Are we coming full circle?

Recently while reading Mary Ann Levine’s “Presenting the Past: A Review of Research on Women  in Archeology” (in Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 5(1): 23 -36; 1994), I realized that my situation is not necessary so different from women of the first and second generations of Americanist archaeology, that is, of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. This is despite the fact that the article is 19 years old. While women in academic posts were rare, other career avenues became a way for them to practice in the field, including among others, museum and government positions such as the NPS, and independent research. Granted, such avenues held little of the prestige of academia, and that is still true today to a large extent I would argue. More important than prestige from my point of view is the much greater difficulty, though not to say impossibility, in procuring research funds as an independent scholar. No matter how much one is willing to do on a “volunteer” basis, there comes a point for those of us who are not independently wealth when some work (electron microscope analysis, x-ray fluorescence analysis, remote sensing) simply will not happen without funding.

These observations and experiences relate to what the writer shared in the August 23, 2012 post “Welcome Back to the Classroom!” In relation to that post as well as this one, I too, served my stint as an adjunct before re-entering CRM, which in turn has been hard hit and less than steady employment in these economic times. In addition, government positions, which I have also held in the past, are hotly sought after and as difficult to land in the current economic climate as academic positions. The situation runs the distinct danger, and I would argue is already there, of being that postulated by the economist Robert Reich in his book Aftershock in which he points out that in such an economy colleagues who otherwise serve as a support group for each other end up fighting for the scraps of employment that remain. While academic opportunities shrink, other public and private sectors offer some options but are not the fields of opportunity they once were as the opportunities there shrink, too. I point this out in the hope that we will actively support each other rather than look down on or feel at odds with those with whom we are in fact competing for any open positions.

Still, I continue to look for research opportunities and visit archaeological sites of interest to me and of value to my work. My recent trip to New Mexico led me to some “ghost towns” (some with more the ghost quality than others, which have simply become very, very small towns), including Hillsboro with the ruins of a late 19th c. jail, of interest to me as in extension of my jail research in Michigan. Such pursuits help keep me professionally and mentally alive, if not wage earning.

                                          Alexander and I in the Hillsboro, New Mexico jail.
                                          Hillsboro was located on a major 19th c. cattle trail.

Got Stress?

Thanks to a colleague of mine, this recent Forbes article was brought to my attention today. This article suggests that being a professor is the "least stressful job" of 2013! According to the author, "people in these professions can leave their work behind, and their hours tend to be the traditional nine to five." Ironically, I read this article while working on a Saturday afternoon (trying to squeeze in an hour or two of writing while my children nap). In my career as an archaeologist, I have also worked in the private sector and government, neither of which ever approached the sort of stress and long hours of my current academic position.

I took a few moments away from writing to share this article because I think it raises an important problem: most people do not understand what academics do. As anthropologists, we are especially susceptible to this mischaracterization because our discipline is seen as a highly esoteric pursuit. While it may not seem important that outsiders view academic life incorrectly, such wrong-headed perspectives can be damaging to our discipline and for higher education in general. For example, there is growing talk of providing financial dis-incentives for student interested in research-oriented and academic careers.

I also have to wonder where this perception of academic life comes from? Are WE (meaning academics) responsible for creating this myth? If so, then we should try to correct it.

Many academics posted comments in response to the Forbes article. A brief skim through the comments reveals several responses from people in anthropology/archaeology.

For example, Kathleen, wrote:

"If I were you I’d publish a retraction for this one. Few professors get paid for the summer, even though they spend it writing. My archaeology prof partner teaches every other summer–a field school in the desert, where she led crews of students in 110 degree daily heat for four weeks. The class takes her months to prep for, arranging housing, food, transportation in addition to the regular course planning. She’s had tenure for years, but still spends her (unpaid) breaks writing for publication in her field, grading, inventing and re-inventing her courses, and answering a wholly unreasonable amount of university-related email. She’s one of the most stressed out and hard-working people I know. We live in a small house in a big city, and she makes only slightly more than your listed average. How nice it must be to teach in one of those idyllic little low-cost college towns, but that’s not the reality for profs who teach in urban colleges and universities.
I myself work occasionally as an adjunct professor, and for the one class I’m teaching this quarter, I’m being paid 3K before taxes, total. For this, I will spend about 20 hours per week in class, office hours, grading, and preparing for class. I’m doing it because I love to teach, but when I was asked to do it, I almost said no. Why? Because it’s waaaaaaayyyyyyy too stressful for the money paid. Adjunct profs make a LOT less than tenured or tenure-track professors. Most make a living doing other things, and teach on the side.

So no. Being a university professor is rewarding, but it’s not at all low stress."

Anthroprof responded:

"Most faculty do NOT get paid over the summer – we are on nine-month contracts that are spread out over 12 months. So, 1) that is why academic professor salaries are lower than the private sector, and 2) faculty on a 9 month contract are under no obligation to do any work for their institution over the summer.

That of course is not the reality. My summers actually present a break from committee work and classroom time to engage in other responsibilities necessary for me to KEEP MY JOB. That is, writing research articles, monographs, and books, getting caught up in labwork/data collection, traveling to nearby libraries for research, or fieldwork, not to mention the endless grant applications to keep this activities funded (the university generally does not do this, we have to get external funds to support the research that the university expects us to do to keep our job). I also still am engaged in “teaching” activities – overseeing independent studies, supervising graduate thesis data collection, writing recommendation letters, preparing for the next year’s classes, mentoring and meeting with students as I normally would throughout the academic year.

What most people don’t realize that the contracts of most tenure-track and tenured professors stipulate how much time they need to spend on various activities – for instance, I must spend 40% of my time on teaching (which is not just lecturing in front of the classroom or grading papers, but also working with graduate students on thesis data collection, overseeing volunteers or independent study students in my lab, writing recommendation letters, etc.), 20% on service (academic committees, student advising, etc.) and 40% on research. So in reality, what people THINK professors do is actually a very small subset of what we ACTUALLY do.

The fact that we are not required to be in our offices from 9 to 5, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year does provide some wonderful flexibility. but I also put in 60-80 hours a week (that is a very accurate estimate, particularly if you are overseeing a lab) – and that includes being in my office well before 9, well after 5, on weekends, and during the summers, when I am not contractually obligated to do so, nor am I getting paid for my time."

Do you think that academic life is mischaracterized? How might this also contribute to the difficulties female scholars experience? Please share your experiences and thoughts.
~Sarah Surface-Evans

10 Jan, 2012: I am adding a link to another blog post responding to this article. The author, Audra, provides a lot of great information and some strong opinions. Also, this article by Anthropology professor Kate Clancy, does a wonderful job describing the changing nature of the academy and what she terms the "raw deal".

AAA 2012 - Bring your heart to San Fran

One week from today I will be on a plane to San Francisco for the American Anthropological Association conference. That means the AAA session that "gave birth" to this blog was a year ago.

I searched this year's program for "women" and "femin*" and came up with over 400 hits, most of which are not explicitly archaeological. Below are some results I thought were most relevant.

Bioarchaeological Evidence for Women As Perpetrators of Interpersonal Violence

Saturday, November 17, 2012: 9:15 AM Debra L Martin (UNLV) and Ryan P Harrod (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)

ACTIVISM, ADVOCACY, AND ACADEMIA: UNDOING THE BORDERS IN FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY?

Organizers:  Jennifer J Patico (Georgia State University) and Susan Harper () Introductions:  Jane Henrici PhD (Institute for Women's Policy Research)

Empowered and Challenged Bodies: Japanese Women Professional Wrestlers’ Embodied Experiences

Wednesday, November 14, 2012: 8:15 PM Keiko Aiba (Meiji Gakuin University) 

(OK, this has nothing to do with archaeology but it sounds awesome)

My Case Is An Exception: Women On Career Track In Japan and Latvia

Sunday, November 18, 2012: 9:00 AM Aivita Putnina (University of Latvia)

Sex Materialized: Archaeological Perspectives On 19th Century Women's Health

 Wednesday, November 14 012: 4:45 PM Katrina C. L. Eichner (University of California, Berkeley)

When the Bones Speak Truth to Power: Feminicide In Guatemala

Saturday, November 17, 2012: 2:00 PM Heather A Walsh-Haney (Florida Gulf Coast University) and Victoria Sanford (Lehman)

INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSED BOUNDARIES: MEG CONKEY, FEMINIST ARCHAEOLOGIST & MENTOR

Thursday, November 15, 2012: 4:00 PM-5:45 PM 

Gender, Academic Blogging, and Virtual Ethnography

Sunday, November 18, 2012: 8:45 AM Vibha Gokhale (Rice University) 

The Meg Conkey session looks like it is the closest thing to Misty and Sarah's session from last year. But we can still gather informally if there is interest in doing so. 

A closer look at the schedule came up with this session that I plan to attend. 

WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST

Reviewed By: Archaeology Division

Wednesday, November 14, 2012: 4:00 PM-5:45 PM

Abstract not available in preliminary program.

Organizers:  Sabrina C Agarwal (University of California, Berkeley) and Rosemary Joyce (University of California, Berkeley)

Chairs:  Sabrina C Agarwal (University of California, Berkeley)

Discussants:  Rosemary Joyce (University of California, Berkeley)

4:00 PM

Becoming Children: Life and the Life Course of Roman Children

Patrick Beauchesne (UC Berkeley) and Sabrina C Agarwal (University of California, Berkeley)

4:15 PM

Gendered Activity In Colonial Mexico: An Examination of Urban Women's Activity Patterns

Julie K Wesp (University of California Berkeley)

4:30 PM

Households and the Everyday Negotiation of Gender Ideals

Kim Christensen (University of California, Berkeley)

4:45 PM

Sex Materialized: Archaeological Perspectives On 19th Century Women's Health

Katrina C. L. Eichner (University of California, Berkeley)

5:00 PM

Ties of Intimacy and Bonds of Responsibility: Family In 19^th- and 20^th-Century Nantucket

Teresa Dujnic Bulger (University of California Berkeley)

5:15 PM

Discussant

Rosemary Joyce (University of California, Berkeley)

5:30 PM

Discussion 

If anyone is interested in an informal discussion on feminine archaeology, get in touch with me and maybe we can get a group together to meet before or after the Women and Children session. I can't make it to the Meg Conkey session but if several readers can feel free to use this blog to organize an alternative meeting time/place before or after that session.

A simple google search should turn up several valid email addresses for me. I hope to see some of you in San Fran. 

Why Women Leave Academia

Readers may not be aware of a couple of articles, which I found very exciting, thought provoking, and in line with this blog’s interests. The first was published in the The Guardian’s Higher Education Network section/blog and is entitled “Why Women Leave Academia and Why Universities Should Be Worried,” (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/24/why-women-leave-academia). While this post comes from “across the pond,” that does not diminish its value in my view. I suspect the findings discussed in this post (which are myriad) are likely at play here in North America. Among them are issues relating to relative lack of self-confidence, a lack of available role models, the overly competitive nature of academia, and the fact that the pressures are not congruent with the desires of many women for raising a family. Granted, the discipline on which the article focuses is chemistry, however, in my experience anthropology is not necessarily or appreciably different in its demands.

I would also like to point out that the comments posted at the bottom of the article are equally intriguing. Those posting, including male readers, also point out the role that class is playing in discouraging students from continuing into academia. I would like to assert that I believe this also remains an issue here to at least some extent. Within my admittedly limited observations I’ve noted that those coming from backgrounds in which the parents are professionals, sometimes even professors, and/or are of greater economic means are also the same ones who find themselves not only in academia but at more prestigious institutions both as students and later as professors.

The second article is related to the first in that it notes the opening of a permanent exhibit at Cambridge honoring archaeologist Dorothy Garrod, the first female professor at that institution in 1939 (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Training/Training-news/The-groundbreaking-female-archaeologist-14062012.htm). Her appointment came at a time when women were not admitted as students and were not allowed to be full members. When senior members of the university elected her to the Disney Professor of Archaeology it presented them with a quandary, which they solved by referring to her in all correspondence “he”. Her struggles with discrimination helped pave the way for women students to enter Cambridge as equals in 1948. But article also mentions two other points that I found relevant. Her fiancé died in World War I, and she never married. In addition, some perceived Garrod as formidable and even terrifying, as one woman related of her childhood encounters.

These comments remind me of one of the quotes in the first article stating that “Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless.” In pointing out these observations I would not in any respect wish to take away anything from Garrod’s accomplishments, which were many and made at a difficult time for women in science. I simply want to highlight the place mentors have in making a field attractive or feasible, or not, to those who come after or along side of us. I have seen childless women in archaeology that I, too, considered to be formidable, but fortunately there were those who were kind and approachable and had children, making it appear possible to do the work and have a life that includes family beyond archaeology or academia.

I would welcome comments and stories from others as to how they approach the challenge of balancing family and work, whether in academic or non-academic positions. I realize for some this is not so much an issue if the choice to not have children has been made. But for those who have traveled this path, it may be useful to share our support and experiences. I for one have a very supportive spouse, but I also only have one child. Having a child while in graduate school did indeed slow my progress considerably toward the degree. In recent years, since my son turned four, I have often taken him with me in the field where he sometimes screens soil or back fills shovel tests (when he’s not looking for insects or non-artifact rocks) and to public presentations for children where he has actually been quite helpful. I look forward to, hopefully, a few more years of this until mom and her work are no longer ‘cool’.

                                         My son, Alexander, and I volunteered on a project 

                                         of Sarah Surface-Evans' in Emmet County, Michigan, 

                                         August 2012.

Reflecting on Fieldwork

Inspired by Kisha Supernant's excellent post "What Would Feminine Archaeology Look Like?" I consciously thought about how I wanted to conduct fieldwork this summer and reflected on ways to promote "feminine" approaches. I am fortunate to have organized two different field projects this summer. Both projects epitomize what feminine archaeology means to me, although in different ways.

The first project was conducted in cooperation with a descendant community. I spent the last year forging relationships and gaining trust in order to assist the community with their goals: 1) to learn more about a piece of property that they recently acquired (the former Michigan Indian Industrial Boarding School) and 2) to use this knowledge to nominate the property to the National Register of Historic Places. This research was carried out as an archaeological field school for Central Michigan University. Students were not only taught archaeological field and laboratory methods, but also learned a great deal about the culture and traditions of the descendant community we were working with and about how the past can be sensitive and emotionally charged. Even more importantly, several of my students were from the community and had family members who had died at the Boarding School. Their participation was an act of healing in addition to education. I feel very honored and fortunate to be able to take part in such an important project.

What makes this feminine archaeology? For me it is several things:
1) The notion that one's research should be done collaboratively & cooperatively.
2) The idea that descendant communities should be involved in and even direct the nature of research.
3) That archaeological education also involves cultural education.
4) That a field school should be a place where students feel comfortable speaking about what they are finding and their interpretations.
5) That members of descendant communities participate in the research and feel comfortable visiting in the field.

While these things are not new to archaeology and may not be distinctly "feminine", this type of collaborative approach tends to be much more common among female or indigenous researchers. Collaborating with descendant communities is still far from mainstream practice in archaeology and is not generally regarded as highly within academic circles as solitary research. However, our discipline is greatly enhanced by collaboration and inclusion of minority voices in examining the past.

CMU students & staff and tribal members participating in a smudging ceremony.

The second project that I conducted was also a cooperative venture in which my students and I volunteered our time to help several public organizations develop better heritage management plans. In the spirit of public service, we conducted investigations at the McGulpin Lighthouse and Heritage Village Park in the Straits region of northern Michigan for the Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association, the Mackinaw Area Historical Society, the Village of Mackinaw and Emmet County Parks.

At the lighthouse, there were plans to reconstruct a former barn structure, however, they were unsure where the barn once stood or whether there were any significant archaeological deposits associated with the former barn. Our investigations identified where the barn once stood and determined that there were significant materials in the vacinity of the barn. Through our work, I was able to help the county make plans for reconstruction that would not impact the archaeological integrity of the site. During our work at the site, we had hundreds of visitors, vacationers and locals alike. This project gave us an excellent opportunity to reach out to the public and share the importance of archaeology and preservation.

CMU student, Megan Bauerle, interacting with a family visiting the MGulpin Lighthouse.

We did similar outreach work for the Heritage Village Park. At this site, a French Era site was being looted. We came to assess how badly the site had been damaged and to develop a plan for protecting the site. We also surveyed other portions of the property to help the park plan future development projects without damaging other archaeological sites on the property. Like the McGulpin lighthouse, we had ample opportunities to interact with the public and school children who volunteered at the park.

CMU student, Patrick Lawton, teaching local elementary students how to screen dirt and look for artifacts.

Neither of the Straits projects were particularly deep theoretical or intellectual ventures. While some might see this as a deficit, I feel that such projects are significant and DO increase our knowledge of a region. In fact, these projects were extremely important to helping this community make preservation-conscious decisions, to raising public awareness of archaeology, and to making archaeology something that matters to everyday people. We, as a discipline have been miserable at communicating to the public about what we do and why. I consider these projects "feminine archaeology" because they promoted education, outreach, and heritage planning. These aspects of public archaeology should be appreciated and rewarded more within the academia. If our discipline is to survive and thrive, we need to make our research relevant and important to the public.

~Sarah Surface-Evans

What projects (in the field, lab, or elsewhere) have you done lately? How do they embody aspects of a "feminine archaeology"? Please share.

Contributors Needed!

We are looking for contributions to the blog. We welcome the sharing of experiences and photographs that help us define feminine/feminist archaeology and explore the issues affecting our community. If you would like to become a regular contributor or even just write one post, please email us at: feminine.archaeology@gmail.com.

Welcome Back to the Classroom!

Many of the struggles that female archaeologists are facing today are embedded within larger social and economic trends. One such trend is the growth of the temp industry, as described in this NPR story from July 26th. Not only is the temp industry booming, fewer temp positions are becoming regular, fulltime employment. The academic equivalent of a temp job is an adjunct teaching position. When I heard the NPR story, I immediately reflected on my own experiences with searching for academic jobs both before and after I completed my PhD.

I was encouraged by my dissertation committee to begin applying for tenure track positions as soon as I had my first few chapters drafted. These well-meaning mentors seemed to think that the label of ABD, was just as golden as PhD in the eyes of search committees. But my numerous applications seemed to disappear into a blackhole. It became discouraging. I even had one colleague, who was already safely ensconced in a tenure track position at an institution that I applied to, tell me that I would have had an interview “if only I had my Ph.D.”. In the meantime, I was fortunate enough to land an adjunct position to pay the bills and get some experience while I completed my dissertation.

My experience is not unique. Many of my colleagues from graduate school encountered similar situations. I watched as many in the cohorts ahead of me often worked two or three adjunct positions while completing or shortly after completing their PhDs. We often joked about how we had to “pay our dues” by working that adjunct gig at a community college or small state school on our way to something bigger and better.

By bigger, it was implied that we would get offered tenure track jobs at R-1 institutions or esteemed private institutions. By better, it was assumed that these schools would be the sorts of places with low teaching loads and high prestige where we could further our research goals. Better also meant no longer worrying about your job future every time your contract came up and finally receiving pay and benefits that made that decade of graduate school debt worth while.

This secure, prestigious, and well-rewarded tenure track position was the dream that our mentors had prepared us for. There was never any talk about alternative career paths: such as working for the government or private sector in Cultural Resource Management, or for small museums or county governments to develop public outreach programs for school children, or teaching gen-ed requirements at a community college.

I rather naively thought that once I had those magic letters behind my name that the job search would become easier. After all, I was passionate, doing cutting-edge research, and I had worked diligently to gain experiences, skills, and publications that made me a valuable hire. Of course I never imagined that I would complete my PhD. in the midst of the first recession of the 21 Century. A recession that strangely mirrored the housing crisis of the early 1980s that severely impacted my family’s well-being when I was a child.

I noticed that those tenure-track positions were becoming something of an endangered species. Year after year, more of the positions available read: “1-year visiting position”, “visiting lecturer”, “adjunct lecturer” and so on. Prior to the recession, some of my colleagues managed to find their way into a tenure track position after spending a few years as an adjunct.

Adjunct positions once were often viewed as a stepping-stone by myself and the cohorts that preceded me. Now adjunct positions may be your only option in maintaining an academic career in archaeology. There is an undeniable financial and psychological impact for PhDs who may spend their entire careers working multiple low-paying jobs, ostensibly as a “teacher”, but still expected to (and wanting to) contribute to scholarly research.

I have worked as an adjunct for three different colleges or universities. Other than teaching similar courses, the only other similarity between these institutions is their overwhelming mistreatment of adjunct faculty. Not only are adjuncts paid less, given few to no benefits, they are often treated as second-class citizens by their own departments, as though we are in these temporary positions because of inferior teaching, research, or work ethics. However, my adjunct colleagues are often extremely hard working and highly qualified individuals, despite having fewer resources than their tenure-track counterparts. For example, adjunct faculty are often barred from applying to internal funding resources for research or travel at universities.

While the economic woes of the past few years have certainly intensified the increasing reliance on adjuncts, this trend it is part of a substantial shift in higher education in the United States. This August 20th article by anthropologist, Sarah Kendzior, indicates that the majority (nearly 2/3rds) of all teaching in the US is done by adjuncts!

I write about these issues here, not to complain about the unfairness of the system, but to bring awareness to graduate mentors so that they can more adequately prepare their students for careers outside of academia. I also want those in the protected tenured positions to wake up and fight back against what I see as an attack against higher education. Adjunct faculty do not have the same rights and securities as their tenured counterparts. We are not able to speak out against injustice. We are less able to pursue or publish research that might be considered controversial or political. We are virtually powerless.

The tenure system is there for a reason, to protect academics from fear reprisals if their research is considered “dangerous”. The loss of tenured positions to the adjunct model of higher education is an erosion of academic freedoms. Those with the power to protect academic freedom must fight for all of us!