Paper long abstract:

In the post-9/11 world, a paradox has emerged concerning the future of area studies programs at institutions of higher education in the United States. On the one hand, policymakers and scholars have repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. government desperately needs to develop a cadre of experts with broad knowledge of strategically important areas of the world. On the other hand, the U.S. government has made significant budget cuts to several key programs that emerged after WWII in response to a similar call for greater area studies expertise. These cuts have negatively impacted two programs that played a critical role in the development of Central Asian studies within the United States: the Department of Education's Title VI Program funding to university area studies programs (known as National Resource Centers), and the Department of State's Title VIII Program funding individual scholars who conduct research in Eurasia and Eastern Europe.

Those who push for budget cuts question whether area studies programs provide a valuable return on investment to the country as a whole. This paper takes a different approach by focusing on the value of area studies training to individual scholarly careers. Do humanities and social science scholars with a strong emphasis on area studies training have an advantage over other scholars? In the past 25 years, approximately 500 individuals have completed dissertations, focusing on Central Asia, in humanities and social science disciplines at North American institutions. This paper examines whether scholars who appear to identify strongly as Central Asian area studies scholars have different outcomes in academia than scholars who conduct research in Central Asia yet identify less strongly as area studies experts. For the purpose of this paper, we use participation in CESS conferences and publication in relevant area studies journal as a proxy for determining the extent to which an individual "identifies" as an area studies expert. The paper asks two questions: (1) Are scholars with PhD degrees from universities with Title VI Centers more likely to identify strongly as area studies experts? (2) Are scholars who identify strongly as area studies experts more likely to "succeed" in academia, as evidenced by their success in achieving full-time employment in academia? This paper is based a database we created of scholars completing PhD dissertations in North America between 1991 and 2015 that focus on Central Asia.