Author
Abstract
In the U.S., military and intelligence personnel, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), scholars, professional organizations, legislators, journalists, and others are requesting study of UFOs, recently renamed Unidentified Aerial/Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) by the U.S. government. Yet disinformation, misidentifications, hoaxes, and entertainment cloud the subject. Combined, these factors pertain to wider debates about the parameters of academic freedom. Here, we asked faculty across 14 disciplines at 144 research universities (N = 1460) to register insights about UAP in the academy via confidential survey. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first national study to examine scholars’ evaluations of academic credibility and possible social or professional repercussions—including concerns for tenure, promotion, and academic freedom—in relation to UAP. Results suggest that faculty concern that conducting UAP-related research would jeopardize their tenure or promotion might exceed colleagues’ actual negativity toward such research on tenure or promotional votes. Only 7.4% of faculty responded that “Yes” they would vote negatively (“No” = 61.92%, “Maybe” = 27.95%), though 52.67% reported some degree of concern for tenure or promotion. Faculty more frequently reported some degree of concern for social rather than professional repercussions. Concern for ridicule totaled 69.04%. Among all faculty, 66.24% reported that their discipline was capable to some degree of evaluating the evidence or significance of UAP. The disciplines of physics (95.82%), philosophy (88.73%), anthropology (87.09%), and engineering (83.15%) most frequently reported capability. Those who most frequently responded “Not at All” capable belonged to economics (59.7%), literature/English (54.46%), nursing (53.33%), and art and design (51.52%). Notably, although physics faculty most frequently responded that their discipline was capable to some degree of evaluation, nearly three in four reported some degree of concern about ridicule. From 250 open-ended responses, we generated 14 themes pertaining to research or teaching. To promote transparency, highlight a range of perspectives, and facilitate debate, for each theme we included at least 3 example quotes. In the context of ongoing developments, we discuss results, which underscore the complexity of beleaguered subjects and render conversations about academic freedom and UAP timely, relevant, and necessary.
Suggested Citation
Marissa E. Yingling & Charlton W. Yingling, 2024.
"Academic freedom and the unknown: credibility, criticism, and inquiry among the professoriate,"
Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
Handle:
RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03351-4
DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03351-4
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
- Marissa E. Yingling & Charlton W. Yingling & Bethany A. Bell, 2023.
"Correction: Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena,"
Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-2, December.
- Marissa E. Yingling & Charlton W. Yingling & Bethany A. Bell, 2023.
"Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena,"
Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03351-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.