Several terms were defined for the purposes of the study.  Rank refers to faculty levels which included adjunct professor, instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. It was assumed that the positions of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor comprised tenured and tenure-track faculty while the others (instructor and adjunct professor) were non-tenure track faculty.  Race was defined as a statistical aggregate of people who share observable, transmissible physical traits such as skin pigmentation, facial features, texture of hair, etc. (Kraus, 1994).  Ethnicity was defined as having a unique social and cultural heritage that is passed on from one generation to another. Ethnic groups are usually identified by distinct patterns of language, family life, religion, recreation, and other customs that differentiate them from other groups (Kraus, 1994). Diversity was defined as adding richness and interest to humankind as well as an opportunity for intellectual curiosity, understanding, and tolerance (Frater et al., 1997). The U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000) provided common language to promote uniformity and comparability for data on race and ethnicity.  This resulted in combining the terms race and ethnicity for statistical purposes as well as creating the following race/ethnicity categories which are also reflected in the current study: American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; and White, non-Hispanic. 

According to a national survey by the Ford Foundation not only do 71% of Americans agree that diversity education helps to unite Americans, but 75% of the respondents believed that colleges and universities must do more to ensure faculty diversity (Chenoweth, 1998). Informed opinion suggested that there are benefits to having a culturally diverse faculty.  A culturally diverse faculty can help facilitate interactions among persons of differing backgrounds and points of view (Council of Graduate Schools, 1997).  This capability becomes increasingly  important as the United States continues the transition to becoming an increasingly ethnically diverse population.  It was also suggested that students with faculty role models who represent a community’s racial/ethnic makeup, will be motivated to achieve higher goals if they see their professors in positions of authority (Williams, 2000). This is, minority students might feel increased optimism about future opportunities if they see members of their own background experiencing career success.  Implicit in these articles (Chenoweth, 1998; Council of Graduate Schools, 1997; Williams, 2000) was a notion that faculty diversity, in terms of race/ethnicity, should emanate from U.S. minorities.  As a result, it appears that non-resident aliens as a source of faculty diversity may not be valued in higher education to the same degree as U.S. minority faculty.  Yet,  faculty who are non-resident aliens arguably have as much to offer university programs as do faculty who are U.S. minorities.

Given the benefits of faculty diversity, it is necessary to consider the extent to which minorities and females are earning Ph.D.s. According to a “Completions” survey, there were 129 doctoral degree conferrals in recreation, parks, leisure and fitness between 1997 and 1998 of which 13% and 42% were earned by racial/ethnic minorities and females, respectively (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).  In comparison, a survey of all postsecondary faculty (not just of recreation related curricula) indicated that minorities and females comprised 15% and 36%, respectively (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). The survey found that most non-white faculty and females worked at community colleges or held non-tenure track positions (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, 1999).  These studies suggested that doctoral degree conferrals in recreation related fields are similar to postsecondary faculty in terms race/ethnicity and gender.

One approach for building a diverse faculty is the adherence to national standards used to guide accreditation for recreation, parks, and leisure studies programs (National Recreation and Park Association / American Association for Leisure and Recreation Council on Accreditation, 1999). Standard 4.04 states “The faculty backgrounds shall be diverse with respect to academic institutions attended, age, gender and ethnic background” (NRPA/AALR Council on Accreditation, p. 14).  Additional approaches for attracting diverse faculty in terms of gender and ethnic background include posting position vacancies in specialty publications targeted at women and minorities, and organizing interactions with colleagues of similar backgrounds during campus interviews (Gainen & Boice, 1993).

The most recent survey (Bialeschki, 1998) regarding the status of professional preparation curricula in recreation, parks, and leisure studies in the United States and Canada in 1996 provided several findings that were relevant to the current study.  Of the 604 curricula listed with NRPA, 174 useable questionnaires were returned yielding a low response rate of 29% (Bialeschki). The findings indicated that “the average number of full-time faculty was 4.5…of these faculty, 1.7 were female although 15% had no female faculty, while 60% had no faculty of color” (Bialeschki, , p. 5). More startling was the finding that 92% of the respondents had no racial/ethnic minorities in tenure-track positions (Bialeschki). These findings suggested that, in 1996, there was limited representation among minorities and female faculty in recreation, parks, and leisure studies programs.

Other studies published in the SPRE Newsletter focused attention on the problem of faculty vacancies in recreation, parks, and leisure studies (Riley & Heyne, 1999; Riley & Reidy, 2001). After graduate coordinators were contacted during spring 1999, it was determined that the total number of doctoral students had increased from 1998 by 53 for a total of 299. Those slated to graduate totaled 62, however, seven were international students who intended to return home upon graduation. That left 55 individuals to help fill the 106 recreation, parks and leisure studies faculty positions in the United States (Riley & Reidy, 2001). The apparent scarcity of qualified recreation applicants for academic positions is largely uncommon in other disciplines of higher education where the number of Ph.D.s abound such as English and History (Lapidus, 1997).  A missing piece of these studies, however, was the demographic makeup of students. If diverse faculties are sought, demographic data on doctoral students must also be collected. It may also be that qualified minority and female students are not necessarily drawn to recreation since they are already highly sought after in fields that are both more prestigious and lucrative.

In summary, the review of literature suggested that minorities and females are poorly represented in higher education (Aguirre, 2000; Council of Graduate Schools, 1997; Gainen & Boice, 1993; Smith, 1996) as well as in recreation, park, and leisure studies programs ("ACE adopts diversity statement," 1998; Bialeschki, 1998; Frater et al., 1997). The purpose of this study was to gather relevant data that would accurately describe faculty and doctoral students from NRPA/AALR accredited programs in recreation, parks and leisure studies. 

The survey instrument developed for the study contained three parts.  Part One contained two items regarding NRPA/AALR accreditation and geographic location. Part Two contained seven items regarding doctoral programs.  Item one was closed-ended and asked if the program or department had a doctoral program. The remaining open-ended items asked respondents to write the total number of doctoral students and to indicate their gender and race/ethnicity.  Race/ethnicity was broken into two subcategories: non-resident alien and domestic.  Part Three contained demographic items about respondents’ faculty members (including him/herself).  Respondents were first instructed to assign a number for each faculty member and then place a series of check marks into corresponding boxes for the variables of gender; age range; highest degree earned; and rank. Race/ethnicity was again broken into two subcategories:  non-resident alien and domestic.  For non-resident aliens, respondents wrote in the name of the corresponding country.  For U.S. citizens, respondents checked a box identified the faculty member’s race/ethnic background.

Two experts reviewed the survey prior to the pilot test; a professor of recreation who was also member of the Council on Accreditation, and a member of a university graduate school who specialized in survey design.  Upon their review and subsequent suggestions the survey was piloted to eight department chairpersons and program directors in a Midwestern state.  Comments made by respondents led to one minor adjustment to the survey, and the pilot test data were deemed useable for analysis. The adjustment consisted of changing the wording from ‘doctoral’ from ‘doctorate’ under highest degree earned in Part Three.

The study was limited to NRPA/AALR accredited programs listed in the (National Recreation and Park Association, 1998) located in the United States. The reason for limiting to accredited programs due to the evaluative standards related to faculty diversity that must be addressed by institutions seeking accreditation.  Due to the nature of the nominal and ordinal variables both the doctoral student data and faculty data were analyzed through frequencies and percentages. Where appropriate, Chi-square tests were used to test for significances among selected variables.

Faculty represented in the sample (see Table 2) were predominantly male (60%), U.S. citizens (93%), White (non-Hispanic) (86%) and held doctoral degrees (76%). U.S racial/ethnic minorities comprised 7% of the sample with Black, non-Hispanics as the largest single minority group.  Non-resident aliens in the sample were primarily from Canada. The majority (43%) of the faculty in the sample was between the ages of 40-49 years old, followed by 50-59 year olds (28%).
 

Table 2:  Faculty Profile

		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Female Male Missing Total	263 406 5 674	39.0 60.0 1.0 100
Citizenship	U.S. Citizen Non-resident Alien Missing Total	626 25 23 674	93.0 4.0 3.0 100
Race/Ethnicity of U.S. Citizens	White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Missing Total	581 27 7 11 0.0 48 674	86.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 7.0 100
Non-resident Alien	Canada England China Turkey Australia Egypt Germany Jamaica Korea New Zealand Missing Total	11 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 649 674	1.6 .6 .3 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 96.0 100.0
Age Range	<30 years old 30-39 years old 40-49 years old 50-59 years old >59 years old Missing Total	16 115 287 191 54 11 674	2.0 17.0 43.0 28.0 8.0 2.0 100.0
Position	Adjunct Professor Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Missing Total	55 76 171 190 177 5 674	8.0 11.0 26.0 28.0 26.0 1.0 100.0
Highest Degree	Masters Doctorate Missing Total	154 512 8 674	23.0 76.0 1.0 100.0

Table 3 presents gender comparisons of faculty in the sample in terms of highest degree earned and rank.  The findings showed that higher percentages of female faculty members with a masters degree were concentrated in the lower ranks of instructor and assistant professor while correspondingly higher percentages of males held the rank of associate professor
(X² = 12.115; p < .01). A possible explanation for the higher concentration of females in lower ranks may be that they are pursuing a doctorate while holding a non-tenure or tenure track position. It may also be that higher percentages of males had already been promoted to the associate rank before doctoral degrees were required for tenure and promotion.
 

Table 3:  Gender Comparison by Highest Degree Earned and Rank

Rank		Adjunct	Instructor	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor	Chi-Square
Masters Degree	Females (n=79) Males (n=74)	25.3 33.8	50.6 35.1	21.5 14.9	2.5 12.2	.0 4.1	12.115*
Doctoral Degree	Females (n=180) Males (n=331)	1.7 1.5	2.8 1.5	37.8 21.8	35.6 34.7	22.2 40.5	23.345**

**p<.01; *p<.05

Table 4 presents gender comparisons of faculty in the sample in terms of age range and rank.  The findings indicate that significantly higher percentages of males between the age ranges of 40-49 years old (X² = 11.132; p < .05) and 50-59 years old (X² = 8.046; p < .05) hold the rank of associate professor and professor.  Conversely, no proportionate gender differences were found in the rank of assistant professor. This finding may suggest a trend towards more equal gender representation in lower ranks.
 

Table 4:  Gender Comparisons by Age Range and Rank

Rank		Adjunct	Instructor	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor	Chi-Square
Age Range <30 yrs	Females (n=9) Males (n=7)	11.1 14.3	66.7 57.1	22.2 28.6	.0 .0	.0 .0	.152
30-39 yrs	Females (n=62) Males (n=51)	14.5 7.8	21.0 11.8	53.2 60.8	11.3 15.7	.03 .9	5.614
40-49 yrs	Females (n=131) Males (n=156)	8.4 7.1	16.0 7.7	32.1 23.7	29.8 38.5	13.7 23.1	11.132*
50-59 yrs	Females (n=48) Males (n=143)	4.2 7.7	4.2 .7	18.8 8.4	33.3 31.5	39.6 51.7	8.046*
>59 yrs	Females (n=8) Males (n=46)	8.7 7.4	10.9 9.3	2.2 3.7	23.9 27.8	54.3 51.9	5.570

**p<.01; *p<.05

Cross-tabulations were employed to compare faculty in terms of U.S. race/ethnicity and rank.  Chi-square tests were not used due to inadequate cell sizes.  The findings in Table 5 revealed higher relative percentages of minorities than White non-Hispanics across all ranks with the exception of zero Hispanics in the associate rank and 7.4% of blacks in the professor rank.  Although the overall number of U.S. minority faculty reported in this study was low, the findings in Table 5 may suggest that minority faculty have experienced some degree of success in tenure and promotion.
 

Table 5:  U.S. Racial/Ethnic Faculty Comparisons by Rank

Rank	Adjunct	Instructor	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor
Race/Ethnicity
White non-Hispanic (n=580)	9.0	11.0	24.3	27.8	27.9
Black (n=27)	3.7	22.2	29.6	37.0	7.4
Hispanic (n=7)	14.3	14.3	42.9	.0	28.6
Asian/Pacific Islander (n=11)	0	27.3	36.4	27.3	9.1

A final comparison was made between White and Non-white faculty and rank.  White faculty were comprised of White, non-Hispanic U.S. citizens. A new variable, non-white faculty, was created by combining non-resident aliens with U.S. minorities.  The cross-tabulation findings in Table 6 revealed higher relative percentages of Non-white faculty compared to White faculty across all ranks, with the exception of the professor rank.  Although the overall combined numbers of non-resident aliens and U.S. minority faculty were low, these findings suggested that Non-white faculty were well-represented across all ranks.
 

Table 6:  White / Non-white Faculty Comparisons by Rank

Rank	Adjunct	Instructor	Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Professor
White (n=580)	9.0	11.0	24.3	27.8	27.9
Non-white (n=89)	3.4	13.5	33.7	32.6	16.9

Regarding doctoral students, graduate studies directors should devise recruitment plans aimed at increasing the available pool of qualified candidates for academic positions (Riley & Reidy, 2001).  One possibility is to cultivate students as early as the undergraduate experience.  Faculty could share completed research in the classroom and other suitable forums as well as explore undergraduate opportunities for research.  Mentoring by diverse faculty to students (at both the undergraduate and master’s levels) with similar backgrounds can plant the seed for such students to consider a career in higher education.  This is not to say, however, that faculty who represent the majority population would not be effective in mentoring diverse students.  Finally, many professional associations have branches for minorities which include both student and professional members who could be targeted for graduate school recruitment.

Several recommendations are possible for faculty recruitment. Some scholars note the parallel nature of recruitment for minorities and females (Aguirre, 2000; Frierson, 1997; Gainen & Boice, 1993; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). That is, similar recruitment strategies have been successful for recruiting minority and female faculty.  For example, search committee chairpersons can post position announcements in publications targeting minority and/or female readership. Also, the more representative search committees are in terms of diversity, the better the impression made on minority and female faculty candidates (Aguirre). Regarding campus interviews, it is recommended that candidates have the opportunity to socialize informally (at a coffee hour or during lunch, for example) with persons similar to the candidate’s background in terms of diversity (Aguirre). It is essential to solicit feedback from participants in such activities for their impressions about the candidate.

Once diverse faculty members have been hired several concerns have been noted by Aguirre (2002).  As the data indicated in the present study, women and minority faculty tended to be clustered in the lower ranks.  Aguirre noted that some females may have been unsuccessful with tenure and promotion because that they engage less in research and teach more than males. Aguirre further suggested that females leave academia more readily than their male counterparts citing a lack of connection and isolation.  Among minorities, Aguirre suggested similar reasons prevail.  Some have sensed marginalization in academe in that they do not feel welcome or appreciated (Aguirre). Even more common is the perception that their colleagues believe they were hired for purposes of affirmative action (Rai & Critzer, 2000; Schmidt, 2001). There is also a strong sense among minority faculty for service both on campus and in the community, taking away valuable time needed for scholarly activities which weigh heavily in the tenure and promotion process (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996).  Aguirre’s concerns suggest that perhaps more could be done to assist diverse faculty members to feel more connected and less isolated.

Enhancing the work environment for women and minority faculty for success in tenure and promotion has focused predominantly on mentorship (Aguirre, 2000; Gainen & Boice, 1993; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Specifically, mentorship should occur structurally on three levels: junior faculty to junior faculty, senior to junior faculty, and department chairperson to junior faculty.  Within this mentorship structure role models are encouraged, however, there are disputes over the characteristics of a good role model as well as who the best role models are (Frater et al., 1997). Although the virtues of role models representing the same gender and racial/ethnic group have been documented (Frater et al.), it is nevertheless important to acknowledge the impact of all positive role models irrespective of one’s gender and/or racial/ethnic background. 

Aguirre, A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace:  Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, George
          Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Allison, M. T. (1999). Organizational barriers to diversity in the workplace. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(1), 78-101.

Bialeschki, D. (1998). The status of professional preparation curricula in parks, recreation, and leisure studies in the United States and Canada in 1996. Society of Park and Recreation Educators
          Newsletter, 2-5.

Blazey, M., & James, K. (1994). Teaching with diversity. Schole, 9, 63-69.

Bowman, C. (1999). Bureau of Labor Statistics projections to 2008. Monthly Labor Review, 122(11), 3-4.

Bureau of the Census. (2000). Census of the population: Social and economic characteristics (U.S. Department of Commerce Publication No. 2000). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
          Office.

Chenoweth, K. (1998). Poll confirms that Americans want diversity on campuses. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(18), 12-13.

Council of Graduate Schools. (1997). Building an inclusive graduate community: A statement of principles. Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved June 6, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
          http://www.cgsnet.org/include.htm

Frater, J., Howe, C., & Murray, S. (1997). Issues in diversity in recreation and leisure studies: Perspectives from U.S. educators at a public institution of higher education. Leisure Studies, 16(221-232).

Frierson, H. (Ed.). (1997). Diversity in higher education (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Gainen, J., & Boice, R. (Eds.). (1993). Building a diverse faculty (Vol. 53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Hibbler, D. K. (2000). Illusion or inclusion? Diversity in the leisure service workforce. Management Strategy, 24(4), 1, 7.

Holland, J. (1997). Research update:  Enhancing multicultural sensitivity through teaching multiculturally in recreation. Parks and Recreation, 32, 42-50.

Kraus, R. (1994). Leisure in a changing America: Multicultural perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Lapidus, J. (1997). Why pursuing a Ph.D. is a risky business. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June 21, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
          http://chronicle.com/che-data/arti…t-43.dir/issue-41.dir/41a01201.htm

Minors, A. (1996). From uni-versity to poly-versity: Organizations in transition to anti-racism. In C. E. James (Ed.), Perspectives on racism and the human services sector: A case for change.
          Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

National Recreation and Park Association. (1998). Society of Park and Recreation Educators Curriculum Catalog 1998-1999. Auburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

National Recreation and Park Association / American Association for Leisure and Recreation Council on Accreditation. (1999). Standards and evaluative criteria for baccalaureate programs in
          recreation, park resources, and leisure studies. Auburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Prasad, P., & Mills, A. (1997). From showcase to shadow: Understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Managing the organization melting pot:  Dilemmas of
          workplace diversity (pp. 3-27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rai, K. B., & Critzer, J. W. (2000). Affirmative action and the university. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Riley, R., & Heyne, L. (1999). Departments in search of recreation professors. Society of Park and Recreation Educators Newsletter, 24, 3-5.

Riley, R., & Reidy, J. (2001). The academic job scene. Society of Park and Recreation Educators Newsletter, 14-17.

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Schmidt, P. (2001). U. of California ends affirmative action ban. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(37), A2-3.

Shinew, K. J., & Arnold, M. (1998). Gender equity in the leisure services field. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 177-194.

Smith, D. G. (1996). Achieving faculty diversity: Debunking the myths. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Tierney, W., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure:  Community and socialization in academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). National survey of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF:99). Washington, D.C.: Digest of Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Degrees and other awards conferred by Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions: 1997-1998 (NCES
          2000-177). Washington, D.C.: F.B. Morgan.

Valerius, L., Keller, M. J., Doyle, E. I., & Collins, J. R. (1999). Inclusion of diversity in leisure services curricula. Schole, 14, 45-61.

Williams, R. A. (2000). Faculty diversity:  It's all about experience. Community College Week, 13, 5-13.