Humanities at the Crossroads:

The Indiana Case Study Survey Report

Felicia M. Sullivan, Nancy N. Conner, Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg,

Peter Levine and Elizabeth Lynn

CIRCLE at the Jonathan M. Tisch College

of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University

Medford, MA

in cooperation with

January 2014

1

Humanities at the Crossroads: The Indiana Case Study Survey

by Felicia M. Sullivan, Nancy N. Conner, Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Peter Levine and Elizabeth

Lynn

“Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens. It must therefore foster and

support a form of education, and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to

make people of all backgrounds and wherever located masters of their technology and

not its unthinking servants.”

-- National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-209)

The humanities have been defined by the National Endowment for the Humanities as a specific

set of disciplines, including literature, languages, history, philosophy, archaeology, comparative

religion, ethics, and art history. These disciplines are taught and practiced both by university-

based scholars and by people who work in schools, libraries, museums, religious

denominations, and neighborhood organizations, among other places. Ever since ancient times,

defenders of the humanities have argued that they have civic, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual

value for people and communities. Indiana Humanities and other state humanities councils

support the humanities in ways that engage laypeople as well as students and scholars.

Within this broad and far-reaching sector, the “academic humanities” encompass college and

university humanities departments, centers, and institutes. The “public humanities” in turn

encompass the activities and infrastructures of all other institutions that provide humanities

programs, including K-12 schools. According to Julie Ellison, in an essay for the Humanities in

American Life, connecting the desires and interest of the public with the academy is one of the

critical challenges facing the sector as it attempts to “illuminate this ‘shuttle zone’ at the campus-

public interface.”1

Humanities at the Crossroads is a national initiative to better understand the status and future of

the academic and public humanities in American life, and to investigate the variety of ways the

humanities have been practiced, transformed, supported, evaluated and justified over the past

50 years. The Indiana Case Study, a component of Humanities at the Crossroads, examines the

humanities ecosystem of one state, through research and statewide discussions.

Indiana Humanities, with researchers from The Center for Information and Research on Civic

Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of

Citizenship and Public Service, collected survey data in the late summer and early fall of 2013 on

humanities-related institutions in the state of Indiana, addressing these key questions:

● How many organizations are involved with the humanities in Indiana?

● What kinds of organizations are they?

● Whom do they serve and strive to serve?

1 Ellison, J. (2009). “This American Life: How are the Humanities Public?” Humanities Indicators. The American Academy of Arts

and Sciences - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/essays/ellison.pdf

2

● What programs and activities do they sponsor?

● How do they collaborate and what kind of statewide network do they form in support of

the humanities?

● Where are they located?

● What do their leaders think about the state of the humanities in Indiana?

This research was meant to help Indiana Humanities and its partners understand and

strengthen the network of humanities organizations in their state, to raise the visibility of

Indiana’s public humanities, and to provide a research project model that could be adapted and

adopted by other states.

Humanities at the Crossroads has received support from the Carnegie Corporation, the Lilly

Endowment, the MacArthur Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, in

cooperation with DePauw University and CIRCLE at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College

of Citizenship and Public Service.

Method and Data

Indiana Humanities, with the help of Nicholas Kappas, an intern from the School of Public and

Environmental Affairs at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, compiled an initial

outreach list of more than 1,800 contacts. Most of these contacts were individuals affiliated with

organizations thought to provide public humanities-related programming, and a small number

(127) were individuals, primarily county historians and community foundation directors, thought

to be knowledgeable about humanities initiatives in their local areas

In assembling this contact database, Indiana Humanities staff made a conscientious effort to

include museums, libraries, public schools, ethnic and cultural organizations, historical societies,

community foundations, public media entities, arts councils, government agencies and

statewide associations, as well as academic departments, research centers and programs

within higher education. Affiliates of the Indiana Historical Society, Indiana Landmarks and the

Association of Indiana Museums were included in the contact list as were project directors who

were recent grant recipients of Indiana Humanities. Publicly available information was used to

contact liberal arts departments of colleges and universities, humanities institutes, school

superintendents, public libraries, arts councils, government agencies, public media, and

member organizations of the Nationalities Council of Indiana. Fig.1 illustrates the institutional

composition of contacts resulting from this effort.

3

Figure 1

The survey population was reached primarily via email and the survey completed online by

almost all respondents. A small number (123) of paper surveys were sent via U.S. post to

individuals and organizations thought to have limited access to the Internet. A number of

respondents from the initial contact list nominated additional potential survey participants. All

together, this “snowball” sampling method, along with the original contact list, produced 2,147

individuals thought to be involved in the humanities within the state of Indiana. Of this list, 390

provided consent and answered a sufficient number of questions for study inclusion. This

represented an 18.2% response rate. Further detail related to the survey population can be

found in Appendix A.

Survey Results

The survey revealed a sector composed of small and long-established organizations. Almost

two thirds were small with five or fewer full-time staff, and over a quarter had no full-time staff

whatsoever. Most organizations (83%) were at least 20 years old and nearly a quarter (22%)

were 100 years old or older. Almost two thirds were nonprofits (44.4%) or higher education

institutions (17.7%). Another quarter was comprised of units of government (14.6%) and

4

libraries (10.3%). Among the respondents in higher education, over a third (35.5%) were

academic departments, with the rest fairly evenly split among centers, administrative teams, and

libraries. A few (11.3%) were units of higher education at the college or school level (e.g. School

of Communications).

Small staffing levels were complemented by small organizational boards and advisors. Almost

half (46.4%) had a board of directors numbering between 6 and 15 members. One quarter

(25.4%) did not have a board, and most (71%) of these were entities within colleges,

universities, or state agencies. Most (74.4%) did not have advisory members.

In the survey, “humanities” was defined for respondents as a term that:

generally means literature, languages, history, philosophy, archaeology, comparative religion,

ethics, art history, and similar subjects. It does not include the arts themselves--only the study of

them. (A dance performance is not an example of the humanities, but a lecture about dance can

be.) The humanities need not be done by professionals; anyone can lead or participate in a

humanities activity. The humanities take many forms, from lectures and publications to exhibits

and informal book groups.

Provided with this definition, not all of the organizations sampled said that they actually provide

humanities programming. Three quarters (76.7%) said they offer humanities-related

programming. Of these organizations, only 19.5% said the humanities represent more than half

of their programming. Almost 71% said they dedicate 25% or less of their budget to humanities

activities with almost half (46.2%) saying less than ten percent of their programming is

humanities-related. In short, the humanities are supported in Indiana by organizations that

also – and often primarily – do other things.

On the whole, these organizations said they serve a general population (54.1%). Adults

(62.3%), families (51%) and senior citizens (53.3%) are other main constituencies.

Organizations said they are most interested in recruiting families (100%) and teens (35.6%).

Less than 30% of organizations indicated they already serve minority, low- income or immigrant

communities as a regular constituency outside of a general population.

"The humanities" include many disciplines, of which English and other languages and literatures

enlist the most college educators and students. The Modern Language Association is by far the

largest disciplinary association in the academic humanities. However, our survey of grassroots

groups found that most of the organizations are involved with history. History appears to be the

predominant programming offered by public humanities organizations in Indiana. About 82% of

survey respondents offered one or more history programs, including local and state history,

family history (such as genealogy and cultural heritage), national history, and world history.

History is certainly valuable and is valued by many Americans. However, for organizations like

Indiana Humanities that strive to strengthen the humanities and to connect higher education to

grassroots groups, the dominance of history may create two challenges. First, it is hard to brand

a field as "the humanities" if most nonprofits are focused on history, a discipline that has a

5

reputation and popular market of its own. Indeed, 77.7% of the respondents said that they never

(51.1%) or only sometimes (26.6%) use the term “humanities” with their constituencies.

Second, it is hard to connect the humanities, as offered by institutions of higher education, to

the public if the colleges and universities offer an array of disciplines, most of which are not fully

represented in public humanities. This may help to explain why the public does not easily grasp

the concept of the humanities, as opposed to the concept of history – and may also point to

unrealized opportunities for richer public engagement with disciplines other than history going

forward.

As table 1 details, however, the range of topics offered by survey respondents does reach

beyond history, although topics that appear more cultural in nature (e.g. Latino studies) may

also incorporate elements of historical exploration.

Table 1

Humanities Topic Offered

Local history

Number of

organizations

270

Percent of

organizations

69.2%

State history 188 48.2%

Family history, genealogy, and heritage 182 46.7%

National history 143 36.7%

The history or analysis of architecture 105 26.9%

The history or analysis of art 100 25.6%

The history or analysis of literature 95 24.4%

Archaeology 87 22.3%

Women/gender 79 20.3%

Foreign or world history 78 20.0%

The history or analysis of music 76 19.5%

American Indian or indigenous studies 69 17.7%

African-American or African studies 66 16.9%

The history or theory of performance (theater, dance,

etc.) 64 16.4%

Theology or religion 60 15.4%

Foreign language and linguistics 59 15.1%

6

Political or legal theory 59 15.1%

Philosophy or ethics 55 14.1%

Other 43 11.0%

Latino studies 42 10.8%

Asian studies 36 9.2%

Furthermore, "history" may be a broader category than it appears. Respondents mentioned

offering a wide range of activities, including services directly related to history (maintaining sites

and records, preservation, offering historical tours), but also many civic opportunities

(discussions, volunteering, dialogue), connections to core public institutions (libraries and

schools), and appreciations of culture (folk life, cultural awareness, cultural heritage, festivals).

The most prevalent types of reported activity (see table 2) were discussion groups, forums,

lectures, conferences and other such gatherings related to the humanities (55.9% of those

offering humanities programming engage in at least one of these types of activity) and volunteer

opportunities at the organizations themselves (54.5%).

Indeed, the public humanities may be better understood as a set of practices than as a

set of disciplines. In the academy and in federal law, the humanities are defined as disciplines,

but when tied to civic life – to the needs of citizens rather than scholars or students – they are

actively appropriated (and primarily valued) as practices, such as public discussion, that cross

disciplinary lines. Given the importance of these activities for public discourse and community

engagement, the public humanities can be considered essential conveners of civic life. These

organizations thus can be seen as civic hubs.

Table 2

Type of Activities Offered Number of

organizations Percent of

organizations

Discussion groups, forums, lectures, conferences, etc. related to

the humanities 167 55.9%

Opportunities for members or patrons to volunteer at the

organization (e.g., Volunteer or Service Day) 163 54.5%

Historical commemorations 149 49.8%

Maintaining, preserving, or explaining historical sites and records 148 49.5%

Historic preservation & conservation work 144 48.2%

Library activities related to the humanities 143 47.8%

Programs about folklife & traditional arts 129 43.1%

Opportunities for members or patrons to volunteer in the

community 128 42.8%

7

Tours of historical or cultural sites 127 42.5%

Cultural heritage celebrations 126 42.1%

Websites or other electronic media on humanities topics (created

by your organization) 124 41.5%

Opportunities for civic dialogue or community discussions 123 41.1%

School assemblies or guest speakers related to social studies,

language arts or world cultures 123 41.1%

Curatorial work and museum exhibitions 119 39.8%

Providing information or opinions relevant to the humanities 118 39.5%

Cultural & ethnic awareness events 113 37.8%

Festivals 110 36.8%

Activities involving genealogy 109 36.5%

News or editorials about the humanities (created by your

organization) 99 33.1%

Field trips related to social studies, language arts or world

cultures 96 32.1%

Book clubs 91 30.4%

Advocacy for the humanities 90 30.1%

Conservation of museum collections 86 28.8%

Museum acquisitions 86 28.8%

Museum education 84 28.1%

Public courses on humanities subjects 82 27.4%

Maintaining or creating historical memorials and monuments 74 24.7%

Publishing humanities scholarship in books, magazines, etc. 67 22.4%

Historical reenactments 64 21.4%

Museum audience services 61 20.4%

Broadcasts (TV or radio) on humanities topics (created by your

organization) 47 15.7%

Cultural exchanges with a foreign country 33 11.0%

In addition to understanding the scope and range of humanities programming in Indiana, the

survey also asked respondents to share their perceptions of the health and vitality of the

8

humanities in their own county. On the whole, respondents were fairly optimistic about the state

of the humanities in their communities. Although the survey did not capture the reasons for this

optimism, state leaders believe that in some respects the public humanities contribute to the

sense of place that every community is trying to enhance. Respondents were inclined to be

either neutral or positive about the humanities being accessible for everyone in their county (fig.

2). They were also positively inclined to state that the humanities were as popular as in the past

or becoming more popular.

This last point is countered by national trends in historic park and historic site visits which have

been on the decline since 1982.2 While visits to art museums surged in the 1990s and 2000s,

by 2008 they had returned to 1980s levels.3 Yet, data collected by the Humanities Indicator

Project would suggest that the public is at least generally favorable towards literature and fine

arts.4

Figure 2

Unfortunately, respondent perceptions of the current funding environment were not as rosy (fig.

2). Almost 90% felt that funding for the humanities is either flat or in decline. This perception is

supported by a 2013 Urban Institute report5 which showed that from 2001 to 2011, the arts,

culture and humanities sector had seen a 1.7% positive change in revenue with the last five

years experiencing a decline by 7.2%. During this same decade, all other sectors had increased

2 Humanities Indicators: Historic Site Visits - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/hrcoVC.aspx#topV13.

3 Humanities Indicators - Art Museum Attendance - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/hrcoVC.aspx#topV14

4 Humanities Indicators - Public Attitudes toward the Humanities - http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/hrcoVD.aspx

5 Pettijohn, Sarah L. (2013) “The Nonprofit Sector in Brief: Public Charities, Giving and Volunteering in 2013.” Washington, DC:

The Urban Institute.

9

their revenues by almost 30% with some sectors, such as health, experiencing over a 50%

increase in revenues.

Respondents indicated that their organizations receive funding from a variety of sources (fig. 3);

the average number of funding sources is three. Very few (6.6%) pull in funding from six or

more sources, and only 21% receive federal funding.

Figure 3

Mapping Indiana’s Humanities Social Network

Individual organizations support the humanities by offering programs of various kinds or by

providing advocacy, public relations, or other support. But a network composed of many

organizations can add up to more than the sum of its parts. A first step toward strengthening a

state’s network of humanities organizations is to analyze the existing network, looking for

important hubs and ties and for significant gaps that should be addressed.

A set of questions in the survey asked respondents to indicate up to 20 organizations that they

work with or engage with on humanities-related programming. Almost half (43.6%) of

respondents did not provide data on other organizations that they worked with and only 10

respondents mentioned more than 10 organizations. The average number of connected

organizations listed by respondents was three. The relational network data derived from the

survey responses were mapped using Gephi, a social network analysis software. Once created,

the map could be analyzed to see which organizations had the most connections to other

organizations, which ones reached out to many organizations, and which ones acted as

connectors or bridges to various parts of the network. Figure 4 is a graphic visualization of

Indiana’s humanities relational network based on survey responses.

10

Figure 4

(A list of the organizations in fig. 4 can be found below in table 3.)

Each dot in fig. 4 represents an organization that either responded to the survey or was

mentioned as an organization that a respondent had worked with in the past. The ties among

dots are relationships among organizations, described in various levels ranging from “know

of/following” to “strong collaboration.” Thus, if two dots are shown as connected by a line, that

means that those organizations have a relationship, even if it is just knowing about the other or

seeing it as a peer. Only the organizations with the most ties are labeled, to make the graph

legible. More connections may exist; however, these ties represent the relationships that

organizations chose to share. Also, organizations that were mentioned as collaborators but

didn’t answer the survey may have ties and connections of their own that are also not part of

this graphical representation.

Indiana’s humanities organizations form a network in which all of the nodes have some relation

to the humanities, yet they cover a diverse range of missions, priorities, capacities, and

11

geographical areas. As with any network, the “quality” of the whole depends partly on its

purpose and nature. In general, a network can be characterized in terms of its density,

resiliency, closeness, and centrality.

Density is defined as the extent to which members of the network are linked to others through

multiple pathways. Generally speaking, a high-density network is a strong network because all

or almost all the member organizations are part of a network that can provide a wide array of

information and opportunities through various relationships and communications. Density is

particularly useful if information needs to flow quickly and thus can find many routes through

which to move from organization A to organization B. High density can make the network

resilient, in that information can still be conveyed efficiently when a member of the network

disappears (along with its connections) for any reason. In short, there are beneficial

redundancies in communication pathways.

Closeness, defined by the network distance (i.e., how direct the connection is between two

organizations), is a metric for the efficiency and ease of communication amongst organizations

within a smaller group or “cluster” of organizations.

Organizational centrality is also important and can take a number of forms. Thus, a central

organization may be one that many others link to, or it may link out to many other organizations,

or it may serve as a bridge between important organizations or clusters. Organizations that are

central have greater potential to serve as conveners, organizers, and disseminators of

information to overlapping networks. A network with organizations that play these “central” roles

is often strong because these key organizations can maintain or enhance the function of the

network by promoting cross-sector collaborations or by appealing to multiple publics.

Overall, the network of Indiana’s humanities organizations is not particularly dense or

highly clustered. Of all possible ties that could exist in this network of 768 organizations, 0.2%,

or 1 in 500, actually exist. The Indiana network had a clustering coefficient measure of 0.015,

when clustering is measured on a scale of 1 to 0, from highly clustered to loosely clustered. In

other words, Indiana’s humanities network is not very clustered at all. Moreover, the fact that

density and clustering are almost the same means that there are not that many cliques or dense

networks within the whole. However, no other state’s humanities organizations have been

mapped, so we can make no comparative assessment of Indiana versus the norm.

Yet many of the state’s humanities organizations do have connections. Almost three quarters

(73%) of the groups (538 nodes) form one large connected community that has very similar

network features to the overall network in terms of density and clustering. Within this large

community, shown in red at the center of fig. 4, the average number of hops from one

organization to another is less than three. This is not an impressively short distance in a world

where “six degrees of separation” is considered normal. Within this network, information can

reach members fairly easily, but considering the relatively small number of organizations, the

pathways could be shorter. Organizations are not connecting with each other as much as they

might. It may be that micro-issues or local communities are the primary concerns for these

12

organizations. It may also be that diversity in content and geographic distance prevent the

formation of more and stronger ties.

Organizations that have many connections, either in from others or out to others, are especially

important to network strength. Table 3 shows the 16 organizations in Indiana’s public

humanities network with the most reported connections, in order of connectedness. Those with

asterisks (*) have a high number of incoming links: many other organizations reported working

with them. Those followed by a pound sign (#) have a high number of outgoing links: they

reported working with many other groups.

Table 3 Organization Number of connections

Indiana Historical Society (*) 43

Indiana Humanities (*) 34

Indiana Landmarks (*) 33

Knox County Public Library (#) 21

Brick Street Poetry Inc. (#) 20

Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. (#) 20

Arts Council of Southern Indiana (#) 16

Howard County Historical Society (#) 14

Historic Southern Indiana (#) 14

Holy Cross College (#) 13

Lanier Mansion State Historic Site 13

County Historians (#) 12

Hamilton County Convention and Visitors Bureau (#) 11

Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites 11

Indianapolis Opera 10

Indiana University 10

As this table suggests, three statewide organizations – Indiana Humanities, Indiana Historical

Society, and Indiana Landmarks – are central to the cohesiveness of the network by having

many incoming connections to other entities as well as bridging across segments of the

network. If these three central organizations were removed from the network, connections

13

between organizations would become significantly more fragmented. Rather than 73% of

organizations being connected to one large community, 59% would be connected. The network

would lose density (.001) and become less clustered (.008), and many more small groupings

would detach from the network. These organizations are critical binding agents within the

context of Indiana’s humanities sector.

Indiana Humanities, the Indiana Historical Society and Indiana Landmarks form a strong triad

and could be stronger. Both Indiana Humanities and the Indiana Historical Society said that they

work with each other. Indiana Humanities indicated a relationship with Indiana Landmarks, but

this was not returned. Likewise Indiana Landmarks indicated a relationship with the Indiana

Historical Society, but that relationship was not returned. Additional collaboration within this triad

would be helpful to maintaining the current condition of the network.

Nine organizations in the main community in the network play important roles as subgroup

connectors (see table 4). These organizations act as intermediaries to other organizations in

their small network, connecting them out to the larger network of organizations. As with the

three statewide organizations, these entities are also important factors in maintaining network

cohesion and resilience.

Table 4

Organization Knox County Public Library

Number of connections

20

Brick Street Poetry Inc. 20

Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. 20

Arts Council of Southern Indiana 15

Howard County Historical Society 14

Historic Southern Indiana 13

Holy Cross College 13

County Historian 12

Hamilton County Convention & Visitors Bureau 11

It should be noted that none of these organizations reports a current collaboration with Indiana

Humanities or the Indiana Historical Society. Only two, Brick Street Poetry and Historic

Southern Indiana, reported ties to Indiana Landmarks. Strengthening the connections of these

nine organizations to the central core triad would likely improve the network’s health and

resiliency.

The organizations (27%) that are not part of the main community in the center form their own

small subgroups comprised of 2 to 22 members that are not evidently linked to the rest. These

14

subgroups are displayed in different colors in fig. 4. Most of these smaller subgroups are

geographically located near one another, often with a community foundation as the hub. Public

libraries, local museums or historical societies, and local higher education institutions were also

key connectors in these small subgroups. Substantial subgroups in the Indiana social sphere

are:

● A cluster of 22 organizations with Holy Cross College as the leading hub.

● A cluster of 13 groups in which the Community Foundation of Wabash County and the

North Manchester Center for History are the leading hubs.

● A 12-node cluster with the Henry County Community Foundation linking to the most

groups.

● A 9-node cluster anchored by the Miami County Museum and Historical Society

● A 9-node cluster featuring Jackson County History and the Jackson County Community

Foundation

● A 9-node cluster featuring the Peabody Public Library and White County Community

Foundation

Libraries, local historical societies (and local historians) as well as community

foundations can play important roles in connecting the smaller communities to the larger

network anchored by Indiana Humanities, Indiana Landmarks, and the Indiana Historical

Society. Interestingly, the most sizable subgroup – the Holy Cross cluster – has no reported

links to the larger network at all.

So far, we have considered how many links each organization has. This would be like counting

how many “friends” each user of Facebook has and treating people with lots of friends as

central to the network. A different way of looking at importance in a network is to ask how many

organizations would have to pass through a given group to communicate with others. For

instance, if Aaron is friends with Ben, who is friends with Cara, then Ben is between Aaron and

Cara and can play an important role in their network. Yet Ben may not have the most friends of

the three. Fig. 5 shows the organizations with the highest “betweenness” scores: the Indiana

Historical Society, Indiana Humanities, Indiana Landmarks, the Big Car Collaborative, WFYI

Public Media, Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites, and the Spirit & Place Festival. These

organizations are all located within Indianapolis, thus having proximity to many potential

partners, and they play important bridging roles in the network as a whole.

15

Figure 5

Humanities Opportunities Across Indiana

The previous section looked at Indiana humanities organizations as a network. Another way to

visualize these organizations is on a traditional geospatial map of the state. Using GIS software,

385 of the 390 organizations in the survey sample were mapped to their main contact location

(or a location nearby - fig. 6 dark green dots). Another 936 organizations that were invited to

take the survey, but did not respond, were also geocoded (fig. 6 - light green dots)6. These

1,321 organizations constitute a little over 60% of the more than 2,100 organizations contacted

for the survey and a number of “hidden” humanities efforts may not have been reached in the

first place. A comprehensive map, then, should have a much greater density of organizations;

as such, county or regional patterns might not hold.

6 Another 826 organizations that were part of the population were not geocoded due to insufficient geospatial data.

16

Figure 6

As the regional map shows, the greatest number of humanities opportunities are available in the

Indianapolis Metro region followed by Gary-South Bend. When looking at a county-by-county

map (fig. 7), most counties (88 of Indiana’s 92) are served by humanities organizations that

responded to the survey. Of respondents, the largest group (18.7%) said they served Marion

County (dark red in fig. 7) which is the Indianapolis area. St. Joseph (5.4%), Hamilton (5.4%),

Delaware (4.9%), Allen (4.9%), Monroe (4.6%), and Elkhart (4.6%) are other counties with

concentrations of humanities programming (light red in fig. 7). Southern regions have fewer to

no opportunities (dark blue in fig.7) with Perry,and Jennings counties joining the non-southern

counties of Union, Rush, Benton, and Jay at the bottom of the pack.

17

Figure 7

All Indiana counties have at least 4 respondent organizations serving them even though the

organizations that provide services to a county may not be headquartered in that county.

Approximately three-fourths (75.1%) of respondents indicated they have a broad geographic

focus spanning beyond a single municipality – county (30.5%), region (22.1%), entire state

(13.3%), multiple municipalities (9.2%). Humanities-related programming is available in all types

of geographic settings – urban, rural and suburban. Specifically 50% of those who responded

said they served urban areas, 54.6% served rural areas, and 32.6% served suburban areas.

18

Regional Snapshots

Survey respondents were analyzed by region, drawing on regional designations provided by the

Indiana Business Research Center7 (see fig. 8). Our regional analysis looked at the distribution

of indicators related to organizational characteristics, constituents served, humanities topics,

and activities offered within each region.8 Detailed graphs showing regional comparisons can

be found in Appendix B.

Figure 8

7 Dufrene, U. and Lambert, T. (2009) “ Indiana Bank Performance During the Current Financial Crisis,” inContext. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana Business Research Center, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Accessed on November 25, 2013 at: http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2009/may-jun/article1.asp.

8 An example to aid understanding data in this section, say Indianapolis Metro region had 100 organizations and Evansville had 10.

Evansville had 5 organizations dedicated to offering local history and Indianapolis Metro had 10. Evansville would have a higher percentage of organizations within its region (50%) offering local history compared to Indianapolis Metro where only 10% of organizations in the region were offering local history.

19

Based on survey responses, each region in the state appears to have a distinct “flavor” to how it

realizes its public humanities agenda (table 5).

Evansville: Serving the Local Community Serving both urban and rural communities, Evansville region organizations indicated a higher percentage of federal funding sources than other regions while at the same time having many fewer sources of funding to draw upon. Beyond the average constituent, organizations in this region were serving teens, Native Americans / Hawaiian Natives, and Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders through key humanities activities focused on advocacy and libraries. Consistent with important constituencies in the region, organizations indicated that humanities topics such as the history of arts and culture, American Indian / indigenous studies and Asian studies were important programming areas. Theology and foreign languages were also key topic areas. Fort Wayne / Eastern: Learning about the Community Like the Evansville region, Fort Wayne / Eastern is home to both urban and rural communities.

Most organizations offering humanities programs have revenues under $1M, but there are a

number of sources from which organizations draw their funds. Also similar to Evansville, teens

and Native American / Native Hawaiian constituents are a focus along with Middle Eastern

community members and leaders in both the social and business sectors. The region has a

greater diversity of humanities-related activities than Evansville with book clubs, field trips,

school-based programming, cultural exchanges, and museum acquisitions and conservation of

collections offered. While cultural heritage and genealogy are important ways of learning about

the people of the region, historic preservation and conservation are also key, as is the

maintenance of historic sites and records.

Gary-South Bend: Civic Hub

Gary-South Bend is second only to the Indianapolis Metro region in its number of humanities-

related organizations. While the region serves both urban and rural communities, a greater than

average percentage of its humanities organizations are fortunate to have large revenues, with

multiple sources of funding that create stability and mitigate risk. Serving a diverse constituency,

the region boasts activities related to communication, public discourse, and civic engagement

(e.g. discussion groups, civic dialogues, broadcasts, publishing, etc.) Topics in philosophy,

religion, and political history are dominant in this region.

Indianapolis Metro: Multicultural Mecca

The Indianapolis Metro region, like Gary-South Bend, has many organizations with substantial

revenues drawing on multiple sources of funding. This region boasts a highly dense and broad

set of humanities offerings. With a decidedly urban context extending into more suburban

communities, Indy Metro organizations serve LGBTQ and African-American constituents

through a broad range of programs where few topics or activities dominate. Cultural studies and

the dissemination of content through electronic media (including websites) were more visible in

this region than in other parts of the state. Active engagement in news and editorials related to

the humanities were also strong suits.

20

Kokomo-West Lafayette: Institutionally Anchored

Kokomo-West Lafayette’s primarily rural communities are served by a set of very small

organizations (with annual budgets under $250K). The region provides a range of content from

archaeology to genealogy to festivals. The region promotes cultural and ethnic awareness and

is committed to exploring indigenous and American Indian history and culture. The region

houses historical sites, museums, libraries and institutions of higher education. Historical

conservation, historical sites and commemorations, tours, the dissemination of media content in

multiple venues (e.g. electronic media, publishing, scholarship) and book clubs comprise a wide

and diverse set of activities, many of which seek to engage community and business leaders in

addition to a general population.

Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany: Celebrating Community

Like Kokomo-West Lafayette, the Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany region located in the

southeast corner of the state also serves a primarily rural constituency. However, organizations

in this region have smaller revenues. They also appear to seek out a diverse set of constituents

– groups that may not have formal institutional power (such as teens, individuals with low-

incomes who may face employment challenges, the disabled) or that may have unique

perspectives beyond the mainstream culture (such as members of the African American, Latino

and LGBTQ communities). Promotion of local history, place, and the cultural and ethnic

heritages of the region’s people emerged as key activities for the region’s humanities

organizations.

Table 5

Region Organizational Characteristics

Constituents Served Beyond the Norm

Key Humanities Topics Beyond History

Key Humanities Activities

Evansville Serving the Local Community

Limited number of funding sources Federal funding is key Urban and rural

Teens Native Americans / Hawaiian Natives Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders

History of arts and culture American Indian / indigenous studies Asian studies Theology or religion Foreign languages or linguistics

Advocacy Library activities

Fort Wayne / Eastern Learning about the Community

Small revenues (under $1M) Urban and rural

Teens Community and business leaders Middle Eastern, Native American / Hawaiian Native

Cultural heritage Genealogy Historic preservation, and conservation Historic sites and records

Book clubs

Field trips

School-based

Cultural

exchanges

Museum

acquisitions and

conservation of

collections

21

Region Organizational Characteristics

Constituents Served Beyond the Norm

Key Humanities Topics Beyond History

Key Humanities Activities

Gary-South Bend Civic Hub

Large revenues Multiple funding sources Urban and rural

Teens African Americans Latinos Disabled Low-income Immigrants Unemployed, underemployed, displaced

Philosophy or ethics Theology or religion Political or legal history

Broadcasts,

Publishing /

scholarship

Information and

opinions

Discussion groups

Civic dialogues

Volunteer

opportunities

Indianapolis Metro Multicultural Mecca

Large revenues Multiple funding sources Urban and suburban

LGBTQ African-Americans

Cultural studies Websites and

electronic media

News or editorials

Kokomo-West Lafayette Institutionally Anchored

Very small revenues (most under $250K) Primarily rural

Community and business leaders

Archaeology Genealogy Festivals Cultural and ethnic awareness American Indian / indigenous studies

Historical

conservation and

preservation,

Historical sites and

records

Historical

commemorations

Websites and

electronic media

News or editorials

Publishing /

scholarship

Museum activities

Tours

Book clubs

Libraries

Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany Celebrating Community

Small revenues (under $1M) Primarily rural

Teens African Americans Latinos Disabled Low-income Immigrants Unemployed, underemployed, displaced LGBTQ

History Historical study of arts and culture

Cultural and ethnic

heritages

Historical

preservation and

conservation

Historical sites and

records

22

The Humanities in Indiana: An Overview

While the data provided through this case study are not completely exhaustive of all humanities

offerings in the Hoosier state, survey respondents paint a picture of Indiana as a state where

opportunities to engage in humanities programming are available to many, with a diversity of

topics and activities offered. Clearly some regions, such as the Indianapolis Metro and Gary-

South Bend, have a greater intensity of offerings available. Just as clearly, some populations

(minorities, low-income, teens) are underserved. The dominance of history as a topic area and a

local lens defines and delimits many of the activities.

While the state does have very well resourced and large humanities institutions (primarily in the

more urban areas), the vast majority of respondents delivering humanities offerings are small

organizations, and more often than not incorporate other programming activities or priorities into

their missions. Despite the minimal resources and split focus, organizations in the state are well

established, with long histories, and operate in a local context that appears favorable to their

work. However, few members of the general public would know or speak of their favorite

offering as “humanities,” and the funding environment for the sector has suffered greatly over

the last decade.

The state has strong central institutions that work across the state and collectively bind together

a cohesive set of organizations and activities. However, this relational network is vulnerable.

There are three key institutions at the center and others that perform important connecting

functions. These organizations, less than two dozen in total, are critical to the network being a

network. Should one or more of these organizations fail or lose capacity, the network is likely to

fragment and key information and resources would stall.

As leaders in the humanities in Indiana look to their next phase of work, these recommendations

might prove helpful:

● Work to create the “shuttle zone” between the academic and public humanities that

illuminates the value of both and allows the general public to comprehend the range and

scope of the sector.

● Further unpack the “role” the public humanities play beyond the content of their

programs by looking at the nature, format, and types of activities they offer, along with

what it means to “practice” or “engage” in the humanities as an expression of culture and

community.

● Strengthen connections amongst the three statewide hub organizations - Indiana

Humanities, Indiana Historical Society, and Indiana Landmarks.

● Create a venue for those with many outward connections to convene not only with the

central statewide organizations, but also with other organizations with important bridging

capacity and those at the center of the unconnected communities. The goal should be to

increase connections between organizations and thus the density of the relational

network as a means to strengthen and improve its resilience.

23

● Focus on counties with limited-to-no humanities programs to understand if this is a

service gap or simply a lack of survey respondents from these counties.

● Work to bolster the capacity of humanities organizations with low capacity and limited

funding sources with specific attention to the southern regions of the state.

● Work with organizations to build their capacity to engage more diversity at the staff and

board levels.

● Promote and share strategies for engaging teenagers and youth populations in

humanities organizations leveraging the expertise and skill of youth development

organizations.

Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the funders of Humanities at the Crossroads

24

APPENDIX A: Additional Information on the survey population

Participants for this survey were recruited using a list of organization contacts that the Indiana

Humanities staff compiled, based on public lists of humanities-related organizations and

grantees of Indiana Humanities. The research team reached out to the initial list of more than

1,800 organizations.

Organization Type Email Invitations Snail Mail Total % of Population

Historical Societies & Museums 443 71 514 27.2%

School Superintendents 398 1 399 21.1%

Public Libraries 377 11 388 20.5%

Indiana Humanities Project Directors 127 0 127 6.7%

College & University Departments/Schools 87 6 93 4.9%

Community Foundations 91 0 91 4.8%

County Historians 80 5 85 4.5%

Preservation Groups 47 11 58 3.1%

Ethnic-Nationality Organizations 46 6 52 2.7%

College & University Institutes & Centers 37 0 37 2.0%

Statewide Agencies 27 10 37 2.0%

Public Media 8 2 10 0.5%

College & University Libraries 2 0 2 0.1%

TOTAL 1770 123 1893 100.0%

The survey was administered online using Qualtrics, which is a full-featured product that aided

in tracking survey responses and streamlined follow up communications. A small number of

paper-based surveys were sent to individuals and organizations thought to have low technology

capacity or access. Those responding to the survey from this initial outreach were asked to

name other organizations with which they had worked on humanities projects and efforts.

If the organizations they named were not already in the sample, those were then added to the

survey population. This “snowball” method produced a list of 2,147 individuals thought to be

involved with the humanities. Of those, 390 provided usable survey data (giving consent to be

included in the research and answering sufficient questions). That represented an 18.2%

response rate.

25

The snowball method not only provided a large sample of organizations but also generated

information about how these groups have collaborated. It should be noted that, with additional

time and effort, multiple iterations of this “snowball” method could have been completed adding

to the list of organizations involved in providing humanities programming to the public.

26

APPENDIX B: Regional Comparisons

Organizational characteristics. Size and geographic scope varied from region to region. The

Indianapolis Metro and Gary-South Bend areas house the largest and most well-resourced

organizations, while the two southern regions appear to have a more financially limited

humanities infrastructure.

Regular constituents served. As was stated earlier, the most common demographics served

were a general population, as well as adults, families, and individuals identified as white. This

held across regions. Other demographics are served to varying degrees with some regions

engaging some groups more than others. A greater percentage of organizations in Evansville,

Gary-South Bend, and Fort Wayne / Eastern indicated that teens (ages 13-19) are part of their

regular constituents served.

In the Gary-South Bend and Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany regions, a greater percentage

of organizations reported engaging groups often marginalized in the workforce (e.g. disabled,

unemployed, low-income and immigrants). By contrast, Kokomo-West Lafayette and Fort

Wayne / Eastern had a greater percentage of organizations engaging with business and

community leaders in their regions.

27

Depending on the region and its population demographics, different racial and ethnic groups

emerged as regular constituents.

Humanities topics. In terms of programming, a greater percentage of organizations in both the

Fort Wayne / Eastern and Gary-South Bend regions indicated that their primary or secondary

field of work was in the humanities. Gary-South Bend, along with Indianapolis Metro, was also a

region with the largest percentage of organizations who say that 75% or more of their

programming is humanities-related.

In terms of topics or content offered by organizations, local history was the subject offered by

the greatest number of organizations in each region – much as was shown in the overall sample

28

of respondents. Regions differed somewhat in their history specialties, however (for example,

family history vs. state history).

Topics within the history and analysis of various areas of art and culture were popular across all

regions. For Kokomo-West Lafayette, archeology was the topic offered by the greatest number

of organizations in the region – and in greater proportion than in other regions. Literature and

music had a greater percentage of organizational offerings in Lawrenceburg-Madison-New

Albany than in other regions. Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany and Fort Wayne / Eastern

had the highest percentage of organizations that offered architecture topics. Evansville

exceeded other regions in the percentage of organizations that offered art-related history or

analysis, while Indianapolis Metro dominated in the history and analysis of performance.

29

While disciplines beyond history were engaged in to a much smaller degree, different regions

emphasized different areas of exploration. For example, Gary-South Bend had a greater

percentage of organization focusing on theology or religion than other areas and Evansville had

a greater percentage of organizations who offered foreign languages or linguistics. Philosophy

or ethics were greater parts of the humanities mix in Gary-South Bend and Indianapolis Metro.

The Indianapolis Metro region had proportionately more organizations dedicated to cultural

studies topics such as African American studies, Latino studies, Asian studies and Women’s or

30

Gender studies when compared to other regions. However, Both Kokomo-West Lafayette and

Evansville had proportionately more organizations focused on American Indian or indigenous

studies.

Humanities activities. For most regions, activities related to historical preservation,

commemoration, or explanation and to public engagement through volunteering or public

discussion opportunities (e.g. discussion groups, lectures, conferences) were offered by the

greatest percentage of organizations. However there were others areas of special attention or

focus (e.g. library activities, media distribution). All regions provided a range of activities across

the humanities spectrum.

31

Both Kokomo-West Lafayette and Gary-South Bend had higher proportions of organizations

dedicated to maintaining or creating historical monuments and memorials as well as historical

commemorations. Kokomo-West Lafayette, along with Fort Wayne / Eastern, also had a higher

percentage of its organizations dedicated to historic preservation and conservation than in other

regions. Maintaining, preserving and explaining sites and records were activities that a greater

number of organizations in Fort Wayne / Eastern and Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany were

engaged in than in other regions.

Communicating humanities-related content, information and opinions through advocacy, news

items, editorials, broadcast, electronic media, or publishing was an activity present in all regions.

However, the Indianapolis Metro region had a greater percentage of organizations engaged in

electronic media and news or editorial activity than other regions. Providing information or

opinions and publishing were a greater part of the Gary-South Bend activity mix than in other

regions.

32

In terms of museum-related activities, Kokomo-West Lafayette had greater percentages of

organizations offering these activities than other regions. Gary-South Bend and Fort Wayne /

Eastern were consistently second in this regard.

For activities related to libraries, education and learning, Kokomo-West Lafayette and Fort

Wayne / Eastern each had the highest proportion of organizations conducting tours and

engaging in book clubs. Fort Wayne / Eastern additionally had a greater percentage of school-

based activities than other regions. Library activities were a greater part of the activity mix in

Gary-South Bend, Kokomo-West Lafayette and Evansville than in other regions. Cultural

exchanges and field trips were more prominent within the Indianapolis Metro region than most

33

other regions. Fort Wayne / Eastern also had greater proportion of cultural exchanges and

Lawrenceburg-Madison-New Albany had a greater percentage of organizations offering field

trips.

In terms of activities geared towards enhancing public engagement, such as civic dialogues,

discussions, public discourse and volunteering, both Fort Wayne / Eastern and Gary-South

Bend had greater percentages of organizations offering these activities than other regions.

34

Members of the Indiana Case Study Task Force

Keira Amstutz, President and CEO, Indiana Humanities

Rosemary Dorsa, Director, GIFT Program, Indiana Grantmakers Alliance

Daniel Greene, Vice President for Research and Academic Programs, The Newberry

Stanley Katz, Professor and Director, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Peter Levine, Director, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, Tufts University

Elizabeth Lynn, Director, Institute for Leadership and Service, Valparaiso University (chair)

Teresa Mangum, Associate Professor of English and Director, Obermann Center for Advanced Studies, University of Iowa

Beverley J. Pitts, former President, University of Indianapolis

Members of the Humanities at the Crossroads Planning Group

Keira Amstutz, President and CEO, Indiana Humanities

Brian W. Casey, President, DePauw University

James R. Grossman, Executive Director, American Historical Association

James Herbert, former Director, Research and Education Divisions, National Endowment for the Humanities.

Stanley Katz, Professor and Director, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Elizabeth Lynn, Director, Institute for Leadership and Service, Valparaiso University (co-chair)

Esther Mackintosh, President, Federation of State Humanities Councils

Estevan Rael-Galvez, Senior Vice-President of Historic Sites, National Trust for Historic Preservation

Dwan Reece, Curator of Music and Performing Arts, National Museum of African American History and Culture, Smithsonian Institution

John Roth, Edward J. Sexton Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna College (co-chair)

Margot Stern Strom, Klarman Family Executive Director, Facing History and Ourselves

Jamil Zainaldin, President, Georgia Humanities Council