The response to the questionnaire (both attempts) was, frankly, disappointing. The first attempt (December 1988) netted 11 replies, the second (May 1989) produced 17, of which 4 were duplicates and 1 was from me! Thus the total number of responses was 24.

At least four people sent the questionnaire in twice, other replies may also have been duplicates. This confidentiality is inadvertent; envelopes are generally removed before I receive my mail. Thus I have treated each response, when the source is unknown, as though it were from a different person; this may have resulted in double counting in some instances. Each data entry comprises three parts: 1) replies to the first questionnaire, 2) replies to the second questionnaire, 3) combined replies, assuming that each reply when the source is unknown represents a separate person. I would place least reliance on this combined category. The responses are tabulated first as an actual number, then as a percentage (rounded to the nearest integer) of the total response to that question. Note that the total response to each question varies, and is not necessarily the same as the total number of respondents, since not everyone answered each question, and some questions resulted in answers in several categories. I hope this all makes sense??!

A. EXPERIENCE

1. I was initiated into palynology in the last:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
3 years	1	9	1	6	1	4
3-10 years	1	9	1	6	2	8
10-20 years	2	18	5	29	7	29
Over 20 years	7	63	10	59	14	58
Total responses	11		17		24

2. Time of employment in palynology:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
0-3 years	2	18	3	18	4	17
3-10 years	2	18	1	6	3	13
10-20 years	4	36	7	41	9	38
Over 20 years	3	27	6	35	8	33
Total responses	11		17		24

3. First 3 years of employment in palynology:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
University	4	31	9	50	12	46
Industry	2	15	4	22	6	23
Government	5	38	4	22	6	23
Consulting	1	8	1	6	1	4
Other	1	8	-	-	1	4
Total responses	13		18		26

Responses for "other" category comprised: volunteer basis (1).

4. Last 3 years of employment in palynology:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
University	3	30	5	31	7	32
Industry	1	10	4	25	5	23
Government	5	50	5	31	7	32
Consulting	1	10	2	13	3	14
Other	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total responses	10		16		22

5. Period between (3) and (4), if applicable:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
University	1	20	4	36	4	33
Industry	1	20	3	27	4	33
Government	3	60	4	36	4	33
Consulting	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total responses	5		11		12

B. APPLICATION OF PALYNOLOGY

During my career in palynology, I have been involved in the following aspects:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
Palynostratigraphy	8	30	12	31	18	31
Palynofacies/depositional environments	5	19	9	23	13	22
Kerogen analysis	1	4	4	10	5	9
Pollen analysis	8	30	10	26	16	28
Other	4	15	4	10	6	10
Total responses	26		39		58

"Other" category included: microplankton (1), teaching/scientific research management (1), Quaternary palynology (1), laboratory techniques (1), palaeoenvironmental reconstruction/ palaeoecology (1), data processing (1), fern morphology (1).

My current most significant involvement is:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
Palynostratigraphy	3	60	4	44	7	54
Palynofacies, depositional environments	-	-	3	33	2	15
Kerogen analysis	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pollen analysis	2	40	1	11	3	23
Other	-	-	1	11	1	8
Total responses	5		9		13

"Other" category included: Taxonomy/classification/evolution/morphology/marine palynomorphs (1).

C. MANPOWER

1. In the last three to five years, palynological manpower in my place of employment has:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
Increased	2	20	2	14	4	20
Decreased	4	40	7	50	11	55
Remained steady	4	40	5	36	5	25
Total responses	10		14		20

2. I left the field of palynology in the last:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
3 years	1	50	1	20	2	29
3-10 years	-	-	2	40	2	29
10-20 years	-	-	2	40	2	29
Over 20 years	1	50	-	-	1	14
Total responses	2		5		7

3. My reasons for leaving were:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
Retired	1	50	2	40	3	43
Assigned to other geoscience area	1	50	-	-	1	14
Laid off	-	-	-	-	-	-
Assigned to management staff	-	-	1	20	1	14
Other	-	-	2	40	2	29
Total responses	2		5		7

4. This change in my career was:

	1st quest		2nd quest		Combined
	#	%	#	%	#	%
Voluntary	2	100	3	75	5	83
Involuntary	-	-	1	25	1	17
Total responses	2		4		6

---

Commentary on the Questionnaire

Out of a total pool of 96 respondents (76 members and 20 correspondents), the 24 replies represent a 25% response rate. Owing to the few responses to some questions, the percentage figures are rather misleading in many instances. And yes, I did notice the obvious flaws in the structure of the survey. Despite data limitations, however, a few patterns can be discerned from the responses:

1. People who returned the questionnaire were mainly those at a senior level, or who had been in the discipline for many years. Very few graduate students or beginning palynologists returned it.

2. The major cause of loss to the discipline among those who returned the questionnaire is retirement. The survey was prompted by a general feeling that the discipline was under attack and the number of palynologists in decline. This impression is not borne out by these results. However, possibly those who have been forced to leave palynology or who are unemployed are no longer members of CAP and thus are not included in this count.

3. People who start their career in one field (Government or University mainly) tend to stay in that field. Although there are exceptions, these data suggests that there is little transfer between different branches of the discipline.

The most illuminating parts of the questionnaire in most instances were the comments. Among the comments were the following:

"As oil companies are in a financial squeeze, the first thing that cut out are "Special" sections (Paleo, Petrology etc.) and hand this work to consultants, if needed. And there is not much you can do about it. It's all economics unfortunately."

"The root problem at universities is lack of great big bucks. Department heads go for the areas where big grants are around - mostly geochemistry. All areas of paleo are in the same fix. Systematic aspects of biology have the same problems".

As in all branches of scientific endeavour, most practitioners identify lack of money as the root cause of the problem.

Thanks to all those who returned their questionnaires!

---

Note: This item orginally appeared in CAP Newsletter 12(2):25-28, 1989.