The DANTES Survey of Courses
in Contemporary Middle East Studies
Lori Anne Salem, Temple University

IN FALL 1990, the Defense Department mailed an eight-page questionnaire to more than a thousand college and university professors who teach courses in contemporary Middle East Studies. Fifteen percent, 184 professors, responded, which is an impressive rate for such an endeavor. The survey asked, among other things, how often courses meet, how course materials are organized, which specific topics are covered, which texts are used and requested a copy of the professor's course syllabus. I heard about the survey from one of those solicited and called the director of the project to learn the results.

The information sought in this survey is not classified. Specifics about a Middle East Studies course are available to anyone who signs up; and most professors are more than willing to discuss their selection and organization of material. But the survey was conducted without identifying the surveyors or their purpose. Neither the questionnaire nor its cover letter indicated a connection to the Department of Defense.

The survey originated from a program called DANTES (Defense And Non-Traditional Educational Support), a division of the Educational Testing Service that develops and administers standardized tests for military service people in a wide range of subjects, from Physics, to Finance, to the Fundamentals of Counseling. Most tests are multiple choice. They are designed as an alternative to university course work for soldiers on active duty, reservists and veterans of the armed services. A soldier who is a university student (or hopes to become one) may earn credit for acquiring a base of information by taking a DANTES standardized test. If the test score meets a minimum requirement, DANTES arranges with the student-soldier's university for credit; in order for this arrangement to be acceptable to universities, a DANTES test must reflect what is actually taught by university professors.

DANTES anticipated the need for a standardized test on the Middle East after the United States deployed massive numbers of military personnel--among them a large percentage of university students--to the Persian Gulf in August 1990. DANTES professionals developed the survey and a direct marketing firm supplied a mailing list of appropriate professors. By the end of January 1991, mid-way through the air campaign, the results of the questionnaire were compiled and analyzed.

The compiled results (see Appendix) give an impression of a university course in contemporary Middle Eastern Studies that is a semester-long, broadly ranging survey offered at the level of upper division undergraduates. It is typically a History or Political Science course and tends to focus on "diplomatic" and "political" issues rather than on "economic" or "social/cultural" issues. Organization is commonly thematic and/or chronological, rather than by country, but also commonly gives more attention to Israel, Egypt, the Levant and certain countries in the Persian Gulf. Certain ideologies (nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism) and a few specific events (the establishment of Israel, the Iranian revolution) are likely to receive a high degree of coverage.

These results must take into account the survey's coverage and the questionnaire's construction. They were best geared toward general survey courses in contemporary Middle Eastern Studies. However, because of some problems in mailing, and perhaps because some universities have no such course, the questionnaire reached a somewhat wider group. Among the course titles listed on the syllabi that accompanied the responses were "International Relations in the Middle East," "Economic Development in the Middle East," "Politics and Society in Israel," "Islam in the Modern Middle East," "Population and Development in the Middle East." How the inclusion of these more specifically focussed courses may have affected results of the survey is unclear. Questions about topics covered did not provide for "write-ins;" respondents could only indicate which of a list of topics were covered in their course and their degree of coverage. Respondents more often reported that a topic received a high/medium degree of coverage than low or no coverage. This may indicate that lectures and/or readings cover a very broad range of material, or it may indicate an unwillingness to be seen as shirking or omitting important topics. Some topics were missing from the list, others were mentioned only obliquely or inadequately. Out of the 64 items listed, only one mentioned women and only one mentioned family. No mention of language appeared. The Arts, clearly a broad topic, was mentioned only once (item 52) and was given an arbitrarily narrow range. Similarly, the only items that specifically address the Palestinians (17 and 37), were given a narrow slant. OPEC never appears by name (although it could be included in several other items), and no items specifically mention Libya, Syria, Jordan, the Sudan, or many of the Gulf states.

The Questionnaire and Results

The DANTES questionnaire was divided into four sections: (1) a few general questions about the position of Middle East Studies courses in specific universities, (2) the degree of coverage of 64 specific topics, 3) which countries were covered in the course and approximately how much time is devoted to each country, (4) which textbooks, readings and/or other materials were used in the course.

It is apparent in looking at the completed questionnaires that certain sections were more easily completed than others. Most respondents completed Sections Two and Four with little difficulty, checking boxes and filling in information as requested. However, Sections One and Three raised considerable consternation. Some questions in these sections were worded clumsily or ambiguously, and others were simply inappropriate. Many respondents resorted to scrawling comments in the margins because, in effect, they needed to change the survey itself in order to accurately represent their courses.

Several professors returned partially completed surveys, skipping questions or whole sections that were inappropriate to their course. Others completed the survey for more than one course, at times indicating more than one answer for one question. All percentages were all calculated with 184 as the total sample (of returned surveys) rather than the number of responses to each question. So in many cases, the percentages amount to slightly less or slightly more than 100%.

General Questions (Table 1)

Section One was designed to elicit general background information about courses in Middle East Studies, and the responses sketch a typical format. Most courses meet for one semester, are offered through the departments of History, Political Science or both and draw a mixed-level enrollment of students. Their most common organization is chronological and/or thematic and usually covers at least four countries.

A few points should be noted about the data summarized in Table 1. Nine percent of respondents in question three indicated that their course represented disciplines other than History or Political Science; among those were Economics, Anthropology, Sociology, Religion, Area Studies, Geography, Art and International Business. Fully 26% penciled in explanatory comments in question four about how content is organized, most rejecting the either/or choices provided in the survey. Many indicated that more than one organizational format was used within one course (e.g., first half chronological, second half thematic).

Topical Coverage (Table 2)

Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of coverage for 64 specific items in his/her course, choosing among high, medium, low and no coverage. An overview of the responses reveals that professors were much more likely to indicate that topics received a high or medium degree of coverage in their course, than low or no coverage. Nearly one third of the respondents (32%) never used the designation "no coverage." Of these, five indicated only high or medium coverage for each item.

Section Two is separated into "Diplomatic Issues," "Political Issues," "Economic Issues," and "Social and Cultural Issues." While the latter two categories are self-explanatory, the first two are somewhat unclear. "Diplomatic Issues" seems to refer to issues and events surrounding outside (usually Western) influence in the Middle East. "Political Issues" seems to refer to domestic politics of the various Middle Eastern countries and intra-regional relations. The writers of the survey note that some of the items overlap; therefore, coverage of a topic may be indicated in more than one place.

"Diplomatic Issues" (Table 2a) that directly refer to Israel were rated overwhelmingly high in coverage. The establishment of Israel (item 10) and the Arab-Israeli conflict (item 13) were rated high or medium by 92% and 91% of respondents respectively. Coverage of Camp David and the Palestinian Problem (item 17), a closely related issue, was rated high or medium by 82% of respondents.

On the other hand, items relating to North Africa were rated overwhelmingly low in coverage. Only 5% of respondents reported a high degree of coverage of the Algerian War (item 9), and fully 77% rated their coverage as low or none (the strongest showing in low/none ratings). European occupation and dominance of the Maghrib (item 3) received low or no coverage by 66% of respondents. Interestingly, item 8, which includes the Mashriq as well as the Maghrib, reflected no such decisive agreement. Each of the four levels of coverage was reported by substantial numbers of respondents.

Several professors commented on specific items in this category. Two objected to item 2, regarding "The decline of the traditional powers (the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Egypt)." One wrote "not true" in the margin, while the other questioned the inclusion of Egypt. Another respondent questioned the term "Maghrib" in items 3 and 8, writing: "I must admit that I am not familiar with this term." Three professors objected to item 17 regarding "Camp David and the Palestinian Problem." Each crossed out the first half of the phrase, and one noted acerbically: "Camp David gets the small amount of attention it deserves."

Among "Political Issues" (Table 2b), coverage of the fundamentalist resurgence (item 38), and religious and ethnic factionalism (item 29) was rated medium or high by 94% and 93% of respondents respectively. Coverage of the Iranian Revolution (item 39) was rated high or medium by 89% of respondents. Nationalism in the Middle East (item 20) was rated high or medium in coverage by 98% of respondents, the highest showing in the survey. Revolutions in the Middle East (item 30), also received strong responses: 91% of respondents rated their degree of coverage as high or medium.

Item 21, relating to the colonial system in North Africa, reflected a nearly even split in response. 50% of respondents rated their coverage of this topic high or medium, and 49% tallied at low or no coverage. The evolution of modern Turkey (item 23) also drew mixed response and substantial numbers of comments. Three professors objected to item 28 regarding "The newly independent Middle Eastern States." One respondent noted in the margin "there aren't any."

"Economic Issues" (Table 2c) are remarkable for the relatively frequent low ratings. Out of eleven items in this section, six receive low or no coverage in more than half of the respondents' courses. Nationalization of Middle Eastern wealth (item 44) was rated high or medium by only 38% of respondents, compared to 98% who rated nationalism high or medium (item 20). Low or no coverage of economic development (item 41), and regional economic disputes (item 51) was reported by 52% and 58% of respondents respectively. Coverage of regional and international trade (item 46) and foreign debt (item 49) were rated low or none by 70% and 59%. Arab socialism (item 47) received low or no coverage by 66% of respondents and high coverage by only 4% of respondents, the weakest showing of "high" ratings in the survey. One respondent objected to this item, scrawling "What??!" in the margin.

Items in this section that specifically mention petroleum received surprisingly tepid responses. Discovery and development of petroleum resources (item 42) was ranked high or medium in coverage by 68% of respondents, and nationalization and control of oil (item 45) received only a 59% high or medium response. Where oil is termed a "weapon" the high/medium ratings jump to 78% (item 48).

"Social and Cultural Issues" (Table 2d) again reveal a strong interest in Islam. The Islamic response to the west (item 53) and the new fundamentalism (item 63) receive high or medium degrees of coverage from 90% and 89% of respondents respectively. By contrast, coverage of educational opportunities (item 60) was rated low or none by 56% of respondents. Life in the countryside (item 64) received low or no coverage by 66% of respondents.

A few professors wrote in explanatory comments about the items in this section. One noted that women, family and the fellah received coverage only through readings (optional and required). Two others wrote that women's issues were covered in a separate course.

Country Coverage (Table 3)

Respondents were asked to indicate which countries, out of a list of seventeen, were covered in their course. The responses indicate a relatively high degree of coverage of the Levant and the Gulf, and a relatively low degree of coverage of North Africa apart from Egypt. Coverage of Egypt, Israel, Iran and Iraq was reported by at least 87% of all respondents, consistent with responses to items 10, 15, 18 and 39 on their sovereignty crises in the previous section. Except for Egypt, none of the North African countries received coverage by more than half of respondents, consistent with the coverage of items 3, 9 and 21 on their colonization and independence struggles in Section Two.

Additional space was provided to write in other countries not on the original list, and 30% of respondents wrote in extra items. 12% of respondents added Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, Israeli Occupied Territories, PLO); others may have checked "Israel" but meant both countries. Additional write-ins included Pakistan, the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus, Greece, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Djibouti, Somalia, Indonesia, Malaysia and India. The United States and the Soviet Union were mentioned with regard to foreign policy/intervention; and both superpowers were also mentioned with regard to their domestic issues (the Soviet Islamic Republics and Zionism in the United States). Again, respondents were much more likely to indicate that a topic was covered than not covered. 16% checked at least sixteen of the possible eighteen (including "other") items on the list.

The second half of Section 3 asked what percentage of instructional time is devoted to each specific country; but this task proved difficult. 40% of respondents made no attempt to complete this section of the survey, and those who did complete it expressed doubts about the exercise. As indicated in Section 1 (question 4), most professors do not organize course material on a country-by-country basis. Several respondents noted that percentages of time spent on particular countries is nearly impossible to determine if one is focussing on themes and interrelationships. The results of the percentage question were ambiguous and are not included here.

Section 3 received the bulk of write-in comments in the survey. The majority of added comments explained more fully how they arrived at their answers. A few comments were critical of the survey format: "this is an inappropriate way of assessing course content." Three professors wrote notes indicating that current events ("this year's crisis") affect which countries are covered in their courses and for what percentage of time. One wrote: "Spring 1991 will deal more with Kuwait than Spring 1990. Spring 1990 spent more time on Iran, less on Iraq. Spring 1991, vice versa."

Texts (Table 4)

The fourth section of the survey asked respondents to list textbooks and other materials used in their classes. The compiled list of 160 items is made up mainly of academic texts, but also includes several novels (Midaq Alley, Miramar, The Net) biographies/memoirs (Harem Years, Guests of the Sheik) and primary documents (Qaddafi's Green Book, Khomeini's Islam and Revolution, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran).

The length of the bibliography may indicate lack of agreement on specific textbooks for courses in Middle Eastern studies, or it may indicate the wide range of such material; but there was considerable agreement on the type of texts used, as well as on certain themes. Historical and political surveys were the most common on the list, and the five most frequently cited books are historical/political surveys of the Middle East. Further, in keeping with the topics and countries queried in the survey, most books were on Islam and Israel (including the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict). Among the books most frequently cited were two dealing with Israel and one dealing with Islam.

Some Comments

The depiction of Middle East Studies in this survey may be weighed with its goals, its construction and its conduct. The survey was to provide a basis for devising a standardized test, which implies a standardized body of knowledge and assessments. "Textbook" disciplines provide this model. The design of the questionnaire emphasizes priorities. Many of the respondents clearly did not accept those premises and expressed dissatisfaction with the format. The choice of a survey--as opposed, say, to using substantive experts as consultants—bespeaks a certain tentativeness about the subject that is resolved by the devices of opinion research (eliciting degree of response to select items) for designing a product. Professors are surveyed because the product, a test, is one they may be asked to accept in place of their own.

With the origin of the survey obscured, a number of difficult questions beyond its focus, its sample and its construction remain. Can there be a fair, "standardized" test that is acceptable to general, non-military universities and colleges? Is a standardized test, however researched, a suitable replacement for a semester-long university course in what is more a subject than a unified discipline? How does the experience of active military service affect a student’s reading of Middle Eastern history and politics—not to say, culture?

Appendix: Survey Responses

Table 1
1.  How many semesters, trimesters or quarters long is the course?
	One semester	 		78%
	Two semesters			 6%
	One quarter			13%
	Two quarters			 2%

2.  At what level do you offer this course?
	Lower division			25%
	Upper division			85%
	Graduate level only		10%

3. Is the course best characterized as a political science
course, a history course, a combination of the two, or as some
other sort of course?
	Political science		36%
	History				40%
	Combination			28%
	Other				 9%

4. How is course content organized for teaching purposes?
	Chronologically			50%
	Thematically			57%
	Country-by-country basis	27%
	Other (please specify)	 	7%

5. How many countries do you cover in some depth in the course?
	One to three			13%
	Four to five			44%
	Six or more			44%


Table 2	 Degree of Coverage

Diplomatic Issues		High   Medium   Low   None

1.Defining the geographical 
boundaries of the Middle East	33%	34%	23%	 5%

2.The decline of the traditional 
Middle East powers (the Ottoman	39%	36%	20%	 6%
Empire,Persia, Egypt)

3.European occupation and  	11%	22%	44%	22%
dominance of the Maghrib

4.The First World War and its 	54%	29%	14%	 2%
legacies

5.Pan-Islamism and the 		11%	46%	35%	 9%
Caliphate movement	


6.The League of Nations 	33%	37%	23%	 3%
mandates	


7.The Second World War and 	36%	44%	18%	 2%
its legacies

8.The decolonization process 	23%	31%	25%	20%
 Mashriq and Maghrib

9.The Algerian War		 9%	15%	41%	36%

10.The establishment of Israel	67%	25%	 7%	 2%

11.The Cold War in the 		36%	36%	22%	 5%
Middle East

12.The decline of Europe’s 	35%	44%	17%	 3%
role in the Middle East and 
the ascendancy of the superpowers

13.The Arab-Israeli conflict	73%	18%	 6%	 2%

14.The Arab League and other 	 9%	45%	39%	 8%
regional and international 
organizations

15.Western interventions in 	45%	44%	 8%	 3%
the Middle East(e.g.Iraq,
Suez,Beirut)

16.The Lebanese civil war	41%	41%	12%	 4%

17.Camp David and the 		52%	30%	14%	 4%
Palestinian problem	

18.Crises in the Persian Gulf 	53%	34%	 8%	 7%
(Iran-Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait)


Political Issues   		High   Medium   Low   None

19.Early attempts at 		20%	50%	23%	 8%
governmental reform	
and constitutional government

20.Nationalism in the Middle 	68%	30%	 2%	 1%
East

21.The colonial system in the 	14%	36%	28%	21%
Mashriq	and the Maghrib

22.The struggle for 		35%	51%	13%	 1%
independence

23.The evolution of modern 	31%	32%	23%	15%
Turkey

24.Experiments in democracy 	16%	55%	24%	 5%
and the birth of political 
parties (Communists,Ba'ath, Wafd, etc.)

25.The Pahlavi dynasty and 	29%	50%	13%	 9%
reforms in Iran

26.The establishment and 	15%	54%	26%	 7%
evolution of the Saudi state

27.Domestic politics in Israel	23%	47%	26%	 5%

28.The newly independent 	26%	50%	21%	 6%
Middle Eastern states

29.Religious and ethnic 	53%	40%	 7%	 1%
factionalism

30.Revolutions in the Middle 	45%	46%	 9%	 3%
East

31.The military in politics 	26%	48%	24%	 3%

32.The emergence of one-	19%	45%	29%	 8%
party states	

33.The Arab cold war: Republic 	21%	39%	33%	 7%
vs. Monarchy

34.The elusive quest for Arab 	30%	47%	21%	 2%
unity	

35.Ideologies in the Arab world	40%	45%	12%	 2%
(Arab socialism, Nasserism,
Pan-Arabism, Non-alignment, Arab
nationalism, state nationalism)

36.Political dissidents and 	16%	41%	38%	 5%
social protest

37.The Palestinian diaspora 	34%	38%	23%	 3%
in the Middle East

38.The fundamentalist 		59%	35%	 7%	 1%
 resurgence in the Islamic world

39.The Iranian revolution	51%	37%	 8%	 4%

40.The Iran-Iraq war		33%	46%	18%	 4%


Economic Issues                 High    Medium    Low  None

41.Economic development: 	13%	36%	44%	 8%
Agriculture, hydraulics, 
infrastructure, trade

42.Development of Middle	26%	42%	29%	 4%
 Eastern petroleum resources

43.Early industrialization and 	17%	39%	38%	 8%
modernization in the Middle East

44.The repatriation of Middle 	5%	33%	47%	17%
Eastern wealth: nationalization 
of foreign-owned assets

45.The struggle for control 	15%	44%	35%	 7%
of petroleum the impact of 
nationalization

46.Regional and international 	 5%	25%	48%	22%
trade	

47.The economic impact of Arab 	 4%	32%	49%	17%
socialism

48.The oil weapon and its 	30%	48%	19%	 5%
effects (1973, 1978)

49.Debt and dependency on 	10%	31%	40%	19%
foreign capital	

50.Land reform & other economic 11%	41%	37%	13%
initiatives

51.Regional economic disputes	7%	35%	40%	18%

Social and Cultural Issues      High    Medium   Low   None


52.Nationalism, Arab 		14%	42%	32%	11%
literary revival

53.Islamic response to West: 	51%	39%	 8%	 3%
reform and resurgence


54.Ethnic and religious 	38%	41%	20%	 2%
minorities

55.The new middle class	 	7%	48%	34%	10%

56.Development of professional 	14%	47%	29%	10%
military and the bureaucracy

57.Changing roles of women	24%	44%	27%	 5%

58.Changes in family structure	12%	34%	41%	 8%

59.Demographic changes: 	20%	45%	29%	 6%
urbanization and the population 
explosion

60.Expansion of educational 	 5%	40%	43%	13%
opportunities


61.Social class and social 	13%	41%	33%	13%
function


62.The forces of tradition and 	34%	47%	13%	 5%
the forces of change

63.The new fundamentalism	44%	45%	 8%	 3%

64.Life in the countryside: 	 7%	28%	45%	21%
the fellah

Table 3
What countries are covered in the course?
	Egypt			91%
	Israel			90%
	Iran			87%
	Iraq			84%
	Lebanon			84%
	Saudi Arabia		83%
	Syria			80%
	Jordan			76%
	Turkey			73%
	The Gulf States		69%
	The Yemens		55%
	Libya			50%
	Algeria			39%
	Morocco			35%
	Tunisia			33%
	The Sudan		33%
	Afghanistan		30%
	Other			30%

Note: In the questionnaire, the countries were listed alphabetically. For convenience, they are arranged here according to frequency of selection.

Table 4

Number of Most Frequently Cited Texts						Citations
Goldschmidt, A. A Concise History of the Middle East.		43
3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988.

Bill, J.A. & Springborg, R. Politics in the Middle East.	39
3rd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1990.

Peretz, D. The Middle East Today. 5th ed. New York:		29
Praeger, 1988.

Congressional Quarterly. The Middle East.				20

Mansfield, P. The Arabs. 3rd ed.						17

Smith, C.D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.		16
St. Martins Press, 1988.

Fisher, S.N. & Ochsenwald, W. The Middle East: A History.	14
4th ed.

Anderson, R.R., et al. Politics and Change in the			12
Middle East.

Elon, A. The Israelis: Founders and Sons. New York:		10
Penguin, 1981.

Esposito, J.L. Islam: The Straight Path. New York:		 9
Oxford University Press, 1988.

Fernea, E. Guests of the Sheik. An Ethnography of an		 9
Iraqi Village. New York: Doubleday, 1965.