The Diversity and Inclusivity Survey: Final Report Main Author: Carolyn Dicey Jennings1 Contributing Authors: Regino Fronda1, M.A. Hunter2, Z.A. Johnson King3, A.C. Spivey4, and Sharai Wilson1,5 In 2018 Academic Placement Data and Analysis ran a survey of doctoral students and recent graduates on the topics of diversity and inclusivity in collaboration with the Graduate Student Council and Data Task Force of the American Philosophical Association. We submitted a preliminary report in Fall 2018 that describes the origins and procedure of the survey [1]. This is our final report on the survey. We first discuss the demographic profile of our survey participants and compare it to the United States general population, its doctoral students, and APA membership, finding several areas of underrepresentation (i.e. gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic, and veteran status). We then discuss the results of questions regarding diversity and inclusivity. We find, for instance, that participant comfort in philosophy depends on gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, disability, and language status and that participants most often mentioned the theme of diversity when asked how philosophy could be more inclusive. Finally, we discuss the results of questions related to graduate program and placement. We find, for example, that underrepresented graduates are both less likely to recommend their graduate program to others and less likely to prefer an academic job. We close by making some recommendations for the APA and for the discipline based on our findings. Table of Contents 1. Demographic	Questions	.................................................................................................................	2 2. Demographic	Comparisons	...........................................................................................................	4 3. Questions	Regarding	Diversity	and	Inclusivity	......................................................................	8 4. Program-Related	Questions	........................................................................................................	20 5. Placement-Related	Questions	.....................................................................................................	27 6. Discussion	and	Recommendations	...........................................................................................	31 1 Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced; cjennings3@ucmerced.edu 2 Philosophy, University of California, Davis 3 Philosophy, University of Southern California 4 Philosophy, Arizona State University 5 Contribution Statement: Jennings is the Principal Investigator and primary author of this report; Fronda and Wilson worked as undergraduate research assistants in 2018 and 2019; Hunter and Johnson King created a draft of the survey that was adapted for use within the APDA platform; and Spivey targeted graduate student liaisons, developed the coding standards used throughout this report, and helped to supervise the undergraduate research assistants in preparation of this report. 2 1. Demographic Questions Twelve questions at the end of our report concerned the demographic characteristics of participants.6 We aimed to discover both whether our participants were representative and how their demographic characteristics might intersect with other survey responses. In this section we review these demographic questions and provide the number and percentage of participants who chose each response. In the next section we compare these distributions with those of the field of philosophy, of doctoral students across all disciplines, and of the general population. In later sections we use responses to these questions to determine differences in responses to other survey questions, such as questions on diversity and inclusivity, graduate program, and job placement. Question 207 asked "Which of the following gender terms best describes you?" A total of 824 survey participants answered this question, with 530 selecting "man" (64.3%), 271 selecting "woman" (32.9%), and 23 selecting "non-binary (e.g. genderqueer, agender)" (2.8%). No participants selected "bigender." Question 21 asked "Do you identify as Trans*?" A total of 828 survey participants answered this question, with 819 selecting "no" (98.9%) and 9 selecting "yes" (1.1%). Question 22 asked "Which of the following sexual identities best describes you?" 840 participants answered this question, with 690 selecting "straight" (82.1%), 77 selecting "bisexual" (9.2%), 37 selecting "queer" (4.4%), 19 selecting "gay" (2.3%), 11 selecting "lesbian" (1.3%), and 6 selecting "asexual" (0.7%). Question 23 asked "What is your first language?" 865 participants answered this question, reporting 30 first languages. 723 reported English (83.6%), 20 reported German (2.3%), 19 reported Italian (2.2%), 16 reported Spanish (1.8%), 9 reported French (1.0%), 9 reported Portuguese (1.0%), 8 reported Chinese (0.9%), 8 reported Hebrew (0.9%), 7 reported Danish (0.8%), 7 reported Dutch (0.8%), 5 reported Russian (0.6%), and 34 others reported languages chosen by fewer than 5 participants. Question 24 asked "What is your country of origin?" 879 participants answered this question, reporting 50 countries. 561 reported United States of America (63.8%), 92 reported Canada (10.5%), 53 reported United Kingdom (6.0%), 20 reported Italy (2.3%), 18 reported Germany (2.0%), 17 reported Australia (1.9%), 8 reported Israel (0.9%), 7 reported Brazil (0.8%), 7 reported Denmark (0.8%), 7 reported India (0.8%), 5 reported China (0.6%), 5 reported France (0.6%), 5 reported Netherlands (0.6%), 5 reported New Zealand (0.6%), 5 reported Russia (0.6%), 5 reported Turkey (0.6%), and 59 others reported countries chosen by fewer than 5 participants. 6 One topic we did not include, but would like to include in future surveys, is political orientation. 7 The demographic questions were not numbered for the participants and came at the end of the survey. Further, there were three versions of the survey with different lengths. We are assigning numbers 20 through 31 for the sake of this report (the longest version of the survey had 31 questions). 3 Question 25 asked "What is your socioeconomic status (SES)?" 893 participants answered this question, with 387 selecting "middle" (43.3%), 258 selecting "upper-middle" (28.9%), 159 selecting "lower-middle" (17.8%), 49 selecting "lower" (5.5%), and 40 selecting "upper" (4.5%). Question 26 asked "What is the highest education level obtained by at least one of your parents/guardians?" 906 participants answered this question, with 231 selecting "bachelor's degree" (25.5%), 188 selecting "doctoral degree (PhD, EdD, etc.)" (20.8%), 158 selecting "master's degree (MA, MSc, MPhil, MLitt, etc.)" (17.4%), 117 selecting "professional degree (MD, JD, LLM, MBA, etc.)" (12.9%), 99 selecting "high school (6th form)" (10.9%), 66 selecting "some college or university" (7.3%), 33 selecting "associate's degree" (3.6%), and 14 selecting "primary or middle school" (1.5%). Question 27 asked "If you are in the military or you are a military veteran, please provide a term or phrase that best describes your current status (e.g. deployed army officer). Otherwise, leave blank." Due to the wording of this question it is difficult to determine the exact number of participants. We chose the average number of participants for all other demographic questions: 788. Of these, only 11 individuals reported military service of some kind (1.4%). Question 28 asked "Which of the following best describes your disability status? Please choose all that apply." 890 participants answered this question, selecting one or more options.8 650 selected "no known disability" (73.0%; 641 or 72.0% that did not select another option), 188 selected "mental health condition (e.g. depression)" (21.1%), 40 selected "long-standing illness or health condition (e.g. cancer)" (4.5%), 35 selected either "specific learning disability (e.g. dyslexia)" or "general learning disability (e.g. Down's syndrome)" (3.9%), 22 selected "other type of disability" (2.5%), 13 selected "social/communication impairment (e.g. Asperger's syndrome)" (1.5%), and 10 selected either "deaf or serious hearing impairment" or "blind or visual impairment uncorrected by glasses" (1.1%). Among these, 60 participants selected more than one option (6.7%). Question 29 asked "If you identify as Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic, please select the term(s) that best describe your heritage." 555 participants selected at least one option.9 Of these, 504 selected "not Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic" (90.8%), 17 selected "North American" (3.1%), 16 selected "South American" (2.9%), 9 selected "Asia (e.g. Pilipinas)" (1.6%), 6 selected "Central American" (1.1%), and 6 selected "Caribbean" (1.1%). Among these, 4 participants selected more than one option (0.7%). Question 30 asked "How do you identify by race? Please choose all that apply." 895 participants selected at least one option. Of these, 780 selected "White" (87.2%; 741 or 82.8% that did not select another option), 76 selected "Other" (8.5%), 65 selected "Asian" or "Pacific Islander" 8 Unfortunately, due to a coding error, "physical impairment or mobility issues (e.g. difficulty using arms)" was not visible to participants in the list of options. 9 Given the ambiguous wording of this question, it seems likely that many who do not identify as Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic chose to simply skip this question. If we assume 788 participants took part in this question, and all not accounted for above would have selected "not Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic," then the total number who identify as Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic would be 51 out of 788, or 6.5%. This is roughly the number that is used later in the report, in contrast with our preliminary report. 4 (7.3%)10, 13 selected "Black or African American" (1.5%), and 9 selected "American Indian or Alaskan Native" (1.0%). Among these, 45 participants selected more than one option (5.0%). Question 31 asked "Fill in the details of your racial identity." 293 participants provided this information, which we sorted into 27 categories. 90 were sorted as "European" (30.7%; includes the categories of Central European, Eastern European, General European, European American, European Australian, European New Zealander, Northern European, Southern European, and Western European), 51 wrote in "White" or "Caucasian" (17.4%), 37 were sorted as "Asian" (12.6%; includes the categories of General Asian, Asian American, East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian), 33 were sorted as "Multiracial" (11.3%), 30 wrote in "Jewish" or similar (10.2%), 13 were sorted as "Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic" (4.4%), 13 were sorted as or wrote in "MENA" (4.4%), 11 responses could not be categorized (3.8%), and 6 said that race did not exist or that they did not have a race (2.0%; "No Race"). The other 5 categories, each with fewer than 5 respondents, were: "American," "Black," "Indigenous," "Russian," and "South American." Of those who both selected "Other" in Question 30 and answered this question (46), 19.6% were sorted as "Jewish," 19.6% as "MENA," 13.0% as "European," 13.0% as "Multiracial," and 10.9% as "Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic." The other categories represented in this group, each with fewer than 5 respondents, were "No Race," "South Asian," and "White." 2. Demographic Comparisons How does our sample of recent and current graduate students compare to the public at large, graduate students in doctoral programs of other disciplines, and the broader philosophy community?11 We go through the characteristics captured in each of the demographic questions above to make these comparisons. We use confidence intervals to check for significance.12 Standardly, if the confidence intervals for different sample proportions do not overlap, then the samples derive from different populations. Yet, note that the fact of overlap does not mean that they derive from the same population. For that reason, a finding of underrepresentation is supported when the proportion in our study is smaller than the proportions from other studies and there is no overlap between the confidence intervals, but even if underrepresentation is not supported, the group in question may be underrepresented. Table 1 summarizes this data, with instances of underrepresentation according to this standard marked with an asterisk and bolded. The United States Census estimates "female persons" to be 50.8% of the population [2]. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which gathers information on graduates of doctoral programs in the United States, estimates that 53.3% of all doctorates are conferred to "females," with a 95% confidence interval of 53.1% to 53.5% (henceforth, "CI") [3]. The American Philosophical Association reports 614 "female" members and 1783 "male" members in 2018, or 25.6% (CI: 23.9% to 27.4%) [4]. Our study used the language of gender, rather than sex, and offered two extra categories: non-binary and bigender. For the purpose of comparison 10 In future surveys, we will aim to include "Asian American" in this option. 11 Thanks to Alex Guerrero for suggesting a systematic comparison across all three groups. 12 If a confidence interval is not reported then the sample size is so large that the interval values are the same as the proportion, when rounded to the nearest tenth. 5 across studies we include here only those who identify as men or women. In our study, 33.8% of survey participants identified as women (271 of 801; CI: 30.5% to 37.1%). Thus, women are underrepresented in our survey relative to the United States population as well as to its population of doctoral graduates. This is consistent with the fact that women are underrepresented in philosophy, in general [5]. DIS Survey U.S. Population All Doctorates APA Members Women 33.8% 50.8%* 53.3%* 25.6% Transgender 1.1% .4-.6% .9% 5.7% LGB 12.7% 4.1% 9.8% Non U.S.A. 22.1% 13.4% 12.2% Unknown First Generation 23.4% 58.9%* 30.7%* Unknown Military 1.4% 7.5%* 5.2%* Unknown Disability 28.0% 17.6-27.2% 12.2% Unknown American Indian/Alaska Native 0.1% 1.3%* 0.5%* 1.1%* Asian/Pacific Islander 4.7% 5.9% 12.8%* 7.6%* Black/African American 1.1% 13.4%* 8.8%* 3.1%* Chicanx/Latinx/ Hispanic 6.0% 18.3%* 7.8%* 5.5% Two or More Races 2.5% 2.7% 2.6% Unknown Table 1: The proportion of participants in various demographic groups assessed by the Diversity and Inclusivity Survey as they compare to other populations, with significant differences bolded and marked with an asterisk. The U.S. Census does not include questions regarding gender identity or sexuality [6]. While NCES likewise does not include questions regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) identification, it aims to include this in future surveys [7]. In their place, we used 6 scholarly articles and reports to provide estimates for these categories. A recent study published in American Journal of Public Health uses multiple datasets to estimate that 0.4% of the U.S. population is transgender (CI: 0.2% to 0.6%) [8]. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that 0.6% of the population is transgender and 4.1% is lesbian, gay, or bisexual [9]. A 2018 report by the American College Health Association included 0.9% transgender students (CI: 0.6% to 1.2%) and 9.8% LGB students among the graduate and professional students in its survey (CI: 9.0% to 10.6%) [10]. In our survey, 1.1% of the participants identified as transgender (CI: 0.4% to 1.8%), and 12.7% identified as LGB (CI: 10.5% to 15%). The American Philosophical Association provides a combined percentage of 5.7% LGBT members (CI: 5.2% to 6.2%), which is lower than the combined values from our survey, even granting overlap between the groups [4]. Thus, we did not find evidence that those who identify as LGBT are underrepresented in our survey. Yet, given the proportion of those who identify as LGBT among APA members, it is reasonable to suppose that LGBT philosophers may be underrepresented relative to the population of doctoral students, if not relative to the general population.13 In 2011, the American Community Survey reported that 20.8% of the population over 5 years old "spoke a language other than English at home" [11]. Unfortunately, this number includes native English speakers who also speak other languages, such as bilinguals (the comparison class was those who speak only English at home). For that reason, it is difficult to draw comparisons with our own survey, which focused on native, or "first" language-in our survey, 16.5% of all participants reported a first language other than English (CI: 14.0% to 19.0%). We were able to achieve a better comparison with respect to country of origin. The U.S. Census estimates "foreign-born persons" to be 13.4% of the total population [2]. NCES estimates 12.2% of all doctoral degrees are conferred to "non-resident aliens" (CI: 12.1% to 12.4%) [3]. While the APA provides numbers for "international" members, it does not appear to track country of origin [4]. In our survey, 36.3% reported a country other than the U.S. as "country of origin." Restricting this to just those at graduate programs in the United States, 22.1% at such programs report a country of origin other than the U.S. (CI: 19.0% to 25.2%). Thus, we did not find evidence that those with a country of origin other than the United States are underrepresented in our survey. The proportion of those in different socioeconomic classes is often determined by income. The Pew Research Center, for example, reports that in 2015 29.0% of those in the United States were in the lower class, 49.9% in the middle class, and 21.1% in the upper class [12]. Our survey instead used self-report, with 23.3% in the lower class, 43.3% in the middle class, and 33.4% in the upper class. A direct comparison of these values reveals an upward shift in our participants, relative to the U.S. population. A more straightforward comparison on the basis of socioeconomic status, perhaps, is "first generation" status. This status applies to all those for whom neither parent earned a baccalaureate degree. In 2017, 58.9% of children under the age of 18 have no parent with a baccalaureate degree [13]. 30.7% of all doctoral students are first 13 Note that the APA combines the categories of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and since there is likely overlap between sexuality and gender the percentage would be somewhat higher if the two were separated. We nonetheless hypothesize that it would be less than that of all graduate students (10.7%). 7 generation (CI: 30.3% to 31.1%) [14]. In comparison, 23.4% of our survey participants are first generation (CI: 20.6% to 26.2%). Thus, first generation students are underrepresented in our survey, relative to the United States general population and its doctoral students. (The APA does not appear to track first generation status.) Veterans alone comprise around 7.5% of the U.S. population over the age of 18 [1]. In comparison, "military students" make up 5.2% of students in research/scholarship based doctoral programs (CI: 4.9% to 5.5%) [13].14 In our survey, only 1.4% reported military status of some kind (CI: 0.6% to 2.2%). Thus, those with military status, such as veterans, are underrepresented in our survey relative to the United States general population and doctoral students. (The APA does not appear to track military status.) Self-reports of disability can be more or less conservative.15 A 2018 report estimates that 17.6% of the U.S. population have a disability on a more conservative measure, whereas 27.2% have a disability on a broader measure [14]. Using a more conservative standard, 12.2% of students in research/scholarship based doctoral programs have a disability (CI: 10.9% to 13.5%) [13].16 Our own survey used a less conservative standard, such that 28.0% of participants report at least one disability (CI: 25.1% to 31.0%). Thus, we did not find evidence that those with disabilities are underrepresented in our survey. Yet, further study is required to determine whether philosophers with disabilities are underrepresented, given variation in reporting standards.17 The United States Census combines race and ethnicity in its reporting, as does the National Center for Education Statistics.18 In 2018, the U.S. population was estimated to be 1.3% American Indian and Alaska Native, 5.9% Asian, 13.4% Black or African American, 18.3% Hispanic or Latino, 0.2% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 2.7% two or more races, and 60.4% White, not Hispanic or Latino [1].19 The population of those U.S. citizens and permanent residents earning doctoral degrees in 2016-2017 was estimated to be 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native, 12.8% Asian/Pacific Islander (CI: 12.7% to 13.0%), 8.8% Black (CI: 8.7% to 8.9%), 7.8% Hispanic (CI: 7.7% to 7.9%), 2.6% two or more races (CI: 2.5% to 2.7%), and 67.5% White (CI: 67.3% to 67.7%) [2]. The American Philosophical Association membership in 2018 was 1.1% American Indian/Alaska Native (CI: 0.8% to 1.4%), 7.6% Asian (CI: 6.8% to 8.4%), 3.1% Black/African-American (CI: 2.6% to 3.6%), 5.5% Hispanic/Latino (CI: 4.8% to 14 Confidence interval based on a reported sample of "approximately...24,000 graduate students." 15 Thanks to Joe Rachiele for pointing this out. 16 Confidence interval based on assumed sample of 2520. 17 Participants may, for example, report only severe disabilities in some contexts, and less severe disabilities in others. 18 The Census excludes "Hispanic or Latino" from "White," but not from other groups, such that the percentages add up to a little more than 100%. 19 We use the language of the survey in question when reporting racial categories. 8 6.2%), 0.2% Pacific Islander (CI: 0.1% to 0.3%) and 82.8% White/Caucasian (CI: 81.7% to 83.9%) [3]. (Note that the APA does not have a category for multiracial philosophers.) Our survey separated race and ethnicity questions, so for the purpose of comparison we treated ethnicity as primary. Given that, our survey participants were 0.1% American Indian or Alaska Native (CI: 0.0% to 0.3%), 4.7% Asian or Pacific Islander (CI: 3.3% to 6.1%), 1.1% Black or African American (CI: 0.4% to 1.8%), 6.0% Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic (CI: 4.4% to 7.6%), 2.5% two or more races (CI: 1.5% to 3.6%), and 85.6% White (CI: 83.2% to 88%). Thus, participants from certain racial/ethnic groups are underrepresented in our survey: American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, and Chicanx/Hispanic/Latinx.20 In the case of Asian/Pacific Islander participants, we did not find evidence of underrepresentation relative to the U.S. general population, but did find underrepresentation relative to doctoral students, overall. Given the APA data, it is reasonable to suppose that those in at least the latter three groups are underrepresented in philosophy, in general. In the case of American Indian/Alaska Native philosophers, we suspect that if the APA had included a multiracial option then their numbers would also reflect underrepresentation for this group. Given the above, in later sections we focus on the following forms of underrepresentation: gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, first generation status, veteran status, and disability status. These are the categories that inform our use of "underrepresented factors," below. 3. Questions Regarding Diversity and Inclusivity Five of the questions in the survey were directly related to diversity and inclusivity; two of them were numerically scored and three were text-based. For the numerically-scored questions, we compared mean responses for the demographic categories listed above, using responses from questions 20 to 31. We found a number of significant differences between groups on how comfortable they find themselves in philosophy and how welcoming they find philosophy to be to members of underrepresented groups. For the text-based questions, we developed a coding scheme that was applied by two independent undergraduate research assistants. We report the major themes below, including what changes participants think would help make philosophy more inclusive. We also report on a linguistic analysis of the text-based responses, to give a sense of the overall style of writing exhibited by respondents (see Question 14). Question 10 asked "When you interact with other philosophers in professional and social settings, how comfortable do you find yourself?" Answers ranged from 1, "very uncomfortable" to 5, "very comfortable." A total of 934 survey participants gave a mean response of 3.6, which is closest to 4, "somewhat comfortable." We found that participants answered this question differently depending on their gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, and disability status. 20 As mentioned in footnote 9, the proportion of Chicanx/Hispanic/Latinx philosophers reported here is different from that in the preliminary report because we are assuming as the base here all those who answered questions about ethnicity or race. 9 As is perhaps not surprising, men find themselves more comfortable interacting with other philosophers than women, and women find themselves more comfortable than those who identify as non-binary; those who identify as straight find themselves more comfortable interacting with other philosophers than those who identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay, queer, or asexual; and those with no known disability find themselves more comfortable interacting with other philosophers than those with one or more disabilities. We also found an unexpected trend: those who identify as Asian or Pacific Islander find themselves more comfortable interacting with other philosophers than those from other racial and ethnic groups. There were also striking differences for those who identify as transgender, but they didn't rise to the level of significance, likely due to small numbers. See Table 2 for more details, with significant findings in bold.21 Identity Number Mean Chi-Squared Test Men Women Non-Binary 516 266 23 3.7 3.4 3.1 X2 (8, N = 805) = 22.5, p<.007* Not Transgender Transgender 800 9 3.6 2.9 X2 (4, N = 809) = 3.8, p=.4 Straight LGBQA 672 150 3.6 3.2 X2 (4, N = 822) = 18.0, p<.007* White Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African American Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic Two or More Races 715 38 9 50 20 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 X2 (16, N = 832) = 63.2, p<.007* Not First Generation First Generation 679 208 3.6 3.4 X2 (4, N = 887) = 6.2, p=.2 No Military Status Military/Veteran 864 9 3.5 3.6 X2 (4, N = 873) = 8.3, p=.08 No Known Disability One or More Disabilities 627 244 3.7 3.3 X2 (4, N = 871) = 16.1, p<.007* Table 2: The number and mean scores of participants who responded to Question 10, organized by demographic group. Significant differences bolded and marked with an asterisk. From the above, it does not appear to be the case that representation in philosophy perfectly corresponds with comfort in the discipline. Yet, if we group together all those with at least one 21 The cut-off for significance is corrected to account for multiple tests. 10 underrepresented factor (women, non-binary, transgender, LGBQA, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic, two or more races22, first generation, military/veteran, or one or more disabilities) and compare this group to those with no underrepresented factors (men, not transgender, straight, White, not first generation, no military status, and no known disability), then we do find a significant difference. Namely, those with one or more underrepresented factors find themselves neither comfortable nor uncomfortable on average (3.4, n=601), whereas those with no underrepresented factors find themselves somewhat comfortable (3.8, n=216). This difference is statistically significant, X2 (4, N = 817) = 21, p=.0003. Thus, underrepresentation in philosophy appears to correspond with a lack of comfort in the discipline. Question 11 asked "Please elaborate on your previous answer. These comments will always remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." As responses were text-based, we first determined themes in the public responses (the sample quotes below were the ones provided to coders). We then had two undergraduate research assistants independently code the public and private responses according to these themes, noting whether the theme was mentioned in a positive, negative, or neutral way. Chart 1 lists these themes, organized in terms of valence and number of mentions ("valence"). The research assistants made the same coding decision in 92.3% of the cases. Chart 1: The number of mentions for each of 22 themes identified in the text-based responses to 22 This group is included even though we did not find evidence of underrepresentation for this group, in particular, because at least one of the races selected by all those in this group is itself underrepresented. 11 question 11, organized by valence (i.e. positive, neutral, or negative mention). General trends include that participants claim their comfort "depends on the person" they are interacting with and often mention competitiveness as leading to bad behavior. Overall, there were 771 thematic mentions across 275 participants, which leaned negative: 32% positive/15% neutral/53% negative. The 5 themes with the largest number of mentions were general comfort/discomfort (94), community (89), personal reasons (88), social interactions (73), and social spaces (63). The 5 themes with the smallest number of mentions were direct references to disability (3), dismissive (5), direct references to LGBTQ+ (5), direct references to veteran status (5), and direct references to political leaning (5). Some of the themes leaned positive. That is, the majority of mentions were positive, listed below from most to least positive relative to the percentage of neutral or negative mentions, with the percentage of positive/neutral/negative mentions provided in parentheses: ● increase in comfort over time ("As I get to be more senior, my self-esteem grows, making it easier to interact"; 93/0/7), ● direct references to LGBTQ+ (80/0/20), ● support from faculty and peers ("our community is generally...supportive"; 74/5/21), and ● open-minded/friendly ("Interlocutors are usually friendly"; 57/10/33). Other themes were neutral. That is, either the majority of mentions were neutral or there was not a majority in any of the three categories of positive, neutral, and negative: ● depends on situation ("Depends entirely on the individual"; 0/97/3) and ● general comfort/discomfort ("I feel very comfortable approaching students, staff, and faculty in this department"; 49/16/35). Finally, most themes leaned negative, listed below in terms of most to least negative relative to the percentage of positive and neutral mentions, then by number of respondents: ● defensive/aggressive/hostile ("high instances of patronizing and/or sexist and/or competitive behavior/individuals," "openly hostile [to conservative or religious views]"; 0/0/100), ● hierarchical ("I find the jostling for attention and the focus on hierarchies as unsettling as I did when I was younger"; 0/0/100), ● dismissive ("philosophers who were...awkward, domineering, or dismissive"; 0/0/100), ● direct references to political leaning ("politically conservative...philosophers clearly feel quite at ease with being openly hostile"; 0/0/100), ● direct references to SES ("I come from a low-income background and am first generation"; 9/0/91), ● direct references to race ("I am a black, African woman. Sometimes faculty and students (maybe inadvertently) made me feel as if I was not welcome in that space"; 13/0/87), ● direct references to gender ("There were a few sexist comments by faculty and students, but my bodily integrity was never threatened"; 12/4/85), ● direct references to veteran status (0/20/80), ● inclusive/diverse ("definitely inclusive"; 25/5/70), ● respect ("I feel respected by students, professors, and administration"; 29/4/68), ● direct references to disability (0/33/67), 12 ● personal reasons ("I get socially anxious around strangers"; 24/15/61), ● social interactions ("received inappropriate comments at on campus interviews," "harsh and scolding behavior"; 41/3/56), ● miscellaneous ("Not supposed to be comfortable"; 20/24/56), ● social spaces provided ("A number of places in and outside the university that enable to meet a lot of colleagues...integration is easily made possible"; 44/2/54), and ● community ("I am a woman and find that my voice is amplified by peers and faculty in the department"; 38/8/54). Question 12 asked "How welcoming do you find academic philosophy to be toward students who are members of underrepresented groups, e.g. women, racial or ethnic minorities, members of the LGBTQ community, people with low socio-economic status, veterans and members of the military, and people with disabilities?" Answers ranged from 1, "very unwelcoming" to 5, "very welcoming." A total of 923 survey participants gave a mean response of 3.1, which is closest to "neither welcoming nor unwelcoming." Worth noting is that while Question 10 is framed in terms of subjective comfort, Question 12 is framed in terms of objective climate; our respondents on average rated themselves as comfortable but the climate as only neutral. Chart 2 displays responses to both questions by each demographic group. Chart 2: The average score provided by each demographic group to questions 10 ("comfortable") and 12 ("welcoming"). Higher scores indicate greater comfort in philosophy or perception that philosophy is more welcoming. 13 As with Question 10, we found that participants answered this question differently depending on their gender, sexuality, and disability status. Men find philosophy to more welcoming to those of underrepresented groups, on average, than women and non-binary philosophers. Similarly, straight philosophers find it to be more welcoming than those who identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay, queer, and asexual. Finally, those with no known disabilities find it to be more welcoming than those with one or more disabilities. A dramatic difference that did not rise to the level of statistical significance, likely due to small numbers, was between those philosophers who identify as transgender and those who do not, with those who identify as transgender finding philosophy to be somewhat unwelcoming, on average, and those who do not finding it neither welcoming nor unwelcoming. Similarly, Black/African American philosophers find philosophy somewhat unwelcoming, on average, whereas White philosophers find it neither welcoming nor unwelcoming, but this difference was not statistically significant. Table 3 provides the relevant numbers. Identity Number Mean Chi-Squared Test Men Women Non-Binary 506 267 23 3.3 2.7 2.6 (8, N = 796) = 67.6, p<.007* Not Transgender Transgender 791 9 3.1 1.8 (4, N = 800) = 10.9, p=.02 Straight LGBQA 662 150 3.2 2.7 (4, N = 812) = 21.1, p<.007* White Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African American Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic Two or More Races 701 39 9 50 21 3.1 2.9 2.4 3.3 3.6 (16, N = 820) = 22.4, p=.1 Not First Generation First Generation 670 207 3.1 3.1 (4, N = 877) = 8.2, p=.1 No Military Status Military/Veteran 850 11 3.1 3.2 (4, N = 861) = 3.7, p=.4 No Known Disability One or More Disabilities 618 244 3.2 2.8 (4, N = 862) = 23.0, p<.007* Table 3: The number and mean scores of participants who responded to Question 12, organized by demographic group. Significant differences bolded and marked with an asterisk. 14 Again, it does not appear that representation in philosophy perfectly corresponds with how welcoming philosophy is perceived to be toward members of underrepresented groups. Yet, if we use the same grouping method as in question 10, we find a significant difference. Namely, those with one or more underrepresented factors find philosophy less welcoming (3.0, n=602) than those with no underrepresented factors (3.4, n=205). This difference is statistically significant, X2 (4, N = 807) = 24.6, p=.00006. Thus, underrepresentation in philosophy appears to correspond with a perception of philosophy as less welcoming to those from underrepresented groups. Question 13 asked "Please elaborate on your previous answer. These comments will always remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." Again, as responses were text-based, we first determined themes in the public responses and then had the undergraduate research assistants code the responses according to the themes, noting whether the mention was positive, negative, or neutral.23 Chart 3 lists these themes, organized in terms of valence and number of mentions. The research assistants made the same coding decision in 93.0% of the cases. Chart 3: The number of mentions for each of 27 themes identified in the text-based responses to question 13, organized by valence (i.e. positive, neutral, or negative mention). Overall, responses were negative, despite expressing hope for improvement in the discipline and recognizing efforts made by philosophers so far. Many shared the perspective that philosophy has become more welcoming over time, but that this depends on the person or group. There were 1116 thematic mentions across 288 survey participants, the majority of which were negative: 29% positive/19% neutral/53% negative. The 5 themes with the largest number of mentions were generally welcoming/unwelcoming (130), direct references to gender (104), direct references to race (86), improvement (81), and department welcoming/unwelcoming (79). The 6 themes with 23 The research assistants noted that direct references to age would have been a useful theme to include, since several respondents mentioned the age of philosophers when describing whether the field is welcoming to those of underrepresented groups. 15 the smallest number of mentions were elitism (6), too broad/poorly worded (8), neither welcoming nor unwelcoming (8), poor accommodations (11), marginalization (15), and direct references to political leaning (15). A chart organized in terms of the total number of thematic mentions and then valence is provided below. Some themes leaned positive, such that the majority of mentions were positive. These are listed below from most to least positive relative to the percentage of neutral or negative mentions, with the percentage of positive/neutral/negative mentions provided in parentheses: ● improvement ("A few years ago I would have checked "*very* unwelcoming". It seems to me things are slightly and slowly improving"; 77/4/20), ● department welcoming/unwelcoming ("strong desire in the department to increase diversity"; 61/14/25), ● support ("now there is a huge emphasis on supporting these students"; 59/4/37), and ● inclusivity ("these features make this program more diverse and inclusive (on some dimensions, at least than the (statistically) average program"; 58/14/28). Other themes were neutral; either the majority of mentions were neutral or there was not a majority in any of the three categories of positive, neutral, and negative. These include: ● not sure ("it is difficult to say for certain how welcoming it would be [given limited representation of some groups]"; 0/100/0), ● neither welcoming nor unwelcoming ("A more accurate answer, I think, would be: both welcoming and unwelcoming"; 0/100/0), ● depends ("whether someone is welcoming of diversity largely depends on their age (and perhaps sex and race)"; 0/94/6), ● too broad/poorly worded ("This category is too big of a catchall for me to answer."; 0/75/25), ● individuals welcoming/unwelcoming ("I feel very comfortable approaching students, staff, and faculty in this department"; 38/20/42), ● diversity ("Depends entirely on the individual"; 32/18/50), ● direct references to LGBTQ+ ("I have found philosophy to be very welcoming to the LGBTQ community and open to contributions to academic conferences"; 46/9/46), As with Q11, most themes leaned negative, including: ● dismissive ("I have personally experienced being talked down to or ignored for being a member of a minority group"; 0/0/100), ● poor accommodations ("the way we do or do not make accommodations in philosophy indicates that, at the least, academic philosophers decline to be particularly welcoming to members of underrepresented groups"; 0/0/100), ● hostile ("As someone who grew up rural and blue collar, I find many academic philosophers to be overtly hostile to, judgmental of, and scornful towards people who come from the same background as I do"; 3/3/94), ● discrimination ("painfully obvious that such discrimination continues to be perpetuated on a global scale"; 0/7/93), ● marginalization ("lack of care about the ways marginalization is reinforced in seminars, policies, attitudes, hiring approaches and outcomes, and lectures"; 13/0/87), 16 ● biases ("Analytic philosophers are trying, but it seems like underlying bias and ignorance prevents members of the discipline from truly welcoming folks from these backgrounds"; 5/11/84), ● direct references to SES ("I come from a low-income background and am first generation"; 7/9/84), ● elitism ("philosophy is, overall, an homogeneous and elitist field"; 17/0/83), ● direct references to political leaning ("there are encouraging signs that the [my program] is awakening to the need to include members of all underrepresented groups, including conservatives and Republicans"; 13/13/73), ● direct references to race ("As an ethnic minority underrepresented in philosophy, I never once felt unwelcome or treated differently during my entire time as a graduate student"; 14/15/71), ● direct references to disability ("disability studies and discussion of conference accessibility are ubiquitous these days"; 27/8/65), ● direct references to gender ("the faculty and students in my program when I attended were balanced between men and women"; 22/13/65), ● direct references to veteran status (5/38/57), ● spaces welcoming/unwelcoming ("The group, formerly Society for Women in Philosophy, now Minorities and Philosophy, invites any interested grad students to participate in their meetings and conferences"; 30/15/55), ● miscellaneous ("it is really creepy and unethical that the APA wants to know so much about sexual identity"; 11/34/54), and ● generally welcoming/unwelcoming ("I can think of few or no other places that are as intently focused on being welcoming to this kind of diversity"; 29/53/18), Question 14 asked "What steps should philosophy take to become more inclusive, if any? These comments will always remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." Since responses were text-based we began by using the public responses to determine five major themes: funding, training and behavior, diversity, institutional support, and other.24 Undergraduate research assistants then used coding guidelines to assign a positive, neutral, or negative value to themes they discovered in each response. Overall, 329 participants provided 607 thematic mentions, which were primarily positive (92% positive, 4% neutral, and 4% negative). Agreement between coders was somewhat lower for this question: 82.5%. The largest share of mentions (200) went to the theme of diversity. Coders were provided the following guidelines: Diversity: (diversity in hiring and admitting, improve spousal hires, targeted recruitment and outreach, course and research material) Examples: ● "More diverse faces at the front of classrooms to attract a more diverse student body to the major and to the profession" 24 The research assistants noticed another theme that should have been included: early intervention. Coders thought this might include pre-collegiate philosophy, undergraduate recruitment, and other efforts at inclusivity prior to graduate school. 17 ● "Broaden its canon and counts as 'core' and as 'philosophical.' Also, move away from an obsession with rankings (journals, programs, etc.)" 97.0% of these mentions were positive. The first public comment marked as positive by coders was: "Philosophers should be more self-reflective. But there also need to be institutional remedies: striving for equity on syllabi, in conference invitations, in hiring decisions. We need to make decisions with inclusion and demographics in mind." 0.5% were neutral. The first public comment marked as neutral by coders was "I believe that [my university] is already broadening its courses for all degrees with Philosophy gaining precedence." 2.5% were negative. The first public comment marked as negative by coders was "None. The only way the discipline could become more inclusive is by becoming openly hostile to nonunderrepresented groups. Though to be fair, such open hostility is already occasionally evident." The second largest share of mentions (184) went to the theme of other. Coders were provided the following: Other: (more data, can't fix some things like SES, what counts as inclusive?) Examples: ● "Data, data, data. This survey is probably the first low-hanging fruit I'd want to see addressed, so I'm glad it's happening." 78.8% of these mentions were positive. The first public comment marked as positive by coders was: "Make philosophy more directly relevant to medical science, social sciences and politics." 13.0% were neutral. The first public comment marked as neutral by coders was: "I have no idea. I am a white male raised in a middle class background. I was trained as an analytic philosopher with a heavy emphasis on logic, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science. It is my impression that analytic philosophy departments tend not to be very inclusive. While I have not kept up with the makeup of the department since I graduated, it does seem that the department has moved away from the strong emphasis on analytic philosophy and has moved toward an emphasis on ethics and social justice and, as a result, has probably become more inclusive." 8.2% were negative. The first public comment marked as negative by coders was: "I think the non-inclusiveness of philosophy in the Western world may not be the mistake of the philosophers themselves. After all, human beings are human beings. They may be biased, and they may be too sensitive. Philosophy itself is always inclusive and does not exclude people based on reasons other than philosophy." The third largest share of mentions (136) went to the theme of training and behavior. Coders were provided the following: Training and Behavior: (encourage courteous non-combative behavior in class and conferences, individual actions, bias training) 18 Examples: ● "Encourage all philosophers to be courteous during seminars and conferences" ● "Ensure effective measures for redress should department members create a hostile work environment or culture of abuse." 98.5% of these mentions were positive. The first public comment marked as positive for this theme by coders, but not already mentioned above, was: "The official steps have been pretty much taken. Two further suggestions might be considering minorities more in hiring processes (and not only the number of good publications) and also paying attention to seminar and discussion practices." 1.5% of these mentions were negative. The first public comment marked as negative for this theme by coders, but not already mentioned above, was: "The environment is certainly not hostile; free and open discussions occur frequently." The fourth largest share of mentions (54) went to the theme of institutional support. Coders were provided the following: Institutional Support: (support in addressing discrimination and title IX, "climate committees" to intervene on students behalf) Examples: ● "Hold each other accountable for being racist/sexist (especially in class). At my university we have a climate committee. I'm pretty sure they don't really have any real power, but if a well-respected professor tells you to stop being sexist/racist/homophobic, then you might stop for fear of losing their respect/a reference from them." ● "Departments should go out of their way to meet students that might need an invitation to feel included, not simply be ready with the 'resources' for those students to turn to once a crisis of confidence presents itself." 100% of these mentions were positive. The first public comment marked as positive for this theme by coders, but not already mentioned above, was: "A PhD is a job and should be treated as such (like in Belgium or Austria). Women are underrepresented. Parental leave should be increased n-fold." Finally, the smallest share of mentions (33) went to the theme of funding. Coders were provided the following: Funding: (financial support for low SES and people with caregiving burdens, paid parental leave, child care at conferences) Examples: ● "Financial support for students who work, students who parent, students who are primary caretakers for elders, and students whose disabilities stop them from proceeding in the traditional way through the program" ● "More awareness of the challenges facing first generation and low income students." 19 100% of these mentions were positive. The first public comment marked as positive for this theme by coders, but not already mentioned above, was: "Offer more scholarships to underrepresented groups in both terminal MA programs and PhD programs." LIWC Analysis In answering Questions 11, 13, and 14, respondents appeared to be writing analytically with a neutral emotional tone. We assessed this using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), software that processes language using algorithms developed through linguistics research [17]. Using LIWC, we assessed how the responses in our survey compared to overall LIWC means, without calculating statistical significance, as well as how the responses to different questions compared to one another, using five variables: word count, analytical thinking, clout, authentic, and emotional tone. We used LIWC 2015, which analyzed over 100,000 texts to arrive at the averages provided in Table 4, below. The LIWC developers describe these variables as follows: Analytical thinking: "a high number reflects formal, logical, and hierarchical thinking; lower numbers reflect more informal, personal, here-and-now, and narrative thinking." Clout: "a high number suggests that the author is speaking from the perspective of high expertise and is confident; low Clout numbers suggest a more tentative, humble, even anxious style." Authentic: "higher numbers are associated with a more honest, personal, and disclosing text; lower numbers suggest a more guarded, distanced form of discourse." Emotional Tone: "a high number is associated with a more positive, upbeat style; a low number reveals greater anxiety, sadness, or hostility. A number around 50 suggests either a lack of emotionality or different levels of ambivalence." [18] In terms of differences with LIWC 2015 averages, our responses display more analytical thinking with a slightly more neutral tone, usually with less clout but more authentic. In terms of differences between questions, we compared questions 11 and 13 and questions 13 and 14. Some differences between these responses rose to the level of statistical significance following Bonferroni correction. Namely, responses to question 13 had a higher word count (53.8 vs. 32.8, p<.01) and clout than those for question 11 (47.8 vs. 38.7, p<.01), but were less authentic (52.4 vs. 63.5, p<.01). Similarly, responses to question 14 had more clout (58.1 vs. 47.8, p<.01) and were less authentic (30.7 vs. 52.4, p<.01) than for question 13, but had more analytical thinking (76.2 vs. 65.1, p<.01), and a smaller word count (42.4 vs. 53.8, p<.01). Thus, the distancing required for answering question 14 seemed to lead to more analytic thinking and greater confidence. (Analytical thinking between questions 11 and 13 was not quite significant, following Bonferroni correction: p=.011). The table below provides these values, with significant differences bolded. 20 Source Word Count Analytic Clout Authentic Tone LIWC2015 11921.8 56.3 58.0 49.2 54.2 Question 11 32.8* 58.8 38.7* 63.5* 49.9 Question 13 53.8* 65.1* 47.8* 52.4* 50.1 Question 14 42.4* 76.2* 58.1* 30.7* 51.9 Table 4: The mean LIWC scores of all participants in comparison with all texts assessed by LIWC, organized by question. Significant differences between questions bolded and marked with an asterisk. 4. Program-Related Questions Beyond demographic questions and questions related to diversity and inclusivity, other survey questions repeated questions from earlier APDA surveys. Participants were, for example, asked 9 questions regarding their PhD program. In this section, we compare their responses to these questions to the demographic factors described above. Overall, students and graduates from underrepresented groups are less likely to recommend their program, especially noting inclusivity and funding as problematic issues. Question 1 asked "How likely would you be to recommend the program from which you obtained or will obtain your PhD to prospective philosophy students?" We found that underrepresented graduates are less likely to recommend their program to others than those who are not underrepresented. 1404 participants responded to this question, providing a mean rating of 4.0, or "somewhat likely." For this and the following questions we divided participants into 6 overlapping groups, depending on their other responses to the survey: no underrepresented factors, woman or nonbinary, LGBTQA25, person of color, first generation or military26, and one or more disability. Chart 4 displays the proportion of responses by each of these demographic groups. 25 In this case, transgender participants are included with LGBQA participants due to the small number of transgender participants. 26 While first generation and military status do not themselves overlap, other measures of socioeconomic status do overlap with military status: "...the results show that as family income increases, the likelihood of service decreases, while parents' education does not significantly affect military service" [19]. We group them together here due to the small number of those with military status. 21 ● No underrepresented factors includes those who identify as straight, White, nontransgender men with no disabilities who have not served in the military and with at least one parent who is a college graduate (n=219); these participants provided a mean rating of 4.3. ● Woman or non-binary includes those who identify as women or non-binary (n=294); these participants provided a mean rating of 4.0. ● LGBTQA includes those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or asexual (n=150); these participants provided a mean rating of 3.9. ● Person of color includes those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic, Pacific Islander, or two or more races (n=122); these participants provided a mean rating of 4.1. ● First generation or military includes those who either reported having parents whose highest level of education was some college or lower or who have military status of some kind (n=217); these participants provided a mean rating of 4.0. ● One or more disability includes those who reported one or more disability (n=249); these participants provided a mean rating of 3.9. Chart 4: The proportion of those in each of 6 demographic groups who provided each of 5 possible responses to Question 1. No underrepresented factors is the only group with no overlap. 22 Grouping together all of those with one or more underrepresented factor, there are 613, with a mean rating of 4.0. The difference between the responses of this group and the group of those with no underrepresented factors is statistically significant, X2 (4, N = 832) = 15.2, p=.004. Question 2 asked "Describe aspects of your program that you found most relevant in answering Question 1, especially the ones that would be useful to prospective students. These comments will remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." As with the text-based answers discussed in section 3, we first identified themes in the public responses to this question, and then had undergraduate research assistants code all the responses. Themes include administrative, curriculum and department specialization, faculty/supervision, funding, graduate community, inclusivity, interdisciplinary, job prospects/preparation, location, other, and work and development opportunities. See Chart 5 for the overall number of respondents who provided positive, neutral, and negative mentions of each theme. Chart 5: The number of mentions for each of 10 themes identified in the text-based responses to question 2, organized by valence (i.e. positive, neutral, or negative mention). For the purpose of this report, we focus on those themes for which those with at least one underrepresented factor responded differently than those with no underrepresented factors. The biggest differences between these groups were for the themes of inclusivity and funding: 23 ● inclusivity (e.g. committed to it, cares about grad and faculty diversity, not enough hiring diversity, active sexism/racism, fails to protect graduates from being targeted). Positive examples provided to the coders include "diverse and inclusive department," whereas negative examples include "the department is not a diverse environment." We found that those with at least one underrepresented factor provided more negative responses, on average (0.2 vs. 0.7). Further, twice as many from the former group mentioned this theme (6.6% vs. 3.0%). ● funding (e.g. strong financial support, funding to cost of living, conference support money, funding not guaranteed for long enough, too little to live on). Positive examples provided to the coders include "good funding" and "very good financial situation for grad students," whereas negative examples include "insecure funding is the main reason I would not recommend the department" and "lack of travel funding." Again, we found that those with at least one underrepresented factor provided more negative responses, on average (0.1 vs. 0.7). The responses to the other themes had smaller differences or too few respondents to report differences: administrative (too few respondents), curriculum and department specialization (0.5 vs. 0.8), faculty/supervision (0.5 vs. 0.9), graduate community (0.6 vs. 0.9), interdisciplinary, job prospects/preparation (0.0 vs. 0.2), location (0.6 vs. 0.8), other (0.1 vs. 0.4), and work and development opportunities (0.6 vs. 0.8). Question 3 asked "Select from this list up to 5 keywords that you would associate with this program." We provided 41 possible keywords: Aesthetics African Analytic Ancient Applied Asian Bioethics/Medical Ethics Biology Cognitive Science Contemporary Continental Critical Theory Early Modern Epistemology Ethics Experimental Philosophy French Gender/Feminist German Historical History and Philosophy of Science Interdisciplinary Islamic Language Latin American Law Logic/Formal Mathematics Medieval Metaphysics Mind Naturalist/Empirical Non-Western Phenomenology Physics Pluralist Political Pragmatism Race Religion Social Science Those with no underrepresented factors more often selected "Analytic" (12.1% of all mentions for those with no underrepresented factors vs. 11.4% of all mentions for those with underrepresented factors), "Metaphysics" (4.2% vs. 3.7%), "Contemporary" (4.1% vs. 3.5%), "Political" (3.8% vs. 2.8%), and "Language" (3.1% vs. 2.5%). Those with one or more underrepresented factors more often selected "Ethics" (7.5% vs. 8%), "History and Philosophy 24 of Science" (4.1% vs. 4.7%), "Early Modern" (2.5% vs. 3.1%), and "Physics" (0.9% vs. 1.4%). In certain cases the differences in overall percentage were small, but nonetheless striking. Taking into account the overall difference between the number of keywords mentioned by each group, 3.6 times as many in the underrepresented group mentioned "African" and 1.9 times as many mentioned "Race." Chart 6 includes the percentage of mentions for all keywords by demographic group, with those that have a larger percentage of mentions by those with no underrepresented factors to the left and those that have a larger percentage of mentions by those with one or more underrepresented factors to the right, organized by largest to smallest percentage of mentions. Chart 6: The percentage of mentions for each of 41 keywords used to describe one's graduate program by those with no underrepresented factors and those with one or more underrepresented factors (i.e. a higher percentage means that a higher percentage of those in that demographic group chose that keyword). Question 4 asked "Rate your satisfaction with the advice and preparation this program provides to its graduate students for undergraduate teaching." For those with no underrepresented factors (n=218), the mean rating is 3.9. For those with one or more underrepresented factor (n=609), the mean rating is 3.6. The difference between the responses of these two groups is statistically significant, X2 (4, N = 827) = 21.0, p=.0003. Question 5 asked "Please elaborate on your previous answer. These comments will always remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." The three identified 25 themes were classes, TA and teaching opportunities, and other. Those from underrepresented groups were more negative on all three themes, with the largest difference between the groups for classes (0 vs. 0.3).27 classes (e.g. teaching certificate, workshops provided, pedagogy workshop/talks). Positive examples provided to coders include: "the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University also provided workshops and symposia on university teaching, including a teaching certificate program" and "advisers and other faculty were a great help when it came time to teach; we also offer (and require for first years) a seminar in pedagogy," whereas negative examples include "2 days of general university sponsored training is required-not a very good use of time," "advice and preparation for undergraduate teaching is given on a fairly ad hoc basis, if at all," and "capacity to teach is assumed. No mentoring took place whatsoever. No guidelines were provided; no literature on teaching; no help with syllabus, texts, lectures, or other material support; single observation was of little use." Question 6 asked "Rate your satisfaction with the advice and preparation this program provides to its graduate students for academic research." For those with no underrepresented factors (n=218), the mean rating is 4.1. For those with one or more underrepresented factor (n=610), the mean rating is 3.9. The difference between the responses of these two groups is statistically significant, X2 (4, N = 828) = 12.7, p=.01. Question 7 asked "Please elaborate on your previous answer. These comments will always remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." The four identified themes were funding for research, publication, preparation for research, and other. Those from underrepresented groups were more negative on all four themes, with the largest difference for publication (-0.1 vs. 0.3) and funding for research (0.7 vs. 1).28 ● funding for research (e.g. funding for research travel, financial support of research provided, practice/advising regarding grants). Positive examples provided to coders include "Funding was available to send students to other libraries and research institutes in order to conduct research," whereas negative examples include: "Faculty rarely involve graduates in their research program and offer no guidance for grant applications." ● publication (e.g. encouraged to publish, feedback and support for publishing, not pressured to publish too early). Positive examples provided to coders include "Emphasis was placed on generating publications prior to graduating. I found it extremely helpful to go through the process of preparing a submission, dealing with reviews, etc. while receiving support from my advisor" and "Students are encouraged to present at conferences and sometimes helped with publishing. It could be better, but is generally strong," whereas negative examples include "Emphasis on publication, conferencing etc. subpar" and "We were told not to publish in graduate school. This is very bad advice in the current climate." 27 Both coders mentioned that many respondents desired more feedback from faculty on their teaching. 28 Both coders mentioned that many respondents felt unprepared for research, decrying a sink or swim mentality among faculty. 26 Question 8 asked "Rate your satisfaction with the financial support this program provides for its graduate students." For those with no underrepresented factors (n=216), the mean rating is 4.0. For those with one or more underrepresented factor (n=611), the mean rating is 3.7. The difference between the responses of these two groups is statistically significant, X2 (4, N = 827) = 15.1, p=.005. Question 9 asked "Please, elaborate on your previous answer. These comments will always remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." The five identified themes were stipend or scholarship, living needs, funding for travel and conferences, summer funding, and other. Those from underrepresented groups were more negative on 4 of the 5 themes, excluding only summer funding. All others were about equally more negative for those from underrepresented groups.29 ● stipend or scholarship funding (e.g. generous stipend, scholarships available, funding available after stipend ends). Positive examples provided to coders include "Very generous stipend" and "Competitive scholarships," whereas negative examples include "Because the department does not cover fees, our stipend is closer to $18,000 than the advertised $20,000+ most years (before taxes). This might cover the absolute necessities for someone who lives with roommates, has no health or childcare costs, no car, etc, but I have not been able to make it work without additional income" and "[My city] is a very expensive city, and it was quite difficult to live on my graduate school stipend. I had some money saved and also had a part time job to make ends meet." (0.1 vs. 0.5) ● living needs (e.g. enough to live in the area, health insurance provided, inadequate for single income family or special needs, significant financial strain, stipend not enough given rise cost of living in the area). Positive examples provided to coders include "I received consistent and robust funding throughout the time I was a graduate student within the program; the stipend I was provided was sufficient to live relatively comfortably within [my city]" and "the health insurance is not terrible, with mental health services being among the most generous for graduate students," whereas negative examples include "I experienced great financial strain throughout my time there, which had lasting effects," "funding is limited and utterly insufficient for living in [my city]." and "it requires that you typically use the health center, at least $1500 dollars a year goes to university fees, and there are few opportunities for extra work or funding. Having a child, running into a major medical issue, or requiring cognitive therapy makes it very difficult without living on Ramen noodles." (0.1 vs. 0.3) ● funding for travel and conferences (e.g. funding for travel and conferences available, little funding for conferences). Positive examples provided to coders include "As far as research goes, it is quite possible to find funding: conferences, visits at other campuses, and the like are all very possible" and "excellent financial support and conference travel 29 Both coders mentioned that many comments noted funding not lasting enough years, especially if fewer than 5 years were covered by the program. They also mentioned that those with family obligations seemed particularly impacted by limited financial support. 27 reimbursement," whereas negative examples include "Barely any financial support for conferences" and "Not enough support for traveling." (0.4 vs. 0.6) ● other (e.g. unions helped secure better funding, issues for international students). Examples provided to coders include "Our union has fought for a good and strong contract. We had very good health insurance" and "As an international student, local employment opportunities were limited. So I often returned home during the summers to earn money. This was slightly disruptive to my research." (0.1 vs. 0.4) Thus, those with one or more underrepresented factor are less likely to recommend their program overall, as well as to be satisfied with specific features of the program, such as teaching preparation, research preparation, and financial support. Text-based responses reveal that underrepresented participants are especially interested in more formal guidance with teaching and more help with publication, as well as more financial support. The differences between the responses to these questions is organized by demographic group in Chart 7, below. Chart 7: The percentage of responses by each demographic group for questions 1, 4, 6, and 8. 5. Placement-Related Questions The final category of questions in our survey is questions related to placement. These questions differed depending on employment status in the APDA database. Participants were automatically sorted into three groups: those in academic employment, those in nonacademic employment, and those with no known employment (e.g. current students). Those in the first group were asked 5 questions, those in the second group were asked 4 questions, and those in the third group were asked 1. Below, we examine the responses to these questions, using the division provided in the previous sections (e.g. no underrepresented factors vs. one or more underrepresented factors). 28 The first group of questions concern those in academic employment. Question 15 asked "What is the distribution of your expected working hours (e. g. according to your job description) between teaching, research and service?" Overall, participants report being expected to work 40.0 hours a week and to do research 34.3% of the time, teaching 46.6% of the time, and service 19.0% of the time. Question 16 asked "What is the approximate distribution of your actual working hours between teaching, research and service?" Overall, participants report actually working 44.1 hours a week and doing research 32.9% of the time, teaching 45.1% of the time, and service 22.0% of the time. Question 17 asked "What is your ideal distribution of working hours?" Overall, participants report wanting to work 40.6 hours a week and doing research 46.1% of the time, teaching 38.8% of the time, and service 15.1% of the time. We then multiplied these percentages by the total hours to compare the hours spent in research, teaching, and service, whether expected, actual, or ideal. Chart 8 provides these numbers. Chart 8: The number of hours spent on research, teaching, and service organized by demographic group and whether the hours are expected, actual, or ideal. There appears to be a larger and widening gap between the number of hours spent on research and teaching for those who are underrepresented as compared to those who are not. That is, those 29 who are not underrepresented are expected to spend, on average, 3.5 more hours teaching than doing research and actually spend 3.0, whereas those who are underrepresented are expected to spend, on average, 5.4 more hours teaching than doing research but actually spend 7.4. For both groups, the ideal is one in which more hours are spent doing research than teaching. We tested the difference in actual hours spent on teaching versus research between these two groups and found it to be statistically significant (p=.007). That is, those with one or more underrepresented factors (n=363) report a larger gap between actual hours spent on teaching versus research than those with no underrepresented factors (n=155). Further, the average difference between hours spent on teaching versus the hours spent on research across the categories of expected, actual, and ideal hours was also significant (p=.0005). Question 18 asked "What is your approximate yearly salary?" Overall, the average academic salary is $67,342 (n=912). For those with no underrepresented factors (n=159) it is $71,623, whereas for those with one or more underrepresented factors (n=388) it is $68,115 (see Chart 9). This difference does not appear to be statistically significant (p=0.2). Chart 9: The average salary of 6 demographic groups, including only those in academic jobs. Question 19 asked "What kind of placement was your priority after graduating from your program?" Overall, 96.3% of those in academic employment preferred an academic job (n=967). Further, 97.6% of those with no underrepresented factors (n=169) and 95.1% of those with one or more underrepresented factors (n=406) preferred an academic job. The second group of questions concern those in nonacademic employment. Question 15 asked "How relevant would you say your graduate education is with respect to your primary employment?" 30 Overall, 46 participants responded that, on average, their graduate education was "neither relevant nor irrelevant" with respect to their nonacademic employment (3.4). This was also the case for those with one or more underrepresented factors (n=16), but there were too few with no underrepresented factors who answered this question to report. Question 16 asked "Please, elaborate on your previous answer providing details about how or why your graduate education is relevant or not for the work you perform. These comments will always remain anonymous, and we will release them only with your authorization." There were only 12 responses to this question. Themes identified include training (e.g. more interdisciplinary classes; "collaborate with other units on campus to offer graduate assistantships that allow students to develop administrative skills and experience that allow them to be more attractive candidates for professional positions"), experience (e.g. nonacademic internships; "Encourage graduate students to take non-academic internships or jobs, especially during the summer, in areas that interest them"), and networking (e.g. alumni network; "Develop a strong alumni network (including students who have left the program *before* defending) that students can contact about non-academic careers"). The last of these was the most often mentioned by participants. Question 17 What is your approximate yearly salary? Overall, the average academic salary is $91,066 (n=43). Those with one or more underrepresented factors reported an average salary of $76,844 (n=16), but too few with no underrepresented factors answered this question to provide a comparison. Yet, even if we combine academic and nonacademic salaries, the difference between those with one or more underrepresented factors and those with no underrepresented factors is not significant (p=0.15). Question 18 What kind of placement was your priority after graduating from your program? Overall, 45.7% of those in nonacademic employment preferred an academic job (n=46). 47.1% of those with one or more underrepresented factors in nonacademic employment preferred an academic job (n=17), but too few participants with no underrepresented factors answered this question to provide a comparison. The third group of questions concern those in with no known employment, such as current students. Question 15 What kind of placement is your priority? Overall, 74.5% of those with no known employment prefer an academic job (n=247). Further, 87.0% of those with no underrepresented factors (n=46) and 71.1% of those with one or more underrepresented factors (n=187) prefer an academic job. Combining the three questions regarding placement priority, the difference between those with no underrepresented factors and those with one or more underrepresented factors is statistically 31 significant, X2 (2, N=828) = 13.2, p=.001. That is, those with no underrepresented factors are more likely to prefer an academic job. 6. Discussion and Recommendations Limitations of this study have been noted throughout the report, but include: • inconsistency between our use of native or "first" language and the Census use of languages "spoken at home"; • failing to differentiate between current socioeconomic status and that of one's childhood; • the absence of an option to choose "no military or veteran status," making it difficult to determine true participation on this question; • a coding error that rendered "physical impairment or mobility issues" invisible; • the absence of clear guidelines on reporting a disability, such that it is difficult to compare our results to those of other surveys; • inconsistency between the question and response options on ethnicity, making it difficult to determine true participation on this question; • the absence of "Asian American" from the option of "Asian"; • the absence of a "two or more races" option that would make it clear whether someone primarily identifies as multiracial or as one of their multiple chosen races; and • the absence of a question regarding political orientation. If we continue this survey in future years, we will aim to fix these and other issues. As a result of our study, we have recommendations to both the American Philosophical Association (APA) and the discipline at large. For the APA, we think its data gathering efforts (especially regarding membership) would be improved if: • the categories included first generation and military status-we found underrepresentation in both of these categories relative to the United States population and its population of doctoral students, and this makes it worthwhile tracking such categories, in our view; and • the existing categories included the options of two or more races and non-binary gender-including these options will facilitate comparison to other studies, which standardly include these options. Furthermore, we recommend that the APA facilitate specialized surveys on gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, disability, and individual racial and ethnic groups to further understand the specific experiences and needs of these different groups. While political orientation was rarely mentioned in comments, recent concern regarding this issue may likewise warrant a specialized survey [20]. For the discipline at large, we find that discussions on diversity should be expanded. We found objective underrepresentation for gender, race, ethnicity, first generation status, and military 32 status. We found differences in subjective experience for two additional demographic categories: sexuality and disability status. In our view, philosophers should include all of these different groups in their assessments of diversity and inclusivity. Luckily, our survey participants provided some specific advice with respect to how philosophy can achieve greater inclusivity. Namely, participants most often mentioned the need for greater diversity, but also mentioned training and behavior, institutional support, and funding. On training and behavior, it is clear from the survey responses that the discipline currently lacks adequate remedies for the types of behavior that particularly impact those from underrepresented groups. Similarly, limited funding seems to particularly impact those from underrepresented groups. Institutional support is one way of addressing both of these issues. Beyond explicitly addressing issues of diversity and inclusion, one aspect of doctoral study seems to have a larger impact on those from underrepresented groups: teaching. Those with one or more underrepresented factors both rated their PhD programs lower for satisfaction with teaching preparation and found themselves spending more hours on teaching after graduation. Further, they more often mentioned the need for formal training in teaching methods. Programs wishing to help those from underrepresented groups might do so by implementing better preparation for teaching. Finally, those in underrepresented groups are more likely to prefer nonacademic employment. While this may indicate a lack of comfort in the discipline of philosophy that should itself be addressed, providing guidance on nonacademic careers may be another way of enabling the success of graduates from underrepresented groups. Some of the trends from this research will be explored in other work, which we are currently preparing for publication. These include papers on diversity and placement, on nonacademic placement, and on placement networks in philosophy. While we do not currently have plans to send out another survey to those in the APDA database on these issues, we reserve this as a future possibility. References: [1] Hunter, M.A, Cobb, P., Contreras Kallens, P., Johnson King, Z.A., Robertson, S., Spivey, A.C., Jennings, C.D. (2018). The Diversity and Inclusivity Survey for Philosophy PhD Students and Graduates: Preliminary Report. Retrieved from https://www.dropbox.com/s/exv5szay8t6c3o3/diversity-inclusivity-survey.pdf [2] United States Census Bureau (2018). Quick Facts. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218 [3] National Center for Education Statistics (2018). Table 324.20. Doctor's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2016-17. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_324.20.asp 33 [4] American Philosophical Association (2018). Demographic statistics on the APA membership, FY2016 to FY2018. Retrieved from https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.apaonline.org/resource/resmgr/data_on_profession/fy2018demographic_statistic.pdf [5] Schwitzgebel, E. and Jennings, C. D. (2017). Women in philosophy: Quantitative analyses of specialization, prevalence, visibility, and generational change. Public Affairs Quarterly 31(2): 83-106. [6] Thompson, John (2017). Director's Blog: Planned Subjects for the 2020 Census and the American Community Survey. Census Blogs. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/director/2017/03/planned_subjects_2020.html [7] Langin, Kate (2018). NSF moves to pilot LGBT questions on national workforce surveys. Science. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2018/11/nsf-moves-pilot-lgbtquestions-national-workforce-surveys [8] Meerwijk, Esther and Sevelius, Jae (2017). Transgender Population Size in the United States: a Meta-Regression of Population-Based Probability Samples. American Journal of Public Health 107(2). [9] Williams Institute (2019). Adult LGBT Population in the United States. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Population-Estimates-March2019.pdf [10] American College Health Association (2018). Graduate/Professional Reference Group Data Report, Fall 2018. Retrieved from https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHAII_Fall_2018_Graduate_Reference_Group_Data_Report.pdf [11] American Community Survey (2011). Language Use in the United States. Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2013/acs/acs-22/acs-22.pdf [12] Pew Research Center (2015). The American Middle Class is Losing Ground. Retrieved from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ [13] National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Characteristics of Children's Families. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cce.pdf [14] National Science Foundation (2017). Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities, Table 34: Highest educational attainment of either parent of doctorate recipients. Retrieved from: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19301/data [15] National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Profile and Financial Aid Estimates of Graduate Students: 2015-16 (Table 1.1b). Retrieved From: https://nces.ed.gov/Datalab/TablesLibrary/TableDetails/13003 34 [16] United States Census Bureau (2018). Americans With Disabilities: 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p70-152.html [17] Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc. (2015). LIWC2015. Retrieved from: http://liwc.wpengine.com/ [18] Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc. (2015). Comparing LIWC2015 and LIWC2007. Retrieved from: http://liwc.wpengine.com/compare-dictionaries/ [19] Lutz, A. (2008). Who joins the military?: A look at race, class, and immigration status. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 36(2): 167-188. [20] Pew Research Center (2019). The Growing Partisan Divide in Views of Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-viewsof-higher-education/