Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena

The study investigates how tenured and tenure-track faculty at major U.S. research universities perceive Unidentified Aerial/Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), their awareness of recent journalistic, governmental, and scholarly developments, their explanations for UAP, and their views on academia’s role in researching and evaluating UAP information. The context includes a 2021 report by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) acknowledging UAP cases not readily attributable to known sources, bipartisan legislative attention, and the establishment of new governmental offices and NASA efforts to study UAP. International interest has also grown (e.g., Japan, Canada, France, Brazil, China, San Marino). Despite a persistent stigma that can suppress reporting and discussion, these developments raise questions about how academia should engage with the topic. The study’s purpose is to provide initial, systematic evidence on faculty awareness, attitudes, reactions, and experiences, and to assess the perceived importance of academic involvement in evaluating new UAP information and conducting research on UAP.

Public and governmental attention to UAP has increased markedly, with major media coverage (e.g., New York Times 2017 article; CBS 60 Minutes), ODNI’s 2021 preliminary assessment, bipartisan Congressional interest culminating in the 2022 NDAA amendment establishing an office to address UAP, and NASA’s announcement of a UAP study effort. Internationally, Japan implemented UAP reporting guidelines; Canadian parliamentary committees considered UAP-related issues and commissioned a study; the French space agency has long hosted UAP analysis; Brazilian Senate hearings occurred; China initiated AI-based UAP data analysis; and San Marino considered proposing a UN-linked UAP office. Within academia, several efforts emerged: Harvard’s Galileo Project (Loeb) pursuing systematic study of technological signatures; peer-reviewed work on materials analysis relevant to aerospace forensics (Nolan et al., 2022); ethnographic analysis of UAP belief and culture (Pasulka, 2019); and physics-based analyses of flight characteristics (Knuth et al., 2019). Commentary pieces argue for reducing stigma and applying scientific tools to UAP. However, there is little prior scholarly work specifically on university faculty’s perceptions, awareness, and experiences regarding UAP; this study addresses that gap.

Design and sample: Cross-sectional web survey of tenured and tenure-track faculty at U.S. institutions classified as Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity (Carnegie Classification) across 14 predetermined disciplines (anthropology, art and design/visual arts, biology, communication/journalism, economics, engineering—including aerospace, literature/English including comparative literature, nursing, philosophy, physics including astronomy, political science, psychology, religious studies, sociology). Investigators’ institutions were excluded. The initial population was compiled from public faculty directories and emails using web scraping and manual collection where needed. Final population after exclusions totalled 39,984 faculty at 144 universities. Ineligible roles (emeritus/retired, clinical professors, lecturers) were excluded. Faculty on leave were not recruited; bounce-backs and unsubscribe requests were removed from reminders.

Recruitment and data collection: IRB-approved (University of Louisville IRB 22.0103). Individualized Qualtrics links were emailed in rolling batches from Feb 24, 2022, to Apr 27, 2022, with three reminders per best practices; survey windows remained open up to 22 days, closing May 19, 2022. Incentive: lottery for 15 Amazon gift cards (five $50; ten $25) via a separate, unlinked Qualtrics survey. Of 40,322 initial emails, 174 bounced, 10 failed to send, 31 were blocked, 14 auto-replies indicated leave, and 109 starters were ineligible; total responses: 1,549; analytic N=1,460 after exclusions. Response rate: 3.9%.

Survey instrument: 67 items; estimated 10–12 minutes. Content included demographics (12 items: birth year, gender, race/ethnicity, rank, institution type, years in rank, PhD year, country/state of PhD), news consumption (3 items), awareness/curiosity/reactions to UAP and key developments (14 items including passages/images of NYT 2017 article, ODNI 2021 report, and 2022 NDAA amendment), explanations for UAP and perceptions of sources (8 items), awareness of current scholarship (10 items: Nolan, Loeb/Galileo Project, Pasulka, Knuth), research/teaching about UAP (17 items), personal/close observations of possible UAP (1 item), change in interest post-survey (1 item), and one open-ended prompt. Respondents could skip items.

Measures included Likert scales for awareness, curiosity, skepticism, perceived credibility increases, confidence in government reports, importance of academic involvement and of more research, and rankings of evidence sources for unknown intelligence. An open-ended field captured additional reactions and observations.

Data processing and analysis: Respondents completing ≥50% of items were retained; those with <50% completion (n=89) were removed; two bad-faith responses were removed. Self-reported disciplines were mapped into the 14 target categories plus an 'Other' category (n=143). Descriptive statistics were generated in SAS 9.4 using PROC FREQ and PROC UNIVARIATE. Qualitative open-ended responses were thematically analyzed using the constant comparative method to derive themes (e.g., negative, positive, mixed reactions; interpretation/inquiry; no reaction; other).

Sample characteristics: Analytic N=1,460 across 14 disciplines plus 'Other'; majority male (61.85%), professors (43.56%), and White (79.52%); 78.84% at public institutions. PhD years spanned 1963–2022 across 30 countries and 45 U.S. states plus DC.

Curiosity and news exposure: Most faculty reported some curiosity about UAP (Not Curious 17.19%; Slightly 25.41%; Moderately 25.34%; Very 16.78%; Extremely 15.27%). News heard recently: Never 6.3%; Rarely 30.27%; Occasionally 48.7%; Frequently 9.86%; Very Frequently 4.59%. Actively sought UAP news less often (Never 42.88%; Rarely 31.78%; Occasionally 19.32%; Frequently 3.56%; Very Frequently 2.19%).

Awareness of developments: Majority were aware of the 2017 New York Times article and ODNI 2021 'Pentagon report'; 73.56% were unaware of the 2022 NDAA amendment. A larger minority knew of Harvard’s Galileo Project than of specific scholarship by Nolan, Pasulka, or Knuth. Readership: NYT article part/all 58.84%; Pentagon report part/all ~30.14%; scholarly works read by small percentages (Nolan 1.99%; Pasulka 2.53%; Knuth 2.12%).

Reactions and credibility: Primary reactions to the journalistic/governmental items included curiosity and skepticism (discipline-stratified details in supplement). A majority reported that these developments increased the credibility of the UAP topic (lower for the NDAA amendment). Overall skepticism of sources/analysis across journalism, government, and scholarship was common: Not at all 15.17%; Slightly 35.21%; Moderately 30.68%; Very 10.34%; Extremely 6.37%.

Perceived beneficiaries and trust: Selected 'Who gains?' most often: All humanity 53.63%; media/journalists 48.56%. Among those not selecting All humanity, top choices were media/journalists (42.25%), 'I don’t know' (37.52%), military–industrial complex (36.78%), scholars (27.92%), and politicians seeking reelection (13.74%). Confidence in future U.S. government reports was modest: 55.34% rated 5 or less on a 1–10 scale.

Observations and explanations: 18.90% reported that they or someone close had observed a UAP; 8.77% 'maybe'; 68.11% 'no'. Best explanation for UAP: 'I Don’t Know' 39.38%; natural events 21.42%; devices of an unknown intelligence 13.14%; with others choosing foreign adversary, technical malfunction, disinformation, or 'other' (many indicating combinations of explanations). Most compelling evidence for unknown intelligence (ranked): meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies was most often ranked 1st (51.68%); government data second; personal experience and journalism ranked lower; statements by government officials ranked least compelling.

Academic involvement and research interest: 3.84% had conducted UAP-related research. Interest in conducting or continuing research: Slightly 19.45%; Moderately 10.21%; Very 4.32%; Extremely 3.15% (over one-third showing some interest). Among those 'Not at all interested' (n=908), most-cited reason: no clear connection to research area (42.67%); others noted lack of funding and other priorities. Willingness increased with non-governmental funding (A Great Deal 13%; Moderately 8.9%; Somewhat 13.14%; Slightly 19.85%; Not at all 42.09%); willingness was somewhat lower for government funding (A Great Deal 8.01%; Moderately 8.83%; Somewhat 11.7%; Slightly 20.74%; Not at all 47.78%). Importance ratings: academic involvement in evaluating new UAP information—Very Important or Absolutely Essential 64.17%; more academic research on UAP—Very Important or Absolutely Essential 37.26%.

Change in interest: Approximately half reported increased interest after completing the survey; just under half reported no change; a small minority reported decreased interest. Among those initially not curious, 15% reported a slight or moderate increase; among those initially curious, 52.9% reported some increase.

Findings indicate that despite stigma, faculty across disciplines exhibit curiosity about UAP and endorse the importance of academic involvement in evaluating new information. Awareness is higher for prominent journalism and the ODNI report than for legislation or specific academic scholarship. Sizable minorities report personal or close observations consistent with the U.S. government’s UAP definition. Explanations are varied, with 'I don’t know' most frequent, followed by natural events and a notable minority selecting devices of unknown intelligence; many emphasize combinations of causes. Faculty assign limited confidence to forthcoming government reports and suspect mixed motives behind UAP-related releases, aligning with broader societal skepticism toward government and media. Nonetheless, they view potential benefits of transparency as accruing to all humanity and prefer rigorous, peer-reviewed meta-analyses as the most compelling evidence for extraordinary claims. Interest in conducting research exists, particularly contingent on disciplinary relevance, reputational leadership within fields, and funding availability. The results suggest an opening for cautious, multidisciplinary academic engagement, where diverse methods—from physical sciences to humanities and social sciences—are needed to assess data, contexts, meanings, and implications. Reducing stigma and developing a shared academic vocabulary could enhance rigorous inquiry and enable academia to contribute substantively to public discourse and policy.

The study provides the first systematic evidence of U.S. research university faculty awareness, attitudes, and experiences regarding UAP. Faculty generally support academic evaluation of new UAP information and recognize value in more research, though many remain skeptical of sources and prefer strong scholarly evidence. A notable proportion report UAP observations and express curiosity, while identifying barriers such as disciplinary fit, stigma, and funding constraints. Future directions include: creating venues and standards for rigorous, transparent, multidisciplinary research; improving access to high-quality data and enabling independent academic analyses; building a consensus vocabulary; reducing stigma to broaden participation; and refining survey instruments to capture nuanced explanatory models and discipline-specific concerns. As governmental and international initiatives evolve, academia’s timely engagement can help distinguish warranted skepticism from undue dismissal and ensure that scientific and scholarly standards shape understanding of UAP.

This exploratory survey has several limitations. The response rate was low (3.9%), typical of web-based faculty surveys but raising concerns about nonresponse bias; stigma may have deterred participation or led some to dismiss invitations as spam. The gender composition and other demographics are not nationally representative (e.g., higher proportion male and full professors), limiting generalizability. The survey was intentionally brief and focused on recent developments, yielding preliminary findings. The federal UAP definition was used due to lack of consensus terminology, which may constrain interpretations. Timing effects are possible: a New York Times announcement and subsequent Congressional hearing occurred near survey close; 71 participants responded after the announcement and 28 after the hearing. Self-reported measures may be subject to recall and social desirability biases. Analytical approach relied on descriptive statistics; causal inferences cannot be made. Qualitative responses, while thematically analyzed, were limited by anonymity and brevity. Nonetheless, the large absolute sample for a faculty survey is a strength and provides a baseline for future, more representative and nuanced research.