Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena

In 2021, the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that Unidentified Aerial/Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) exist and many incidents defy easy attribution to known aircraft, natural phenomena, or sensor error, while stigma limits reporting and discussion. High-profile media coverage, bipartisan legislative action (including creation of a dedicated office via the 2022 NDAA), and new scientific initiatives (e.g., NASA activity; the Galileo Project) have elevated UAP into mainstream public discourse. Internationally, governments in Japan, Canada, France, Brazil, China, and others have initiated policies or studies. Amid this changing landscape and persistent stigma, university faculty—who play central roles in knowledge production and evaluation—have been urged by officials and scholars to engage. This study investigates tenured and tenure-track faculty perceptions across disciplines at major U.S. research universities: their awareness of journalistic and governmental developments on UAP, attitudes toward academic involvement, perceived explanations for UAP, and self-reported experiences. The goal is to assess how academia views its potential role in evaluating UAP-related information and advancing research on this topic of growing public relevance.

The paper situates UAP within a rapidly evolving sociopolitical and scholarly context. U.S. officials (including former presidents, intelligence leaders, and legislators) and bipartisan congressional actions have lent credibility to UAP inquiry, while NASA and newly formed government offices pursue investigations. Internationally, Japan established UAP reporting guidelines; Canada initiated parliamentary inquiries and a national study; France’s space agency hosts longstanding analysis; Brazil held Senate hearings; China explores AI-based detection; San Marino proposed a UN-linked international office. Within academia, the Galileo Project at Harvard seeks systematic, transparent searches for extraterrestrial technological artifacts; Stanford researchers proposed analytical protocols for anomalous materials; scholars in religious studies and physics have published on UAP implications and flight characteristics; and social scientists and humanities scholars have examined broader cultural, political, and epistemic aspects. Despite increased attention, stigma and lack of consensus vocabulary have historically discouraged academic engagement, highlighting a gap this study addresses by systematically surveying faculty across disciplines.

Design and sample: Cross-sectional web-based survey of tenured and tenure-track faculty at 144 U.S. institutions classified as Carnegie “Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity.” Predetermined disciplines spanned sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts: nursing, sociology, anthropology, psychology, mechanical/aerospace engineering, biology, journalism/communication, political science, visual arts, economics, philosophy, physics/astronomy, religious studies, and literature/English (with comparative literature/English substitutions as needed). Aerospace engineering and astronomy faculty were included within engineering and physics lists where applicable. Investigators’ institutions were excluded. Sampling frame and recruitment: Using public faculty directories and Google Chrome’s Web Scraper (with manual collection when needed), the team compiled names and emails. In cases with missing emails, reasonable efforts were made to locate addresses; if none were available for a unit, that discipline at that university was skipped (rare). The final population after exclusions totalled 39,984 faculty. The University of Louisville IRB approved the study (22.0103). Individualized Qualtrics links were emailed on a rolling basis from Feb 24 to Apr 27, 2022, with up to three reminders; the portal stayed open 22 days for each batch, closing May 19, 2022. Incentive: optional lottery (five $50 and ten $25 Amazon gift cards) via a separate Qualtrics survey to preserve confidentiality. Of 40,322 emails, 174 bounced, 10 failed to send, 31 were server-blocked, 14 automated leave replies were received, and 109 respondents were ineligible (not current tenure-track/tenured); 24 requested removal. Total responses: 1549; analytic sample: N=1460; response rate 3.9%. Survey instrument: Approximately 10–12 minutes to complete, piloted by two external faculty. Sixty-seven items covered: demographics (12 items); news exposure; awareness, curiosity, and reactions to UAP; evaluations of key journalistic (2017 New York Times article) and governmental developments (2021 ODNI/Pentagon report; 2022 NDAA amendment) and of scholarship (Nolan, Loeb/Galileo Project, Pasulka, Knuth); explanations for UAP and perceived evidence sources; awareness of current research and its influence; research/teaching involvement and perceived importance of academic engagement; personal/close-contact UAP observations (per U.S. government definition); post-survey change in interest; one open-ended comment. Items used Likert scales, awareness scales, and ranking tasks; respondents could skip any item. Content choices emphasized salience, recency, and brevity given stigma and exploratory aims. Descriptive analyses summarized responses; qualitative “Other” reactions were thematically grouped (constant comparative approach).

Sample characteristics: N=1460 across 14 disciplines; more faculty were male (61.85%), full professors (43.56%), and White (79.52%) than national estimates for U.S. faculty. Public institutions comprised 78.84% of respondents. Degrees spanned cohorts from 1960s–2020s. Awareness, curiosity, and media exposure: Most respondents reported some curiosity about UAP (Not at all 17.19%; Slightly 25.41%; Moderately 25.34%; Very 16.78%; Extremely 15.27%). They had encountered UAP news in recent years (Never 6.3%; Rarely 30.27%; Occasionally 48.7%; Frequently 9.86%; Very Frequently 4.59%), though most did not actively seek it (Never 42.88%; Rarely 31.78%; Occasionally 19.32%; Frequently 3.56%; Very Frequently 2.19%). A majority were aware of the 2017 NYT article and the 2021 Pentagon report, while 73.56% were unaware of the NDAA amendment. More knew of the Galileo Project than specific scholarly publications; small fractions had read parts/all of Nolan (1.99%), Pasulka (2.53%), or Knuth (2.12%), compared with 58.84% for the NYT article and 30.14% for the Pentagon report. Reactions to developments and credibility: Curiosity was a common reaction to journalistic and governmental developments. A majority reported that these developments increased the credibility of the UAP topic, although the NDAA amendment had a smaller effect than the NYT article or Pentagon report. Regarding overall skepticism of journalism, government reports, and scholarship together, 15.17% were not at all skeptical, while most expressed some skepticism (Slightly 35.21%; Moderately 30.68%; Very 10.34%; Extremely 6.37%). Confidence in future federal government UAP reports was modest: 55.34% rated confidence at 5 or less on a 0–10 scale. On who stands to gain from UAP information releases, the most selected options were “All humanity” (53.63%) and “Media/journalists pursuing readers/viewers” (48.56%). Observations and explanations: 18.90% reported that they or someone close had observed UAP per the U.S. definition; 8.77% reported “maybe”; 68.11% reported “no.” Among explanations for UAP, the most frequent selections were “I don’t know” (39.38%), “Natural events” (21.42%), and “Devices of an unknown intelligence” (13.14%); others included foreign adversary, technical malfunction, and disinformation. Many open-ended “Other” responses posited combinations of explanations. For the most compelling evidence that UAP represents an unknown intelligence, 51.68% ranked “meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies” as most compelling, while 7.73% ranked journalism first; government-released data and trusted officials’ statements ranked between these extremes. Academic involvement: Only 3.84% had ever conducted UAP-related research, but over one-third (n=524) expressed at least slight interest in starting or continuing such work (Slightly 19.45%; Moderately 10.21%; Very 4.32%; Extremely 3.15%). Among those not at all interested (n=908), the most common reason was “No clear connection to my research area” (42.67%). Many would be more inclined if funding were available (aggregate increase 54.86%; distribution: Not at All 42.09%; Slightly 19.85%; Somewhat 13.14%; Moderately 8.90%; A great deal 13.00%), with willingness slightly lower if funding was from government (Not at All 47.78%; Slightly 20.74%; Somewhat 11.70%; Moderately 8.83%; A great deal 8.01%). Perceived importance of academia’s role was high: 64.17% rated academic involvement in evaluating new UAP information as Very Important or Absolutely Essential; 37.26% rated more academic research on UAP as Very Important or Absolutely Essential. After completing the survey, approximately half reported increased interest in the topic, just under half reported no change, and a small minority reported decreased interest.

Findings indicate that, despite stigma, faculty across diverse disciplines are aware of prominent UAP reporting and government activity, are generally curious about the topic, and see a role for academia in evaluating emerging information. Skepticism toward government reports and media motives coexists with the view that responsible scholarly evaluation could benefit “all humanity.” Nearly one-fifth of respondents report personal or close-contact UAP observations, suggesting under-acknowledged experiential data within academia. Faculty prioritize rigorous, cumulative evidence (e.g., meta-analyses) as most compelling, reflecting an appetite for standardized, transparent research methods. The results answer the central question by showing substantial support for academic engagement: many faculty endorse evaluation of new information and see more research as important. Given the cross-disciplinary nature of potential explanations and impacts, the study underscores the need for multidisciplinary approaches and development of a shared vocabulary to reduce stigma and enable systematic inquiry. The observed willingness to engage—conditional on reputable leadership and funding—implies that targeted supports could catalyze broader, rigorous academic participation.

The study provides the first systematic snapshot of U.S. research university faculty perceptions of UAP, revealing curiosity, cautious skepticism, and broad support for academic involvement in evaluating new information and advancing research. Faculty report average confidence in government reports, emphasize the value of rigorous scholarly synthesis as compelling evidence, and highlight potential societal benefits from transparent inquiry. To move forward, academia should cultivate a shared lexicon for UAP, foster multidisciplinary collaborations, and provide resources and independent access to data to improve confidence and rigor. Future research should refine measurement of explanatory frameworks (allowing combined attributions), address representativeness, and track how ongoing governmental and scientific developments shape academic attitudes and participation over time.

This exploratory survey prioritized brevity and salience due to stigma and the nascent academic discourse on UAP, using the U.S. government’s broad definition. The response rate was low (3.9%), consistent with web-based surveys but raising potential nonresponse and self-selection bias (e.g., more curious faculty responding). The sample over-represented male, full professor, and White faculty relative to national distributions. Timing effects are possible: a New York Times announcement of congressional hearings occurred nine days before final closure; 71 participants responded after the announcement and 28 after the hearings. Some measures may lack nuance: respondents often indicated multiple explanations for UAP, suggesting future instruments should explicitly allow combined attributions. Web-scraped email coverage varied across institutions, and some disciplines/units with limited public emails were under-sampled. As an exploratory study relying on self-report, causal inference is limited and generalizability should be made cautiously.