Case Statement
Is Public History’s Problem, Gender, Generational, or Jobs?
Two recent studies conducted by the National Council on Public History provide important insights into the state of the field. The employer survey and the survey of public history program graduates clearly establish that there is some basis for optimism. The two survey’s make clear that most Master of Arts programs in Public History are providing graduates with the skills they need to succeed in the job market. As important, the survey of graduates indicates that a large majority of new public historians succeed in finding jobs in their field, jobs they find rewarding, within less than a year of graduation.
However, lurking below the surface of good news are some troubling structural problems. At the heart of this is the sad fact that public history is not a growth field. Public funding for cultural institutions has failed to even keep up with inflation at a time when inflation is very low. Public investment of all kinds has been steadily and steeply in decline since the time public history began in the late 1970s. Certainly private investment has stepped into the gap somewhat. What these overall declines mean is that careers in public history risk suffering from stagnation. Comments amended to the NCPH-AHA-AASLH graduate survey indicate dissatisfaction from public historians over their prospects of promotion. While entry level jobs seem to be available the opportunity to move up in responsibility and financial reward are severely limited. The data suggests that public historians who love the work they do find it increasingly hard to stay in the field and meet the demands of growing families.
Is gender part of our career problem? Public History is a female dominated field. It shares with other female dominated fields such as teaching and nursing a nurturing role in society. All public historians share with all female workers lower pay. Are the economic prospects of public historians hurt because they are female, or are we female because of our poor pay? Why public history has become female dominated needs to be understood and its relationship to low pay explored.
Or, is our problem generational? New public history careers are blighted by the shadow of the baby boom. Today’s graduates are more likely than their baby-boom predecessors to enter the field with a burden of college loan debt, because of policies put in place by the older generation. Baby boomers came of age in an era of robust public investment in culture and a growing number of history institutions spawned by the Bicentennial in 1976. As baby boomers retire they hurt public history employment by undermining new workers leverage through their volunteer activities. When cultural institutions respond to declining public investment they save money by restricting hourly employees time and use volunteers. Look at the recent government shutdown: public history workers were furloughed w/o pay but parks were kept open w/help from not-for-profit groups, re-enforcing the idea that the workers were “non-essential.” For years now the park service’s need for seasonal employees, which used to be the way into a full-time job, is greatly reduced because of baby-boom volunteers filling those niches for free.
These problems particularly affect the largest sectors of employment: non-profit institutions and government agencies. This prompts consideration of alternative ways of delivering public history services and organizing public history labor. The only successful alternative model is the for-profit organization. While this model has worked extremely well for some practioners, it offers no relief for the majority of current public historians who are already employed in public or non-profit institutions, in fact it might well undermine their position by encouraging out-sourcing. The for-profit model is the broader society’s solution to economic problems. Should it be ours?
Theodore J. Karamanski, Loyola University Chicago