Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena

In 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed the existence of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), now called Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. The report indicated that many UAP events could not be readily attributed to known sources. This, coupled with Congressional hearings and increasing public attention, has significantly shifted the public discourse surrounding UAP. Prominent figures, including former and current government officials, legislators, and a few scholars, have called for increased research and transparency. Other countries have also begun similar conversations, establishing investigative teams and sharing intelligence. Simultaneously, academics have published on UAP topics or announced new projects, including the Galileo Project at Harvard and research by scholars at Stanford and UNC-Wilmington. This study aims to evaluate the perceptions of tenured and tenure-track faculty at major research universities regarding recent UAP-related developments, their opinions on academia's role in UAP research, and their personal experiences with UAP.

The introduction extensively cites journalistic articles, government reports, and statements by various officials and scholars to establish the context and recent developments regarding UAP. It highlights the bipartisan support for increased UAP research within the US government, as well as similar initiatives in other countries. Key scholarly works referenced include those by Dr. Garry Nolan on material analysis, Dr. Avi Loeb on the Galileo Project, Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka's ethnographic study, and Dr. Kevin Knuth's work on flight characteristics of UAP. The introduction emphasizes the existing stigma associated with the topic and the need for open discussion within academia.

A national survey was conducted among tenured and tenure-track faculty at 144 US universities classified as "Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity." The sample (N=1460) encompassed 14 disciplines across the sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts. Faculty email addresses were collected from university websites. The survey, piloted by two faculty members, comprised 67 items: demographic questions, news consumption questions, awareness and reaction questions concerning journalistic, governmental, and scholarly developments on UAP, questions about explanations for UAP, questions on current research and its influence, questions about UAP observations, and an open-ended question. Three reminder emails were sent, and participation was incentivized with a lottery for Amazon gift cards. The survey's duration was estimated at 10-12 minutes. A 3.9% response rate was achieved, which the authors attribute to factors such as faculty workload and the stigma surrounding the topic. The authors detail several challenges encountered during the recruitment process, including dealing with bounced emails, spam filters, and the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The informed consent process and data collection methodology using Qualtrics are also explained.

The study revealed that a significant portion of faculty (64.17%) believed academic involvement in evaluating new UAP information is very important or absolutely essential. Furthermore, 37.26% held a similar view regarding the need for more academic research on UAP. Despite the stigma associated with the topic, a majority of respondents expressed curiosity (overwhelmingly) about UAP, with news consumption being relatively widespread (Occasionally or more frequently for most faculty) though proactive information seeking was not commonly reported. Awareness varied depending on the source of information; the New York Times article was more widely known compared to the NDAA Amendment, while awareness of specific scholarly works was limited. The majority felt that the journalistic and governmental developments increased the credibility of the UAP topic. However, confidence in future federal government reports was low (5 or less on a scale of 1 to 10 for most). Regarding the beneficiaries of released UAP information, "all humanity" and "media/journalists" were the most frequent selections, indicating some scepticism over potential motives. A substantial proportion of faculty (18.9%) reported personal observations of UAP or knew someone who had, with some voluntarily sharing details in the open-ended responses. When asked for the best explanation for UAP, "I Don't Know" was the most common answer, followed by natural events and devices of unknown intelligence. A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies was ranked as the most compelling evidence for unknown intelligence by most respondents. While few faculty had conducted UAP-related research, over one-third expressed some degree of interest in doing so, often conditioned by the involvement of reputable scholars in their field and the availability of funding. Following the survey, about half of the participants showed an increase in interest in the UAP topic.

The findings suggest a significant willingness among faculty to engage with UAP research despite the persistent stigma. The study highlights the need for a more nuanced, multidisciplinary approach to UAP investigation. The authors argue that academia's expertise could significantly contribute to evaluating UAP information and understanding its implications. The low confidence in government reports emphasizes the need for independent academic scrutiny. The voluntary sharing of personal observations underscores the suppressed interest in the topic. Future research should address the lack of a standardized vocabulary for discussing UAP and investigate the potential biases caused by factors such as gender representation in the sample.

This exploratory study demonstrates that while stigma surrounding UAP persists, a considerable number of faculty believe that academic engagement is crucial for evaluating information and conducting further research. The diverse explanations offered by participants for UAP suggest the complexity of the issue and the need for multidisciplinary investigations. Future research should focus on developing a consistent academic vocabulary, overcoming the prevailing stigma, and exploring ways to increase faculty participation in UAP studies.

The low response rate (3.9%) and potential biases due to the self-selection of participants are acknowledged limitations. The non-representative gender distribution in the sample is another area for improvement. The study's focused scope, influenced by the exploratory nature and associated stigma, limits the generalizability of findings. The occurrence of a major news event (Congressional hearing) during data collection is also noted as a potential influencing factor.