S
REVISED
?
.03-78
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Senate Committee on University Priorities
?
Memorandum
TO: Senate
RE:
School of Criminology External Review
FROM: ?
John Waterhoie/
Chair, SCUP
Vice Presided. Academic
DATE: ?
August 8,
The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External
Review Report on the School of Criminology together with the response from the
School and comments from the Dean of Arts.
Motion:
That Senate concurs with the recommendations from the Senate Committee on
University Priorities concerning advice to the School of Criminology on priority
items resulting from the external review as outlined in s.03-78
The report of the External Review Committee for the School of Criminology was
submitted on November 15, 2002 following the review site visit October 2 -4, 2002.
The response of the School was received on March 10, 2003 followed by that of the
Dean of the Faculty of Arts on March 19, 2003.
SCUP recommends to Senate that the School of Criminology and the Dean of Arts be
advised to pursue the following as priority items:
Undergraduate Studies
SCUP has been advised that the School has already taken a number of steps to
improve course accessibility while maintaining undergraduate enrollments including:
. Increasing the number of tutorials
• Increasing the TA budget;
• Offering additional distance education sections of popular undergraduate
courses;
• Using funding provided by the Dean to recruit a lecturer which will enable faculty
to devote more time to the graduate program.
As a result of the above measures, the School has already seen a decrease in the
course full turnaway rates. In future, the School is encouraged to continue to monitor
the course full turnaway rates and to explore practical solutions to address them.
With respect to the proposal to develop a Legal Studies minor/diploma option,
SCUP has been advised that there will be no significant resources required and that
alternative methods of delivery for this program will be explored. SCUP requests that
an academic plan (including resource implications) be developed and presented to the
Dean but otherwise supports the School's intention to offer a Legal Studies option.
Graduate Program
SCUP was advised that this year's graduate student intake was very strong and that
additional graduate course offerings are now available in the Spring and Fall semesters.
The School is urged to work closely with the Dean of Graduate Studies around the
issues of the expansion of the PhD program and the development of coursework and
executive MA programs. In addition, it is the School's responsibility to ensure that
appropriate physical, fiscal and human resources are available to support these
initiatives.
Research
The use of the Criminology Research Centre as a coordinating mechanism for the
management of the numerous and complex research activities of the School is already
underway. The Office of Research Services and the School should maintain their
dialogue and their experimentation in the area of contract overhead percentages in
order to continue to improve communication and understanding between the two areas.
SCUP notes the success of Criminology faculty in obtaining external grants and their
good record of publication of monographs and book chapters. However, in view of the
comments by the external reviewers, the faculty of the School are encouraged to
consider the balance of publication outlets and to submit more of their work to peer
reviewed journals.
Staffing
The School Director and the Dean's Office should meet in order to identify and address
the concerns around staffing identified by the review team.
Relations with Senior Universit
y
Administrators
SCUP is of the opinion that the earlier issues around grant overheads and ethics that
may have contributed to this recommendation have since been resolved. In view of the
vagueness of the external reviewers' recommendation, the Director of the School is
advised to consult with faculty members to see if any particular issues need to be
addressed and to deal with them accordingly.
end.
C:
R. Gordon, Director, School of Criminology
J. Pierce, Dean of Arts
2
1
--j
7
SCUP O3- )JJ
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSi'r
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
MEMORANDUM
TO: ?
All members of SCUP
FROM:
?
Dr. Robert Gordon, Director, School of Criminology
RE:
?
External Review Response
DATE: ?
June 24, 2003
Please find attached a breakdown of the output of the School's faculty since 1996. I have
provided separate sheets covering the areas of research funding, publication of books,
publication of book chapters, and publication of peer reviewed journal articles.
Please note that the research funding does not include contracted research activity that is
not administered by the University. Several faculty undertake extensive research under
. these kinds of arrangements. The breakdown also does not include funding to Centres
and Institutes (e.g. the Centre for Restorative Justice) which conduct research as part of
their mandate.
The peer reviewed journals do not include the two journals mentioned by the reviewers,
but do include other national and international journals which are considered to be of
importance for those working in particular fields (e.g. the International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, the British Journal of Criminology, and the Canadian Journal of Aging).
Other publications ((e.g. reports) are not listed.
/ I
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 2003
Vice President
ACADEMIC,
I.
V
60
9-,
CO
30
CD
CO
V
V
0
C)
0
CD
CL
0
CL
-a, 0
0
DC
CD
CD
C)
CD
CD
0.
..
13
Z 6fl Cl) Cl)0 -1 Cl) 61)6
CD
r
0 . 0 0 — -n 0
a ?
2. 2.
?
CD
C 2.
03
Q. ?
CD
CD
(I) ?
C) CD C
C)
?
C)
C)
?
.
?
.
C) C
0 ?
D•CDCDCDC000C
a.a)-,03WC)Q
DC ?
o -33
C
C 6)
cnR3
0
?
a)
C C
c
1,0 N
?
(1) 31) 6
1)
(fl
?
a,
I
CD ?
C
m
ID
2. m:
?
(DO ?
C)
E03o
g.g. ?
-n
5
.E' ?
-
C
Oc
—
030
D ?
:
DCC
DC
CL ?
CL c ?
DCC
MUT
N) P.3 30 CS)
0
0000
0
000
000
V
ID
CD ???
(060
6060
-.1-si
fA6 q Cn
DC ?
lCD 'dO,-
?
fa
(J€ACDlo
99
o
!'
P' !'
?'Ioa
?
-'
Y' ?
000000 LO CACl) .a)
o
00000001
0 0 0 0 0
or
006.30
00
C) )
Cl) ?
U) Cl)
(I)
Cl) Cl) Cl)
CI)
-
n
-n -n
03 03
-.
C -. C CC:)
5
) ?
)
T
.
CD 3
CD
a:
. CD .
?
CD
Q
?
?
a)
a
.-Cc
? . .
g
!.g
DC ?
2
.
a
C
Ia
g
?
?
? ?
I
)DCCD6nCD
IW
I
c
?
Cfl
Cn
Ci
C - C ?
CD
CD
,
CL CD
0
0)
?
?
CD
0)
CD ?
?
?
1)00'
0CDC0
03 ?
?
m
CD CD
0
C)
.
?
?
(D
a,1,
?
CD
0303
-
C)
?
C - )
?
?.
U) rCfl
CL
DC ?
V
a. ?
C)
CD ?
ID
. ?
a). ?
-
CD ?
CD
03 ?
DC
C) ?
1)
C)- ?
C)
.03
?
0
N)
0
IJ ?
00060(0(0
000)0(0(0
N)N)FS)-
9o)pCD-si
N)
U)
0
0
0000(0(0
0000(0(0
N)C.)-OVCD
IS3
?
CS)
0
tS)
0
0
0
N)
6,
0)
. ?
6,CID
(A6A6,
!' ?
C0CflN)
6CD
.•uibi•o•co
N)
O 'bP'
C.) N)
.3
—
p
0
Cn
- 00
00
O
Qô
00000000o0
e
nmC)000
()> '1
l
o
w
030)0303 00)30
C) a.C) ?
030)0303
P-c
0)D3.
?
CD -
cn
a) ?
gg,;
EL
CD
CD
CD CD Cl)
CD CD
, i
,,
i , ?
.
?
,
?
)
?
1) CC) 1)1)
?
Ca) 0—
Oo
CD
CD CD
CD
C) ?
CD
0030303D3
.0
PCCDCDCDCD
-G)0C)C)0 0()
aaaa macn
C C) ?
0
—
??
0
a
C,
03
?
03 ?
CD
2.
CC)
03
?
03
.3.
CD ?
a.
tT
?
CD
- ?
a
• ?
C ?
3
CD•
-a ?
03
ID ?
a
0 ?
C-
C ?
(I) ?
-
_ ?
CD
CD ? - C) -
S.
DC-.O ?
n
?
g ?
-
C) ?
C,
03
-
?
-
03-
.0
?
-
C ?
- - 0.
CD
a). ?
—
3 ?
-1
0)
co
0
CD
0
0
03
CD
N)-sN)N)---0(000(0(060 ??
(0(0
--
000003000W9C0096D
T
??
(OVa,
C)0)
- -.
000000(0
000000(0
-N)0-V
??
to
(0(0
..1I
CD
(0 CO
V V
0
0
033 ?
DC
0333ft3fl6,6,6, -
0 U) . V CD 0 - 00
CD
000-01000000M
00
0
0
0000000
0000(1)00 -J
CD
-
0)
0
(060
0
(0
V
9(01
N) N) -
00
00
0
3D
V
CD
N)
00
00
[1
Cfl(flCflCfl(I)
(n
(fl C)) I n
CI)
'''CI
0000
C
ID
0
ID
I
C
2.
C)
3
C)
U)
.
CflCI)Q)CflCflCflCflU)OZ
RRRomammom
(I) (I)
. ?
Cl)
.
(I) ?
0 ?
<3
0 C
92.9.2. w
?
C) ?
2.
C)
a - IDZa.
o2
ID
C)
ID
C) —
3
U)
?
C) ID
IIII
0
2 a°0
CL
30(Pfl
wIn ?
-C)
00 op
o
J,)
A) CD
—= ?
002
g .
ocr)
-DC)
m-
Ow
ID
0
0
3
Dl
0
DDICflCfl(flI
DQ)COU)
I
C)
ID DI
(fl
TtU)DI
(flWCl)
1w
CI
0III
(D
3
?
(D
M
C)
g
c
•-
000
(m
; •
ic
(no
.
In
°o
:D
C)
lDID
G)
G) ?
OC)
20
IOC)
C)
a'G)
z
il
C
ID
0.
0 ?
-
ID
0
10
C)
3
)>CflU)
(00
I ?
(I)Q)
(000
1)0
.000 ?
1000 ?
Q be
II
m c c
33
a. 2...
I C)
C.
C)
C)
0(D
(nIh
??
)
mm(no ?
00
C
C) C)
- ?
00
D 0 0 0 (0 10 0 0 0 (0
10
(0
FQ
D 0 00(0 (0 000 (0 10
(0
0)
9
C)
C)3 be
be be be
0
be be
o—
in
o9- . oa 0
S4
0
0010000
0 - 0 0
C)
100000
-
0 0 0 0
0
Ms
CY
0
3
-
U)
In
g
ID
CI
10010(0 ?
(01 ?
II
IUD ID
?
(CI ?
10.1
I I010) ?
0)1 ?
II
cl
I
I
I I()(.)O(0
100010
000(0
??
?
(CI(CI
??
((DI
1<1
II
II
I
H
I I
I
???
(0
—
co
(0 ?
10
I0C0ID(0I0I0(0(0lI0
I0(DI0I0(0C)4I]0
(0
i--------
(0 (0 CC (0 (0 C0 (0(0
I
be) I
0fl bebefA -I
I(0C)00OWIU-AU')MI0T
I
IPPP A
Ib
ObOOOI I
I
I
Ia-
00
b
0001000
000(000000001
0 000 01
I
I
C (CI C') I\)
0 0 0
D
C
)
(I.)
(CI
00
--0
(D
0
C'C
0
(.1w
0
0
0
0
Abe
be
0-I
I' ?
—
-.
0 CD U)
D0(00
D00
D
D
0
0
0)
0 0
0
3.
00
0 CL
cr
(DIn
0
0
0
0
C)
C
0
03
3
0
CL
0
0
DI
Q
0
miii
dc
tD ?
)
cn
?
-0
C)
CI ?
03
i c_
a.
. C
00
ai
a. fu
C)C
01
U
r
C
=
-n
C
=
C(n
=P)
Ca
03
D 00 -1
M
-4
C)
C)
DI ?
.
3
ID ?
ID
DI
In
0
.
?
0 ID
IC -
DI_.
(
?
ID
C) a
DI
-
-.
to
D
°
5 .
.
S
:
?
n
. ?
;)
03 ?
0..
....
In_
••••
3, -
C)
.
!'
m
DI
to
C)
o
ca
ID
P3
b
—
>
CD
.
) ?
0
'
En
j.fl
•
.
.
n ?
to ?
col
:g
ca
t,
ID
-)
?
0
11
?
Lk cD
P ?
CD 610
C) ?
w
.3
CD
3.
.
jn
5 .
3
0.
C
3
M
CD
9:
DI
ID
CD ? 0
;
E
0.
0
C)
In
0
In
0.
m
a.
0
1\) D)II)rs) I
3
3
) CD
(.0
(.0
-4
CD
(0
-4
(.0
CD
-4
(0
?
(0
0
0t3
0 0
I\)
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0 I
m
£
,i
c.
ii
c.
D 0000-4
-I
-4-<
C)
?
I
a'
D3
?
o 0(0303
ID
ID0.IDC<X(0
DI
C
0 ?
ID
?
0
a,
or
•
g-00
C) C
Ca C
C)
a' ?
_ • C, ?
DI
C C
CL
050-<
U) ?
ID
-
0 C
c
a.
a.
.<
ED
0
c
c...
>
m
) a. -1
t.
>
3
5.
1rr-m
>>
t
(DID
33
C)'t
:3 0
ID
-
?
CD
5
3
——
In30,
03
cb
a.
a. a.
0
0
Ca
——
C)C)
a.
(D
cl
m
DI
In
CL
CD
U3
w
aa.°
0301
C)
3
0
D
a.
DI
2
CD
(P
fl
C)
.
lb
a.
! •.
CL ?
CL
a
ID
ID
0.0.
0
En
0301
03
(DID
a.
(PIn
-
C
CL
0
m
CL
U)
ID
3.
0
5 •
P
3_
'
a
I
0 0 CD (.0
0 0
CD 0-
C)
0
3
0 0
CD
(P
In .
0 0 0 0
0 0 CD CD
0 CD
?
J
0
N)
0
0
CD 0
J -
0 0
N)
0
N)
0
N)
0
-
0
0
P.)
(*3
(71
ii
Cc
ii
0
P
DI
3
DI
D ?
0
2. w
-
ID
D S
•
C)
3 03
. ?
3
C•<
5 ID N)
a.
1 a.rn I
m.
3 <
.1
3
.3
3 0
0
N)
CD
CD
- N
0
0
0
N)
0
CD
(0
-
V
flU hJ !L
J
w -
gi
oa
;
-
H
' r
C) -
3 ?
3
a
?
a
a ?
a
m
-t
p
cn
g g
-
3 .
5
a
.oC)
M-'
U
0.
PC,
U
U
z'9
C)2
-a
a a
[
II
U
L
j
3
a
.
p
naaa
:a &oa-- ?
-aa
--t<a=._.a
:-
L ?
C)5
-
ol
0g'
?
o
H •Wii
a
OD
?
a ?
C ?
35:3_ 3.__C)_.
-.
n
fl!
Lp
a
C)
;-< ?
a
!
<; U
H 9
U
IM
I
a
2
1..
.,e
mm- 0r
uui
iI1!.
?
U
!
2
?
•
1.
?
3
;
?
- ?
e
?
8
U
U
CL
2Oo
?
-n
C)
12.
2
•12
Hig
63
In
CD
g)
C)
CD
CD
ra
•0
5
0
a
0.!
C
'
CD
CD
CDG,
m
C,,
o ?
Cb
Inc
uq
—
0-...
CD ?
C
-'J
0
4
S
CD
9
0
CD
rn
fl a
IL
?
CD
?
0
0.
CDU)U))D
—
-
oCI)
=
CD
. CD
to
c).
0
CD PCmomoamaa
CD0
CC) 5
CD
?
- C) U)
U) U) U)
. 000000
Q ?
t2
CD
cn
CDWU)
33
?
P)
<
3 3
C
nmmmmmm>>>>>z
CC CC ?
CC CO ?
U)C/C
U) C!)
= = = = = = =
U) 0U)
U)
U)
00000
2.9.9.9.2.
CDCDCD CC)
CD
CD CD CD CD CD
z
CD
-i
CD
—C
-I
CO - — 10 - CO (Il
CC)
o ;
CC)
CC)
5
CD
3
CC C
.
C
ID O ID
0
CD 0
0. ?
0. ?
0. ?
0. ?
-' 0 0.
?
.
;' • 3
?
-CQ ?
CD ?
'
?
. .
E
C.
?
3
?
CD ?
3
00 0<'<
:G)c)CD
CD ?
?
3c,002
c,a.c)oE
CD ?
PC ?
CD
77
3
Ch
U)
?
OCD ?
CD0.0.Q.
000
-n ii ii rj -ri r1
=
CC
=
m
=
fl
U)
CC)
> m
=
CCC
=
-
TI
=
1 -n
CC
= =
m
U)
U)
>
=
'i
C
m
=
C
ii
=
C
>
U)
U)
CC)
C/)
C
?
0 ?
0
?
2. ?
2.
PC
CD ? --
I3 10 - TO ?
-
0
I.
?
r.
1
L
0
CD
ODOOODO ?
?
CO 0 33 ?
m
-. -.
?
0 0 ?
0
a gg
M
Om
CCC CN CD CD N
?
C1 ?
Ch
000
CD
C/)U)O)
CD CD
1
=
CC
=
1
CC
=
-fl-n>>
=
C
=
U)
U)
U)
U)
=
C
(I)',)
D)D)
.
1.
M
a s
?
L
s . -a ..s ..s
S S
.3
G3 ?
..a
S & ...& &
.
CD
-I
CD
0
C)
03
CD
)
lb
D
IT
-
CD
R
7j
co
CQ
wa
fa
to
•
?
12
0
? -
•
?
. •
CD
O 0-00W C C 0003 )
?
0303 -
00CD(D'<
r r r C)
?
C)
?
CDCD__
CD CD ?
0CD0
C) ?
C)
?
C,'
CD CD ?
CD
3
=r
in
aa
CD ?
ggo
c_c.(flU)
?
03
00
?
3(0
CD CD ?
w
mmmmmm>-tnmmm-n>-nmm-nmm
CCCCCCCCCCCCCO3CCCCCCO3
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CD ? -
.
q.
SCUP O3-Ofl.
• ?
. ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
/ %
t1t
Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts
?
. ( ?
9 2003
MEMORANDUM
?
.
\ ?
€d:fnC
To: ?
John Waterhouse ?
From: ?
John T. Pierce
?
rs
VP Academic ?
Dean of Arts
Subject:
Criminology External Review ?
Date: ?
March 18, 2003
Introduction
In general, this is a very positive review which speaks favourably of
Criminology's leadership, the quality of its faculty and students, research
productivity and capacity to manage change. An overarching concern was
expressed about "the difficulties the School is currently facing in sorting out
priorities about its resources and programs." A number of recommendations
and suggestions are made to improve the situation. I wish to comment upon
these within the structure of the external review report and the context of the
School's response to the report.
Undergraduate Studies
The review team believed that the undergraduate program should be pared
back in order to redirect resources to the graduate program. I support the
School's conclusion that this is an ill-advised strategy. This would be a
disservice to many qualified students trying to enter Criminology and to the
Faculty of Arts which must maintain its share of enrollments. The School has
put forward some practical, low-cost solutions to maintaining enrollments,
such as hiring a lecturer, expanding the TA budget, revising pedagogy,
reviewing enrollment caps, and exploring the use of more distance education
courses.
The School also believes it has the capacity to undertake a Legal Studies
program. I would not support this unless and until there is a proper business
plan that weighs the benefits of this initiative against the cost in time and
money to the Graduate Program.
Graduate Program
The School wishes to expand the size of the PhD program which I would
support so long as certain conditions are met relating to resource issues such as
space, financial resources and supervisory capabilities. The Dean of Graduate
Studies should be consulted on the feasability of such a move.
....
?
.
?
....
?
..
/0.
The review team recommended, and the School concurs, that graduate students
should not be involved in admission and funding decisions of their existing
and possible future cohorts.
If the graduate program is to expand, more graduate courses must be offered.
The School supports the recommendation of the review team in this regard and
believes there is existing and latent potential to do so.
At the MA level, there is also support for a coursework MA and an Executive
MA. This can only be done after careful and close consultation with the Dean
of Graduate Studies. Certainly the prospect of premium fees for the Executive
MA could influence the comparative viability of this program.
Research
Given the number of Research Centres and Institutes functioning within
Criminology, the review team wisely suggested a co-ordinating mechanism.
This is now being done through the Criminology Research Centre.
The review team observed that notwithstanding the scholarly activity and
productivity of members of the School, more effort could be devoted to
publishing in "high prestige peer reviewed journals". This concern has been
communicated to faculty. Clearly more could be done in this area although I
have been assured by the Director that peer reviewed journal articles remain an
important part of the publishing record. I might also add that given the success
of faculty in SSHRC grant competitions, external referees do not necessarily
share this concern.
On the subject of contracts and grants, the review team identified
communicative problems between ORS and faculty within Criminology. ORS
was seen as a bottleneck with researchers responding by taking their grants
and contracts outside the University. The Response to the External Review
suggests that actions have been taken to improve the situation over the next
two years.
Staffing
A reference is made to "dramatically increased workloads and staff stress". My
office will be working with Criminology to determine the origins and solutions
to these problems.
Governance
I believe the present Director has done a commendable job at building
consensus and fostering a co-operative and collegial environment.
..
If.
Relations with Senior University Administrators
Given the lack of specifics in this section, I am unable to comment. The Dean's
office has had a positive and close working relationship with Criminology. I
will leave it to SCUP to determine if any further action needs to be taken with
respect to some other senior University administrator(s).
John T. Pierce
JTP/rt
Cc: T. Perry, Associate Dean, Arts
R. Gordon, Director, School of Criminology
3
.
. ?
......
?
/2.
.....
SCUP O3-
On'•
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITy
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
I
To: ?
Dr. John Pierce, Dean of Arts
Ms. Laurie Summers, Director, Academic Planning
From: ?
Dr. Robert Gordon, Director, School of Criminology
Re: ?
External Review Report
Date: ?
March 7, 2003
Please find attached a copy of the School's response to the above captioned report.
/
f/•
CR
EMC
..
Ii.
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY ?
. .
0-
RESPONSE TO EXTERNAL REVIEW
Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., Professor and Director.
Paul Brantingham, J.D., Professor and Associate Director (Graduate Programme)
Gail Anderson, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Associate Director (Undergraduate
Programme).
INTRODUCTION
The School is pleased to receive what we consider to be an overall positive
evaluation by the external review team. Appropriate notice has been taken of the various
comments, criticisms and suggestions offered by the reviewers and their sage advice on a
number of matters and issues affecting the School.
The School is particularly grateful to the reviewers for their invaluable advice on
aspects of the School's programmes, particularly the proposed new programmes in the
graduate area.
The external review report has been examined and discussed by the School's three
main committees: the Executive Committee; the Undergraduate Programme Committee;
and the Graduate Programme Committee. The responses to the reviewers'
recommendations that follow are based upon the deliberations and conclusions of those
committees.
RECOMMENDATION 1
It is recommended that the School reduce the number of courses offered at the
undergraduate level even at the cost of reducing its overall number of undergraduate
students. This also means living with a rate of student(course) turn away that is higher
than that of many other disciplines. Reducing the number of courses could be
compensated in part by increasing the number of students in the distance education
courses, in the ethics courses, and in the field practice.
This recommendation suggests that the School should reduce the number of courses
offered at the undergraduate level and so reduce the number of students in the
programme. The reviewers suggest that the turn-away rate, presently one of the highest in
the Faculty of Arts, should be simply accepted. The goal of this recommendation is to
divert faculty currently teaching in the undergraduate programme to graduate teaching to
enable the School to increase the number of courses offered at the graduate level. This
will allow more graduate (particularly Ph.D.) students to be admitted.
• ?
While we agree that support does need to be given to the Graduate Programme, we
disagree most strongly that this should be done at the expense of the Undergraduate
Programme The Undergraduate Programm& is very strong, extremely popular and very
successful. Its popularity is clearly reflected in the high turn-away rate and reducing this
turn-away rate has been, and continues to be, a concern of the School and the Dean of
Arts.
There are several reasons why a reduction in the size of the Undergraduate Programme
would be inappropriate:
Reducing undergraduate classes would reduce the pool of students who
intend to enter our graduate programme.
• Reducing undergraduate classes would reduce the number of T.A. and
T.M. positions available for graduate students, the majority of whom rely
upon such positions for financial support while in the programme.
• A reduction in undergraduate classes would fly in the face of larger
University policies of increasing access.
The School feels that there are several ways in which the size of the Undergraduate
Programme can be maintained, and even increased to reduce the course turn-away rate,
while simultaneously providing more teaching resources for the graduate programme.
• The School, like other departments, could hire at least one lecturer to teach
between six and eight undergraduate courses each year. This would
immediately allow interested faculty to shift from undergraduate to
graduate teaching.
• Interested faculty should receive tutorial relief (i.e., three contact hours) if
they are willing to teach a three contact hour graduate seminar course in
addition to their assigned two courses per semester. This is an effective
and relatively low cost way of mounting more graduate courses and is a
popular option amongst some faculty members. However, it will require
an appropriate increase in the numbers of funded T.A. base units.
Significantly, the availability of new base units would ensure that the
increased numbers of graduate students entering the programme receive
financial support.
• Popular undergraduate courses are being reviewed to determine whether
enrolment can be increased. This includes re-assessing seminar classes,
presently capped at 25 students, to determine whether they can be
converted into lecture/tutorial courses. The ultimate enrolment limits
would depend upon increases in the number of T.A. base units but
increased numbers of tutorials will mean increased financial support for
graduate students.
• ?
• Some existing courses are being considered for development as Distance
Education courses, as well as for on-campus delivery. This will serve to
increase the number of course spaces as well as the number of T.M.
Is,
positions available for our graduate students. Faculty are being approached
to determine their interest in either writing a Distance Education version
of a course themselves, or supervising a graduate student to write the
course, based upon the on-campus version.
• The enrolment in
Crim.369
(the ethics course) has been expanded from
36
to
50
students and is currently under development as a Distance Education
course.
• During the Spring 2003 registration period we made a concerted effort to
address the course full turn-away rate by adding tutorial/lab sections
where possible in some courses, and by increasing the maximum
enrolment in others. As a result, there was a significant reduction in our
turn-away rate. However, in order to continue with this reduction the
School will need an increase in the numbers of T.A. base units.
RECOMMENDATION 2
No new undergraduate programme that would require additional resources should be
undertaken.
This is a reference to a proposed major in Legal Studies.
The School agrees that in a time of scarce resources priorities should shift to the areas of
greatest need in the School (i.e., the graduate programme). Nevertheless, we believe that
a Legal Studies programme at the undergraduate level should be started beginning with a
low cost option in the form of a clearly defined minor in Legal Studies coupled with a
P.B. Diploma in Legal Studies. The minor and the diploma will cover essentially the
same ground and will require no new faculty resources or other resources.
The Legal Studies major programme had been approved, in principle, by School faculty
prior to the external review and was to be built, primarily, from existing courses in
criminology and other departments for which the new programme would act as an
umbrella. Some new courses may be required and some courses may need to be offered
more frequently if the idea of a major in Legal Studies is pursued. A minor/diploma could
be offered with no new courses and, therefore, no new resources.
The minor/diploma programme would be re-assessed after a period of time to determine
its success and, if popularity and resources allowed, the programme could be expanded to
include a major/honours programme in Legal Studies.
The targeted commencement date for the minor/diploma in Legal Studies is September
2004.
KI
lb
/
I
RECOMMENDATION 3
The School of Criminolog y should admit more graduate students, in particular Ph.D.
students. Only academic or pedagogical reasons slzouldjust?fy rejecting applicants
meeting the University's standards for admission.
The School agrees with this recommendation. The graduate programme will be
expanded through the admission of more students, particularly at the Ph.D. level. We
will phase in an increase in Ph.D. students over a two to three year period beginning in
September 2003. The size of the increase will be dependent upon the addition of new
teaching resources for the programme (see Recommendation 1). An incremental
expansion that maintains academic admissions standards and teaching quality is clearly
keyed to the availability of space and faculty resources.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Involving (graduate) students in admission and funding decisions which apply to their
colleagues is unethical and introduces Maithusian tendencies in the admission process.
The School has considered this issue as part of a broader adoption of a new,
comprehensive Policy and Procedure Manual.
The issue of graduate student involvement in admission and funding decisions was put to
a faculty vote following a period set aside for discussion. The ballot was returned on
March 6
th
.
Faculty voted to exclude graduate students on the Graduate Programme
Committee from admission and funding decisions, and from viewing confidential
materials relating to such decisions, and this policy is now part of the School's Policy and
Procedure Manual.
RECOMMENDATION
5
The School should increase the number of courses offered at the graduate level. One
way to achieve this would be to redesign and renumber some courses presentl
y
offered at
the undergraduate level and offer them exclusively as graduate courses. This will lead to
an increased participation offaculty in the graduate programs and will address a major
problem in the graduate program. To realise this change in a coherent manner, the
School will have to rethink its graduate pro grains.
The School agrees that it must increase the number of courses offered at the graduate
level. As a first step, teaching resources have been reallocated in order to increase the
number of course offerings for 2003-2004 to provide course work in all specialty areas
0
who
and to
have
provide
taken
advanced
their MAs
level
in the
(e.g.,
School
Crim
of
811;
Criminology.
Crim 831)
In
offerings
doing so,
for
we
Ph.D.
have
studentsincreased
/1-
the number of individual faculty members involved in graduate instruction. In addition,
we have begun to rotate teaching assignments to utilise more of our faculty in graduate
level instruction.
..
The School does not agree with the External Review Committee that it is never possible
to offer advanced topic seminars in dual advanced undergraduate/ graduate seminar
formats. The School notes that this is common practice in many major research
universities. We plan to experiment with this approach and will offer one advanced
forensics course on this basis during 2003-2004.
RECOMMENDATION 6
The School should go forward with the projected M.A. by coursework and practicum and
the Executive M.A. program but those initiatives should be monitored carefully.
The School will develop both an M.A. by coursework and practicum and an Executive
M.A. program over the next two academic years. Proposals will be brought forward
through normal channels in due course.
Planning for both the M.A. by coursework and practicum and the Executive M.A. has
commenced. The M.A. by coursework and practicum is being developed first, with a
target commencement date of September 2004.
?
S
The Executive M.A. Programme will be a special cohort programme chargin
g premium
fees and will require more extensive development. The target commencement date is
September
2005.
Discussions are underway to increase the School's graduate secretary position from part
time to full time to accommodate the increased workload.
RECOMMENDATION 7
The School should consider the creation of a federation of its research centres, institutes
and laboratories under the umbrella of the Criminology Research Centre in order to
consolidate and share administrative and grant-facilitation resources.
This existing federation has been more clearly defined by clarifying the administrative
functions of the Criminology Research Centre. Grants and contracts generated by the
various centres and institutes are now administered through the Centre which is
supported, in part, by monies returned from contract overhead charges as well as
budgeted administration charges in each grant.
/
. Discussions have been held regarding the feasibility of the Faculty of Arts grants
facilitator being available to faculty in the School of Criminology on a scheduled,
monthly or bi-monthly basis.
RECOMMENDATION 8
More faculty should publish in peer reviewed journals.
The School's extremely productive faculty already publishes in peer-reviewed journals.
Nevertheless, this recommendation has been passed to faculty who are encouraged to
publish further in such places.
RECOMMENDATION 9
The Office of
Research Services should take the initiative to conduct a full scale
consultation with the faculty in the School to find ways to smooth the process in which
grant and contract projects are processed and to remove bottlenecks in acceptance
procedures.
The recommended consultation has started. The School and O.R.S. has reached
agreement on a sliding scale of contract overhead percentages which is now in place for
an experimental two year period. Further meetings will occur to address other problems
as and when required.
RECOMMENDATION 10
The School of
Criminology and (a) Senior Administrator
of
SFU should make ever
y
effort
to dissipate misunderstandings and improve their relations with one (an)other.
A mutually beneficial and fruitful meeting has occurred between the School's Executive
Committee and a Senior Administrator. The School looks forward to continuing good
relations with the individual concerned.
iq
SCUP 03 - 017
..
Report of the External Review Committee on the
School of Criminology
Simon Fraser University
Maurice Cusson ?
Ecole de criminologie ?
Université de Montréal
Leslie W. Kennedy?
School of Criminal Justice ?
Rutgers University
Laureen Snider ?
Departement of Sociology
?
Queen's University
RECEIVED
NOV 15 2002
Vice President
ACADEMIC,
November 2002
M,
Introduction and general overview
To arrive at its conclusions, the External Review Committee consulted the following
written sources: 1- The Self Study Report of the School of Criminology SFU prepared by
the Director, the Associate Directors and the School administrator based upon the
deliberations of the School' s main committees and a School faculty discussion during a
meeting in June 2002; 2- The different appendices attached to the Self-Study; 3- The SFU
2002-2003 Calendar,
4- The Faculty's curriculum vitae; 5- Various other documents, including
the drafts outlines of the new programs projected by the School.
In addition, the External Review Committee visited the School site between
October 2-4, 2002. During these three da
y
s, the Committee met with the SFU senior
administrators, the School Director, the School executive committee, the School research
ethics committee, undergraduate and graduate students, and the School's staff. The
Committee also met the library's staff and the Director of Research Service.
During those meetings, we were assisted and enlightened by Dr. Nancy Olewiler of
the Department of Economics, SFU. Everybody spoke openly and answered our questions
in a straightforward manner.
The general impression the committee had from both the written material and the
site visit is that the people who make up the School operate, in general, in a collegial way.
. Faculty members appear enthusiastic and busy, and are involved in a number of interesting,
and very different, projects. The School's leadership appears democratic and generally
accepted by its members. However, the panel was struck by the difficulties the School is
currently facing in sorting Out priorities about its resources and programs. The collegial
model of decision making, well established in the School, has been successful in promoting
good relations among colleagues (which has been an issue in the past); however it may make
it difficult to take the tough decisions necessary to set priorities for the next five year period.
The panel believes, given the external and internal pressures on the school, it is now time to
make some difficult decisions on reallocating scarce resources.
I- Undergraduate studies
1. The magnitude ofthepro,grams
It is obvious that the undergraduate programs put a heavy burden on the shoulders of
the faculty and staff of the School of Criminology. Moreover, this burden risks becoming
even heavier in the near future, as indicated by the following-
The average undergraduate VIE in criminology from 1996-2002 was 500-600. Over the
last six years, the number of approved majors has ranged from 405-470 with a further
. ?
182-278 students declaring an intention to become criminology majors (Self Study
Rebft23)
?
.
?
..-..-
3
- Students are offered a wide variety of programs and degrees: major, major with honours,
minor, extended minor, post baccalaureate diploma, general certificate, advanced
certificate. Many of these may be taken in class or by correspondence.
- A wide range and high number of courses are listed in the calendar - in 2002-03, a total
of 56, excluding the practicum, field practice and thesis, were set out.
Over and above this already heavy load, the School plans on increasing enrolments
by approximately 10 percent a year. The long term goal is to allow the number of majors,
minors, and others to increase until every qualified applicant is automatically admitted (Self
Report Study,
p.
30).
This plan puts additional strain on a professoriate already putting much energy and
time into undergraduate teaching. Increasing the workload in this way, and to this extent,
is a matter of grave concern for the committee. Inevitably it will drain resources, leaving
only scraps for the graduate studies and for research. The review committee of 1993
recognized the danger of this strategy at that time, and advised: ((There is no need for the
SFU School of Criminology to be consumer driven: they have, and will continue to have
more "consumers" than they can accommodate') (p. 9).
We agree.. Moreover we question the assumption that increasing the size of the
undergraduate programs will increase resources for the School overall. The panel sees this
as an "adventure" or gamble and, in particular, questions the assumption that this will
necessarily benefit crucial goals such as increasing the excellence in the graduate program or
faculty research.
2.
Field Practice
In our discussions concerning the Field Practice Program, we were impressed with
the value that this brought to the School's overall undergraduate education. The present
programme appears to be operating in a sound fashion. We note that the field practice
instructor is eager to take on additional responsibilities, and keen to work on the graduate
practicum. A major concern is the bottleneck created by the limited access of
undergraduates to the ethics course. Increasing undergraduate seats in this course, by
offering additional sections, would facilitate the number of students able to take advantage
of field practice experiences.
3.
Distance Education and E-Learnitg
In addressing the problem of allowing a limited increase in the size of the
undergraduate programme without sacrificing graduate studies and research, the committee
was impressed with the opportunities afforded by the distance learning programs. The
School of Criminology should build on its historical advantage and jump on the band-'wagon
of c-learning by expanding its offerings and adding more students to these courses. This has
a number of advantages, particularly
,
in terms of relieving pressure on the Faculty. This
-. would beathst effective way of àlldwin unegradtiate enro1mnt to increase,
expanded registrants in these course would likely pay for the added tutor markers needed.
OD
4
• In addition, such a strategy might relieve pressure on classroom-space demands on canipus,
and address the high course turn away rate. The added bonus of this growth is the
possibility that more money would be made available for graduate students in tutor marking
positions. The panel was also impressed with the publication possibilities, as we were told
that course development resulted in textbook development by the Faculty.
We are aware that distance education cannot replace the teaching environment made
possible by student-faculty interaction in the classroom, particularly as the social as well as
physical distance of students from campus is markedly increased. However, with the heavy
demand already existing, this appears to be a sound strategy to address some part of this
excess flow of students.
4. Legal Studies
The panel examined new initiatives that have been considered in the undergraduate
area, including the proposed legal studies program. We recognise that this is a revival of a
previously developed program. The panel heard that some Faculty members felt that they
were inadequately consulted in the latest version of the proposal. We would encourage the
administration of the School to remember that, when planning new programs and
conceptualizing substantive offerings, it is important to actively seek input from those most
directly affected by these changes.
As for the merits of the legal studies program, the committee feels that no initiatives
that require additional resources devoted to undergraduate training should be undertaken at
this time. However, if the legal-studies program can be viewed as a more intelligent use of
resources, or as more pedagogically sound, such a programme is justified. The panel is
divided on the intrinsic merits of adding a legal-studies program but we leave it to school to
sort this out.
II- Graduate program
1. Admission
The School's graduate program, in our opinion, is too small: not enough students,
not enough courses, not enough faculty participation and involvement. In particular, the
school does not admit sufficient numbers of Ph.D. students to meet existing or future
market demands, or to maximize the research of faculty. Although the numbers have
increased during recent years, the admission system appears to constrain growth in the
number of students entering the program.
- ?
--
According to the documents we received, during the last three years, the graduate
students intake was as follows:
Year ?
Masters
?
Ph.D.
2000 ?
10 ?
3
2001 ?
18 ?
5
2002 ?
18 ?
4
Keeping in mind that the School has 24 faculty, the panel is of the opinion that the
School, Faculty and prospective students would benefit from increasing these numbers,
especially at the Ph.D. level.
The low enrolment cannot be explained by the School receiving a small number of
applications. In the Self Study Report, we read: We receive many more qualified
applications than we can take. For the 2002 fall semester intake, we had 84 applicants. Our
rejection rate was 56 percent. Virtually,
all
of these applicants met the University's minimum
standards for admission to graduate study (p. 36).
Why are many good students rejected? Is it because the faculty members are already
stretched to the limit? With less than 24 faculty, many other university departments admit
considerably more graduate students. The Committee is of the opinion that the
Malthusianism of the School of Criminology in SFU has to do with a philosophy that
requires
all
students to receive financial support. It was said that the School cannot admit
more students because it can only fund a limited number of students. The panel finds no
reason why admission decisions need to be connected to funding decisions. Why refuse
students who could pay for their tuition with their own or parents' money? Some of the
pressure to keep numbers small may also come from graduate students, who sit on
admission committees. Although they do not set admission policy, graduate students
expressed concern that too many students would negatively affect their own access to office
space and computers. This leads us to examine the role of students in the admission
process.
2. Students Voting on Admission
To pull the graduate program out of its present state of underdevelopment, the panel
is concerned about the School's policy that allows students. to vote on the admission of their
colleagues. We are united in our opposition to the practice of allowing students to making
funding decisions. Confidentiality and conflict of interest concerns are raised regarding
access to private files. Involvement in admissions decisions, as well, can lead to a suspicion
that some students might try to drive the competition out, allowing a small number to have
access to available office space, computers, TA contracts, scholarships, and the like. Wliile
we would encourage the School to involve students in program policy and curriculum
development, care needs to be taken in involving them in admissions and funding. A point
from the students in support
. of .
this practice relates to eneed to maintain a clear and
transparent process in decision making. We feel that this could be ensured through a clear
statement of criteria for selection and decisions about funding.
2y
A last objection was raised against the suggestion of admitting more graduate
students. The panel was told that there were not sufficient employment opportunities
for
students after they graduate. We do not believe this to be a correct assessment of the
employment sector from a national and international perspective. In addition, we feel that
there is a real problem in developing a national and international reputation for excellence in
• ?
the absence of a strong and productive Ph.D. program.
3.
Additional Course Offerings
The Self Study uncovered another problem: the need to offer more graduate courses.
In 1999, the School apparently offered 7 graduate courses, 8 in 2000, and 7 in 2001. Also, in
((most years we mount none of the advanced courses needed by Ph.D. students) (...) This
is clearly an issue that we need to address)) (p. 42).
The small number of graduate courses mounted each year presents particular
problems for students who come from the MA program into the Ph.D. because they have
already taken
all
the graduate courses available. The panel does not consider dual listing of
courses an appropriate way to address this problem. Having Ph. D. students sit in seminars
with undergraduates is just not acceptable. However, admitting more graduate students, and
more from other universities, would allow the school to diversify its course offerings..
Teaching more graduate students presents resource problems for a School facing
financial pressure such as this one. However, one way to achieve this would be to reallocate
teaching resources from the undergraduate to the graduate level. Currently, the School
offers 56 undergraduate courses as opposed to 7 graduate courses (although 15 graduate
courses are listed in the calendar). If undergraduate teaching was to be rationalized, this
could be achieved without additional cost. Note that the
SFU 2002-2003
Calendar
lists over
40 undergraduate CRIM 300 and CRIM 400 courses.
With more students, it will be possible to mount key PhD/MA courses on a regular
basis and to have more faculty teaching at the graduate level. With only 7 courses offered, as
is now the case, at least 17 faculty members have no opportunity to teach at the graduate
level.
This recommendation means that the School should re-evaluate both its graduate
and undergraduate programs and re-allocate some resources from the latter to the former.
4.
MA by Coursework and Practicuin
The panel also reviewed the new initiatives in the graduate area. The plan for the
MA by coursework and practicum
appears to meet a distinct need in the criminal justice fields
and is a welcome alternative to the existing MA by thesis. If carefully administered, it can
offer a way of addressing the lengthy completion period of the current program. It is COSt
effective in its use of existing faculty resources, and the field practice supervisor is prepared
to provide staff
7
In looking at
cohort based sfratefor i\L4 students,
we have mixed feelings about this
approach. We like the idea of encouraging quick movement and peer support to improve
completion times. However, we are not yet convinced that this program is practical, given
the different work habits, life st y
les and studying interests of graduate students. If the
programme is to be introduced, the School will need to carefully monitor it, and certainly
plans to do this. It may work well, given the School's record of success with a similar
programme at the honours level.
5. The Executive MA Program
The executive MA program appears to address a real need in the local professional
criminal justice community. It is touted as being self-sufficient and seen as a possible source
of revenue for the School. Based on the experiences of sirn.ilar programs, such as the MBA,
this may be true. However, these types of programs are not widely offered and may end up
being more costly to administer, in terms of faculty and staff time, than is expected. Care
should also be taken to ensure that implementation of this program takes place only after
wide and extensive consultation with
all
faculty members, especially those who would not
be directly involved in the course offerings or contract spin-offs of such a program and,
therefore, might feel excluded from the benefits of such an enterprise.
III- Research
1.
The Organization of the Research
Within the School of Criminology, one finds a number of Research Centers,
Research Groups and Research Laboratories. The Criminology Research Center is currently
administering 30 projects for nine faculty members. Overall, 285 work study students were
supervised through the CRC over the past seven years (Self study,
p.
52). Other centres,
institutes and laboratories are also active: the Centre for Restorative Justice, the Institute for
Studies in Criminal Justice Policy, the Feminist Institute for Studies on Law and Societ
y
, the
Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, the Crime Prevention Analysis Laboratory,
and The Forensic Entomology Laboratory. Researchers in these groups complain about not
having staff to facilitate grant writing and to administer the projects.
The CRC suggests that the School should locate funds for a half- time administrative
position to provide grant writing and fund management expertise to facult
y
. A convenient
solution to such a need would be for the diverse research centers, groups, institutes, and
laboratories to unite in a decentralised federation under the umbrella of the Criminology
Research Center in order to pool resources to pay for a research coordinator and part or full
time support person. This regrouping represents an appropriate and cost effective sharing of
resources without threatening the independence of researchers.
2.
The R.esearth Productivi'
- ?
In reviewing the research productivity of faculty, the panel was impressed with the
high level of activity by faculty in the School. Many texts, many reports, and a great deal of
.
S
• engagement in professional and community activities are evident. The faculty appear to be
very busy in institutes and have established excellent contacts with research, policy, and
community groups both locally and across the country.
The faculty appear to have responded well to the previous review panel which
encouraged greater grant activity and more intensive research. Particular success has been
achieved in building partnerships with other disciplines, and in attaining SSHRC-based
funding.
However, the panel is concerned that many faculty do not publish in high prestige
peer reviewed journals (such as Theoretical Criminology, Criminolog y
etc.). This has a direct
impact on the School's reputation and status. In addition, the reporting format of research
activities in CVs should be standardised. Refereed publications should not be mixed with
research reports. Monographs should be kept separate from book chapters, etc. In addition,
faculty should provide information on the number of graduate students supervised, the titles
of their dissertations, date of graduation or year of study, and about their participation in
supervisory committees, in setting comprehensive examinations, etc. Faculty should also
provide biographical information (e.g. list of recent publications) on the School's web site.
3. Bottlenecks
in
Administration of Grants and Contracts
It has been reported by many in the School that the Office of Research Services
poses a bottleneck to the contracts and grants activity of the School. Researchers simply
make their contracts outside of the University with the consequence that the University does
not benefit from these funds. According to both the researchers and Research Services, a
major obstacle apsto be charging for indirect costs (but the department maintains that it
des not receive any of these funds, further discouraging researchers from mounting
research projects through the University). While both faculty and administrators
acknowledge that large amounts of money are not being channelled through the University,
they disagree on the reasons for the impasse, and on whether amelioration is possible. The
result is a tense, unhealthy situation in which both sides lose. The panel urges the office of
research services to meet with faculty and staff at the School and hammer out ways to
address this issue. While we do not think that the university will recover
100%
of the
research and contract monies now going outside, the percentage that can be recovered
represents a substantial amount of money. It is not in the interests of faculty or university to
allow this situation to continue.
IV- Staff
Staff appear dedicated and committed to the mission of the School. Human
?
relations appear to be good both among staff and between staff and faculty. However,
?
University cutbacks, offloading of administrative tasks, and increased student numbers have
?
dramatically increased workloads and staff stress. In addition, new efforts at upgrading
?
S
technology for admissions and other activ ties have not been accompanied by technical
?
support for the school, nor by logistical arrangements to facilitate staff training. Within a
UA
9
limited school budget,
it
is difficult for the School to make and fund these arrangements
itself. These expenses should be paid by the University.
V- Governance
The current Director of the School of Criminology devoted a lot of time and energy
during his first term to building consensus, facilitating cooperation, and to peace-making.
While peace is always a work in progress, the School appears to be, at the present time, a
collegial environment. One result is that the School is blossoming with projects, a delightful
sight. However, because resources are limited, choices between projects, and tough
decisions about priorities, must be made. From what we know about the current leadership
and the
school climate, it should
be possible to make those choices in a collegial style, with a
minimum of acrimony. However it is absolutely crucial that senior officers in the school
make sure that
all faculty feel involved in the decision-making process.
VI- Relations of the School with senior University administrators
There is a long
history
of
misunderstanding
and
strained relations between the
faculty
of the School of
Criminology and SFU senior administrators. Solutions acceptable to
both parties
must be worked
out, but this can only happen after fraiik and full discussion of
all the contentious issues. Both sides should make every effort to dissipate the
misunderstandings and to start their relation on a new footing.
C^ff
p
Summary and recommendations
Overall, the School of Criminology has flourishing research groups, good levels of
external funding, and significant involvement with both professional and non-professional
communities. Faculty take their responsibilities to undergraduate and graduate students
seriously. As in any department, there are tensions and rivalries, as well as marked
differences in politics, preferred st
y
le of research, and orientation to the much fragmented
"discipline" of criminology (which is really many different disciplines and approaches).
With good and careful leadership the divisions and rivalries have been kept in check in
recent years. School administrative staff appear to be well integrated into the school,
although severely overstretched.
Tensions with senior University administration are palpable and should be addressed.
Part of the problem here lies in the administration's desire to steer a more graduate student
oriented, research intensive course in the future than was the case in the past. While
members of the School of Criminolog
y
, on the whole, agree with this objective and already
carry out reasonable levels of funded and unfunded research, many of the School's policies,
practices and habits of mind are still focused on delivering an excellent undergraduate
program. This is where the bulk of the School's resources are presently directed and faculty,
rightly or wrongly, believe that securing more resources and support for the School hinges
on excellence at this level. It does not appear that
all
the implications of such a change,
fiscal, administrative and psychological, have been addressed by senior administration. For
the benefit of ever
y
one, this should be done.
To sum up, the committee offers the following recommendations:
K-i
It is recommended that the School reduce the number of courses offered at the
undergraduate level even at the cost of reducing its overall number of undergraduate
students. This also means living with a rate of student turn away that is higher than that of
many other disciplines. Reducing the number of courses could be compensated in part by
increasing the number of students in the distant education courses, in the ethics courses, and
in the field practice.
R-2
No new undergraduate programme that would require additional resources should be
undertakei.
R-3
The School of Criminology should admit more graduate students, in particular Ph.D.
students. Only academic or pedagogical reasons should justify rejecting applicants meeting
the University's standards for admission.
. ...
.
C^q
I
R.-4
Involving students in admission and funding decisions which apply to their colleagues is
unethical and introduces Malr.husian tendencies in the admission process.
R-5
The School should increase the number of courses offered at the graduate level. One way
to achieve this would be to redesign and renumber some courses presently offered at the
undergraduate level and offer them exclusively as graduate courses. This will lead to an
increased participation of faculty in the graduate programs and will address a major problem
in the graduate program. To realise this change in a coherent manner, the School will have to
rethink its graduate programs.
R-6
The School should go forward with the projected MA by coursework and practicum and the
executive MA program but those initiatives should be monitored carefully.
R-7
The School should consider the creation of a federation of its research centers, institutes and
laboratories under the umbrella of the Criminology Research Center in order to consolidate
and share administrative and grant-facilitation resources.
More faculty should publish in peer reviewed journals.
R-9
The Office of Research Services should take the initiative to conduct a full scale consultation
with the faculty of the School to find ways to smooth the process in which grant and
contract projects are processed and to remove bottlenecks in acceptance procedures.
R-1O
The School of Criminology and the Senior Administrator of SFU should make every effort
to dissipate misunderstandings and improve their relations with one other.
30
