indicated that humanities topics such as the history of arts and culture, American Indian / indigenous studies and Asian studies were important programming areas. Theology and foreign languages were also key topic areas. Fort Wayne / Eastern: Learning about the Community Like the Evansville region, Fort Wayne / Eastern is home to both urban and rural communities.
Most organizations offering humanities programs have revenues under $1M, but there are a
number of sources from which organizations draw their funds. Also similar to Evansville, teens
and Native American / Native Hawaiian constituents are a focus along with Middle Eastern
community members and leaders in both the social and business sectors. The region has a
greater diversity of humanities-related activities than Evansville with book clubs, field trips,
school-based programming, cultural exchanges, and museum acquisitions and conservation of
collections offered. While cultural heritage and genealogy are important ways of learning about
the people of the region, historic preservation and conservation are also key, as is the
maintenance of historic sites and records.
Gary-South Bend: Civic Hub
Gary-South Bend is second only to the Indianapolis Metro region in its number of humanities-
related organizations. While the region serves both urban and rural communities, a greater than
average percentage of its humanities organizations are fortunate to have large revenues, with
multiple sources of funding that create stability and mitigate risk. Serving a diverse constituency,
the region boasts activities related to communication, public discourse, and civic engagement
(e.g. discussion groups, civic dialogues, broadcasts, publishing, etc.) Topics in philosophy,
religion, and political history are dominant in this region.
Indianapolis Metro: Multicultural Mecca
The Indianapolis Metro region, like Gary-South Bend, has many organizations with substantial
revenues drawing on multiple sources of funding. This region boasts a highly dense and broad
set of humanities offerings. With a decidedly urban context extending into more suburban
communities, Indy Metro organizations serve LGBTQ and African-American constituents
through a broad range of programs where few topics or activities dominate. Cultural studies and
the dissemination of content through electronic media (including websites) were more visible in
this region than in other parts of the state. Active engagement in news and editorials related to
the humanities were also strong suits.
20
Kokomo-West Lafayette: Institutionally Anchored
Kokomo-West Lafayette’s primarily rural communities are served by a set of very small
organizations (with annual budgets under $250K). The region provides a range of content from
archaeology to genealogy to festivals. The region promotes cultural and ethnic awareness and
is committed to exploring indigenous and American Indian history and culture. The region
houses historical sites, museums, libraries and institutions of higher education. Historical
conservation, historical sites and commemorations, tours, the dissemination of media content in
multiple venues (e.g. electronic media, publishing, scholarship) and book clubs comprise a wide
and diverse set of activities, many of which seek to engage community and business leaders in
addition to a general population.
Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany: Celebrating Community
Like Kokomo-West Lafayette, the Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany region located in the
southeast corner of the state also serves a primarily rural constituency. However, organizations
in this region have smaller revenues. They also appear to seek out a diverse set of constituents
– groups that may not have formal institutional power (such as teens, individuals with low-
incomes who may face employment challenges, the disabled) or that may have unique
perspectives beyond the mainstream culture (such as members of the African American, Latino
and LGBTQ communities). Promotion of local history, place, and the cultural and ethnic
heritages of the region’s people emerged as key activities for the region’s humanities
organizations.
Table 5
Region Organizational Characteristics
Constituents Served Beyond the Norm
Key Humanities Topics Beyond History
Key Humanities Activities
Evansville Serving the Local Community
Limited number of funding sources Federal funding is key Urban and rural
Teens Native Americans / Hawaiian Natives Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders
History of arts and culture American Indian / indigenous studies Asian studies Theology or religion Foreign languages or linguistics
Advocacy Library activities
Fort Wayne / Eastern Learning about the Community
Small revenues (under $1M) Urban and rural
Teens Community and business leaders Middle Eastern, Native American / Hawaiian Native
Cultural heritage Genealogy Historic preservation, and conservation Historic sites and records
Book clubs
Field trips
School-based
Cultural
exchanges
Museum
acquisitions and
conservation of
collections
21
Region Organizational Characteristics
Constituents Served Beyond the Norm
Key Humanities Topics Beyond History
Key Humanities Activities
Gary-South Bend Civic Hub
Large revenues Multiple funding sources Urban and rural
Teens African Americans Latinos Disabled Low-income Immigrants Unemployed, underemployed, displaced
Philosophy or ethics Theology or religion Political or legal history
Broadcasts,
Publishing /
scholarship
Information and
opinions
Discussion groups
Civic dialogues
Volunteer
opportunities
Indianapolis Metro Multicultural Mecca
Large revenues Multiple funding sources Urban and suburban
LGBTQ African-Americans
Cultural studies Websites and
electronic media
News or editorials
Kokomo-West Lafayette Institutionally Anchored
Very small revenues (most under $250K) Primarily rural
Community and business leaders
Archaeology Genealogy Festivals Cultural and ethnic awareness American Indian / indigenous studies
Historical
conservation and
preservation,
Historical sites and
records
Historical
commemorations
Websites and
electronic media
News or editorials
Publishing /
scholarship
Museum activities
Tours
Book clubs
Libraries
Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany Celebrating Community
Small revenues (under $1M) Primarily rural
Teens African Americans Latinos Disabled Low-income Immigrants Unemployed, underemployed, displaced LGBTQ
History Historical study of arts and culture
Cultural and ethnic
heritages
Historical
preservation and
conservation
Historical sites and
records
22
The Humanities in Indiana: An Overview
While the data provided through this case study are not completely exhaustive of all humanities
offerings in the Hoosier state, survey respondents paint a picture of Indiana as a state where
opportunities to engage in humanities programming are available to many, with a diversity of
topics and activities offered. Clearly some regions, such as the Indianapolis Metro and Gary-
South Bend, have a greater intensity of offerings available. Just as clearly, some populations
(minorities, low-income, teens) are underserved. The dominance of history as a topic area and a
local lens defines and delimits many of the activities.
While the state does have very well resourced and large humanities institutions (primarily in the
more urban areas), the vast majority of respondents delivering humanities offerings are small
organizations, and more often than not incorporate other programming activities or priorities into
their missions. Despite the minimal resources and split focus, organizations in the state are well
established, with long histories, and operate in a local context that appears favorable to their
work. However, few members of the general public would know or speak of their favorite
offering as “humanities,” and the funding environment for the sector has suffered greatly over
the last decade.
The state has strong central institutions that work across the state and collectively bind together
a cohesive set of organizations and activities. However, this relational network is vulnerable.
There are three key institutions at the center and others that perform important connecting
functions. These organizations, less than two dozen in total, are critical to the network being a
network. Should one or more of these organizations fail or lose capacity, the network is likely to
fragment and key information and resources would stall.
As leaders in the humanities in Indiana look to their next phase of work, these recommendations
might prove helpful:
● Work to create the “shuttle zone” between the academic and public humanities that
illuminates the value of both and allows the general public to comprehend the range and
scope of the sector.
● Further unpack the “role” the public humanities play beyond the content of their
programs by looking at the nature, format, and types of activities they offer, along with
what it means to “practice” or “engage” in the humanities as an expression of culture and
community.
● Strengthen connections amongst the three statewide hub organizations - Indiana
Humanities, Indiana Historical Society, and Indiana Landmarks.
● Create a venue for those with many outward connections to convene not only with the
central statewide organizations, but also with other organizations with important bridging
capacity and those at the center of the unconnected communities. The goal should be to
increase connections between organizations and thus the density of the relational
network as a means to strengthen and improve its resilience.
23
● Focus on counties with limited-to-no humanities programs to understand if this is a
service gap or simply a lack of survey respondents from these counties.
● Work to bolster the capacity of humanities organizations with low capacity and limited
funding sources with specific attention to the southern regions of the state.
● Work with organizations to build their capacity to engage more diversity at the staff and
board levels.
● Promote and share strategies for engaging teenagers and youth populations in
humanities organizations leveraging the expertise and skill of youth development
organizations.
Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the funders of Humanities at the Crossroads
24
APPENDIX A: Additional Information on the survey population
Participants for this survey were recruited using a list of organization contacts that the Indiana
Humanities staff compiled, based on public lists of humanities-related organizations and
grantees of Indiana Humanities. The research team reached out to the initial list of more than
1,800 organizations.
Organization Type Email Invitations Snail Mail Total % of Population
Historical Societies & Museums 443 71 514 27.2%
School Superintendents 398 1 399 21.1%
Public Libraries 377 11 388 20.5%
Indiana Humanities Project Directors 127 0 127 6.7%
College & University Departments/Schools 87 6 93 4.9%
Community Foundations 91 0 91 4.8%
County Historians 80 5 85 4.5%
Preservation Groups 47 11 58 3.1%
Ethnic-Nationality Organizations 46 6 52 2.7%
College & University Institutes & Centers 37 0 37 2.0%
Statewide Agencies 27 10 37 2.0%
Public Media 8 2 10 0.5%
College & University Libraries 2 0 2 0.1%
TOTAL 1770 123 1893 100.0%
The survey was administered online using Qualtrics, which is a full-featured product that aided
in tracking survey responses and streamlined follow up communications. A small number of
paper-based surveys were sent to individuals and organizations thought to have low technology
capacity or access. Those responding to the survey from this initial outreach were asked to
name other organizations with which they had worked on humanities projects and efforts.
If the organizations they named were not already in the sample, those were then added to the
survey population. This “snowball” method produced a list of 2,147 individuals thought to be
involved with the humanities. Of those, 390 provided usable survey data (giving consent to be
included in the research and answering sufficient questions). That represented an 18.2%
response rate.
25
The snowball method not only provided a large sample of organizations but also generated
information about how these groups have collaborated. It should be noted that, with additional
time and effort, multiple iterations of this “snowball” method could have been completed adding
to the list of organizations involved in providing humanities programming to the public.
26
APPENDIX B: Regional Comparisons
Organizational characteristics. Size and geographic scope varied from region to region. The
Indianapolis Metro and Gary-South Bend areas house the largest and most well-resourced
organizations, while the two southern regions appear to have a more financially limited
humanities infrastructure.
Regular constituents served. As was stated earlier, the most common demographics served
were a general population, as well as adults, families, and individuals identified as white. This
held across regions. Other demographics are served to varying degrees with some regions
engaging some groups more than others. A greater percentage of organizations in Evansville,
Gary-South Bend, and Fort Wayne / Eastern indicated that teens (ages 13-19) are part of their
regular constituents served.
In the Gary-South Bend and Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany regions, a greater percentage
of organizations reported engaging groups often marginalized in the workforce (e.g. disabled,
unemployed, low-income and immigrants). By contrast, Kokomo-West Lafayette and Fort
Wayne / Eastern had a greater percentage of organizations engaging with business and
community leaders in their regions.
27
Depending on the region and its population demographics, different racial and ethnic groups
emerged as regular constituents.
Humanities topics. In terms of programming, a greater percentage of organizations in both the
Fort Wayne / Eastern and Gary-South Bend regions indicated that their primary or secondary
field of work was in the humanities. Gary-South Bend, along with Indianapolis Metro, was also a
region with the largest percentage of organizations who say that 75% or more of their
programming is humanities-related.
In terms of topics or content offered by organizations, local history was the subject offered by
the greatest number of organizations in each region – much as was shown in the overall sample
28
of respondents. Regions differed somewhat in their history specialties, however (for example,
family history vs. state history).
Topics within the history and analysis of various areas of art and culture were popular across all
regions. For Kokomo-West Lafayette, archeology was the topic offered by the greatest number
of organizations in the region – and in greater proportion than in other regions. Literature and
music had a greater percentage of organizational offerings in Lawrenceburg-Madison-New
Albany than in other regions. Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany and Fort Wayne / Eastern
had the highest percentage of organizations that offered architecture topics. Evansville
exceeded other regions in the percentage of organizations that offered art-related history or
analysis, while Indianapolis Metro dominated in the history and analysis of performance.
29
While disciplines beyond history were engaged in to a much smaller degree, different regions
emphasized different areas of exploration. For example, Gary-South Bend had a greater
percentage of organization focusing on theology or religion than other areas and Evansville had
a greater percentage of organizations who offered foreign languages or linguistics. Philosophy
or ethics were greater parts of the humanities mix in Gary-South Bend and Indianapolis Metro.
The Indianapolis Metro region had proportionately more organizations dedicated to cultural
studies topics such as African American studies, Latino studies, Asian studies and Women’s or
30
Gender studies when compared to other regions. However, Both Kokomo-West Lafayette and
Evansville had proportionately more organizations focused on American Indian or indigenous
studies.
Humanities activities. For most regions, activities related to historical preservation,
commemoration, or explanation and to public engagement through volunteering or public
discussion opportunities (e.g. discussion groups, lectures, conferences) were offered by the
greatest percentage of organizations. However there were others areas of special attention or
focus (e.g. library activities, media distribution). All regions provided a range of activities across
the humanities spectrum.
31
Both Kokomo-West Lafayette and Gary-South Bend had higher proportions of organizations
dedicated to maintaining or creating historical monuments and memorials as well as historical
commemorations. Kokomo-West Lafayette, along with Fort Wayne / Eastern, also had a higher
percentage of its organizations dedicated to historic preservation and conservation than in other
regions. Maintaining, preserving and explaining sites and records were activities that a greater
number of organizations in Fort Wayne / Eastern and Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany were
engaged in than in other regions.
Communicating humanities-related content, information and opinions through advocacy, news
items, editorials, broadcast, electronic media, or publishing was an activity present in all regions.
However, the Indianapolis Metro region had a greater percentage of organizations engaged in
electronic media and news or editorial activity than other regions. Providing information or
opinions and publishing were a greater part of the Gary-South Bend activity mix than in other
regions.
32
In terms of museum-related activities, Kokomo-West Lafayette had greater percentages of
organizations offering these activities than other regions. Gary-South Bend and Fort Wayne /
Eastern were consistently second in this regard.
For activities related to libraries, education and learning, Kokomo-West Lafayette and Fort
Wayne / Eastern each had the highest proportion of organizations conducting tours and
engaging in book clubs. Fort Wayne / Eastern additionally had a greater percentage of school-
based activities than other regions. Library activities were a greater part of the activity mix in
Gary-South Bend, Kokomo-West Lafayette and Evansville than in other regions. Cultural
exchanges and field trips were more prominent within the Indianapolis Metro region than most
33
other regions. Fort Wayne / Eastern also had greater proportion of cultural exchanges and
Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany had a greater percentage of organizations offering field
trips.
In terms of activities geared towards enhancing public engagement, such as civic dialogues,
discussions, public discourse and volunteering, both Fort Wayne / Eastern and Gary-South
Bend had greater percentages of organizations offering these activities than other regions.
34
Members of the Indiana Case Study Task Force
Keira Amstutz, President and CEO, Indiana Humanities
Rosemary Dorsa, Director, GIFT Program, Indiana Grantmakers Alliance
Daniel Greene, Vice President for Research and Academic Programs, The Newberry
Stanley Katz, Professor and Director, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Peter Levine, Director, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, Tufts University
Elizabeth Lynn, Director, Institute for Leadership and Service, Valparaiso University (chair)
Teresa Mangum, Associate Professor of English and Director, Obermann Center for Advanced Studies, University of Iowa
Beverley J. Pitts, former President, University of Indianapolis
Members of the Humanities at the Crossroads Planning Group
Keira Amstutz, President and CEO, Indiana Humanities
Brian W. Casey, President, DePauw University
James R. Grossman, Executive Director, American Historical Association
James Herbert, former Director, Research and Education Divisions, National Endowment for the Humanities.
Stanley Katz, Professor and Director, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Elizabeth Lynn, Director, Institute for Leadership and Service, Valparaiso University (co-chair)
Esther Mackintosh, President, Federation of State Humanities Councils
Estevan Rael-Galvez, Senior Vice-President of Historic Sites, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Dwan Reece, Curator of Music and Performing Arts, National Museum of African American History and Culture, Smithsonian Institution
John Roth, Edward J. Sexton Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna College (co-chair)
Margot Stern Strom, Klarman Family Executive Director, Facing History and Ourselves
Jamil Zainaldin, President, Georgia Humanities Council