SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
110.
INTRODUCTION
INFRASTRUCTURE

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

TO:

Senate

FROM: ?

Jon Driver

- ?

Chair, SCUP and

Vice President, Academic

RE:

Department of Psychology

DATE: ?

April 8, 2009

The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External

Review Report on the Department arsychology, together with responses from the

Department and Dean of Arts & Social Sciences, and input from the Associate Vice

President, Academic.

Motion:

That Senate approve the recommendations from the Senate Committee on

University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of Psychology and the

•

Dean of Arts & Social Sciences on priority items resulting from the External Review.

The report of the External Review

Team*

for the Department of Psychology was

submitted in July 2008 following the review team's site visit. The site visit took place

early April 2008. The response from the Department and the response from the Dean

of Arts & Social Sciences were received in December 2008 and March 2009,

respectively.

The Review Team believes that "The Department has many outstanding attributes, and

it is competitive at the national and international level."

A number of recommendations were made by the Team which may further strengthen

the Department of Psychology.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of Psychology and the Dean be

advised to pursue the following as priority items.

Programmes

1.1

Undergraduate Programme

Continue to seek ways of offering courses more often to ensure students

are able to complete both introductory and advanced courses within a

reasonable amount of time.

• Consider establishing learning outcomes for the undergraduate

programme and determine appropriate course structures and instructional

• ?

formats to support these outcomes within the fiscal resources of the

Department.

• Review the workload of faculty associated with the delivery of writing

intensive courses.,

• Develop objective and publicly accessible indices of course and

programme quality and teaching excellence.

1.2Graduate Programme

Strive to make competitive financial offers to prospective graduate

students.

• Continue to improve the application and admission process by enhancing

communication between the Department and graduate students and by

better understanding and serving student choices and preferences.

• Comparatively review the course requirements against other clinical and

experimental psychology programmes within Canada.

• Review possible programme options that could attract premium fees.

Governance

• Consider developing an administrative model that includes a distinct

Clinical Area and that facilitates interaction across all areas, particularly

• ?

between clinical and experimental researchers.

o Continue to seek ways of encouraging wider participation of faculty

members in the governance of the Department.

• Ensure the lines of communication between the Department and the

Chair, the Department and the Dean's office and the Department and the

students are open and clear.

Infrastructure

Continue to monitor the space requirements of the Department and

develop contingency plans which accommodate the future expansion of

research programmes.

Research

• Continue to work with the Dean's office to facilitate grant applications and

research support; pursue externally funded research opportunities and set

the goal at 75% of funding from tn-council agencies.

• Work with the Dean to develop clear faculty renewal goals 2010/11 for

consideration by the Vice President Academic.

• Continue to build relationships with the Faculty of Health Science to

develop joint research initiatives.

* Review Team

• ?

Alison Sekuler (Chair) - McMaster University

Clive Seligman - University of Western Ontario

Shelagh Towson - University of Windsor

CC L Cormack, Dean, Faculty of Arts & Social Science

D Weeks, Chair, Department of Psychology

Faculty of

Arts and Social Sciences

MEMO

ATTENTION Bill Krane, Associate VP Academic

FacuLtyof

FROM Lesley Cormack, Dean, FASS

Arts and Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

RE Response to Psychology External Review

Street address

DATE March 16, 2009

Academic Quadrangle

Room 6168

Burnaby, BC Canada

V5A 1 S6 ?

I am very pleased to receive this external review of the Department of

Psychology. This review demonstrates that the Department is very strong, both

778-782-4415 (Teti ?

in terms of teaching and research, and I second the sentiments of the review

778-782-3033 (Fax) ?

committee that FASS, Psychology and SFU work together to ensure that it

www.sfu.ca/arts

(Web) ?

continues in this strong position.

I will not respond to each recommendation of the report, most of which I agree

Mailing address

with and commend to the Department. I see that the Department is open to the

A06168

suggestions of the review and indeed has begun to implement some of these

8888 University Drive

changes. In general then, I recommend to the Department that they take the

Burnaby, BC Canada

observations and recommendations of the committee seriously, as I believe

V5A 1 S6 ?

they are doing, and continue to strive for excellence in their teaching and

research programs.

Let me highlight a few aspects of this report.

Undergraduate Program

I note with approval that the quality of this program is seen to be excellent. The

Department is obviously appropriately concernedwith maintaining this quality

and I support them in this endeavour. With regardsto their concerns with the

W courses they are now offering, I urge them to make use of the resources now

available in the Dean's office for help, suggestions, and the training of lAs in

this enterprise. Further, white I appreciate the fact that budget cuts will create

challenges in the delivery of an excellent undergraduate program. I urge the

Department to develop priorities and to work on curriculum and pedagogical

revisions, in order to preserve what is fundamental to the curriculum and, if

possible, to improve course delivery and student experience. I have every

confidence that this process is already underway within the Department.

Graduate Program

I am sympathetic to the Department's concerns with regards to competitive

offers and TA funding. I believe that the Dean's office has provided as timely

resourcing as possible within a shifting and tight budget situation. I

particularly point the Department to the Review recommendations that speak

to equity and openness with respect to different requirements indifferent

SIMN FR/SR UNIVERSITY

THINKING OF THE WORLD

Faculty of

Arts

and Social Sciences

graduate streams. I would urge the Department to strive for transparency and

fairness, while acknowledging that this is a more nuanced issue than might

bethought. I would also suggest to the Department that they continue to

ensure that communication is sufficient and clear to graduate students.

With regards to the discussion about the relative merits of new premium fee

graduate programs. I have no opinion on this but would simply urge the

Department to make sure they have considered all the issues before proposing

to move one wayor the other in this direction.

Governance

In this area. the External Review suggests that more and wider participation of

faculty members in the governance of the Department would be beneficial,

particularly through the revitalization of a number of departmental

committees. I strongly agree with this recommendation and note with

approval that the Department is already beginning to implement this. I also

agree with the recommendation that open communication is fundamentally

important, especially in as large and complex a department as Psychology. Of

course, this also applies to communication between the Department and the

Dean's office, which should also be as open and complete as possible.

Research

I applaud the research success of Psychology and encourage the

benchmarki ng suggested by the external review of 75% external grant funding.

Of course, some areas have more access to grants 'and Larger grants) than

otherareas. (This is also true within FASS more generally, cautioning against

too direct a comparison, as is made in this external report.) On the other hand.

grants received are only an input measure, and so I advise as we read this

external review and other sim i tar reports that we should all be working to

develop more robust output impact measures.

The Dean's office has worked with and will continue to work with Psychologyto

facilitate grant applications, space allocations, and research support. Within

our Limited resources, I believe we have been doing an excellent job, just as I

believe that Psychology has made great success with limited support services.

Most external reviews point to the need for new faculty positions and this one is

no exception. Indeed, Psychology has been suffering from attrition for several

years (including through death), made worse since this external review bythe

fact that 3 people have taken the voluntary exit package. lam therefore aware

that Psychology has some serious needs in a number of areas, not Limited to

the neuroscience area mentioned in the review. That said, we are in a budget

situation in which only a minority of such positions will have any possibility of

being filled, and I therefore urge the Department to develop clear priorities with

regards to their greatest needs, which I can then take to the VPA in the yearly

faculty renewal exercise for 2010/11.

SIMON FUASF.R UNIVERSITY

THINKING OF

THE WORLD

Faculty of

Arts and Social Sciences

FinaLly, I want to agree with the external review that better cooperation between

Psychology and the Faculty of Health Sciences is highlydesirabte. I urge FHS

to find ways to include Psychology in its programs and to ensure that there is

not unnecessary duplication with programs already inexistence in

Psychology.

Conclusion

This is a strong external review for the Department of Psychology. They are to

be commended for the excellent work they have been doing in undergraduate

and graduate teaching and in world-class research. Most of the suggestions of

the external review committee are reasonable and easily impLementabte and I

seethe Department already taking steps to do so. The most intractable issues

have to do with funding and I urge the Department to develop strategies to

continue to aim for excelLence in a time of contracting budgets.

esLey al

Cc: W. TurnbulL, Acting Chair, Dept. of Psychology

SIMON FIlASIU UN1VkSITY ?

THINKING OF THE WORLO

FACULTY OF ARTS

AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

MEMORANDUM

DEPARTMENT OF

PSYCHOLOGY

DR.

DANIEL J. WEEKS,

CHAIR

Office: ?

RCB

5245

Attention: ?

Dr.

Lesley

Cormack, Dean

Date:

December

9, 2008

Phone:

778.7823358 ?

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Fax:

Email:

dwccks@sfu.ca

778-782-3427

Re:

External Review Response

MAILING ADDRESS

8888

Univei,ity

Drive

Burnaby, BC

Canada

VSA 1S6

Please find attached our response for the external review.

Daniel J. Weeks

Department Chair

cc: Glynn Nichols

;l.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY THINKING OF THE WORLD

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

RESPONSE TO EXTERNAL REVIEW

Overall, we were encouraged by the extremely positive tenor of the External Review.

With only a few exceptions, we felt that the review team formed accurate impressions of

our Department and we found their feedback to be constructive and thought provoking.

Our response will follow the list of recommendations in the External Review.

Recommendation I: The Department should review

and modify its undergraduate

curriculum to ensure that all courses are offered every year or ever

y other year,

while preserving thematic structuring so that all students are able to complete both

introductory and advanced courses in their areas of interest. Reducing the number

of thematic areas, by combining some of the smaller themes, may help students feel

they are able to take courses in their core area.

In numerous public meetings, both the Dean's Office and the Office of the Vice-President

Academic have made it clear that course availability is both a Faculty and University-

wide concern. Budget pressures have made the matter even more salient at the level of

the instructional unit and the Department of Psychology is committed to addressing the

issue in a timely manner. At the time of the on-site review, the Department had already

charged the Undergraduate Studies Committee (UGSC) with the task of reviewing the

existing processes and we expect to prepare specific recommendations early in 2009.

These recommendations will be designed to make it more likely that more students will

complete their undergraduate degrees in a reasonable amount of time. The UGSC met on

Sept. 18, 2008. Both faculty and students identified some of the issues related to course

availability. It is obvious that the matter is complex and involves the interplay amongst

prerequisites, corequisites, course availability, and course scheduling. Although it is still

premature to respond here with a specific action plan, we have resolved to produce one in

a timely manner.

We agree that core courses and courses required for graduation must be offered in a

regularized

and

predictable manner. However, we believe that it is necessary to retain a

limited number of specialty courses that may be offered less frequently for a number of

reasons. For example, faculty attrition with out replacement may make it difficult to

offer all courses annually or even biennially. It is our position that we would not be

servicing our undergraduate students if we simply deleted all courses that were offered

less frequently than every two years. The less frequent offering of these specialty courses

is not a barrier to graduation for students.

In the preamble to Recommendation 1 the External Review Report highlighted a few

perceived deficits in undergraduate course offerings for the current academic year.

Specifically, it was noted that there are 16 courses listed in the calendar that will not be

offered during the 2008-2009 academic year. It can be misleading to base general

conclusions on a review of a single year. Temporary circumstances arise. We respond to

the particular courses discussed in the Review.

Perception

is not being offered because

the instructor (Dr. Spalek) is on Study Leave: we fully expect this course to be offered

twice a year when he returns. Similarly,

Introduction to Abnormal Psychology

had been

taught by a long-term sessional instructor who recently became unavailable. Clinical

faculty are investigating alternatives. Finally,

Introduction to Cognition

is now offered

twice in the 2008-2009 academic year.

The External Review Report highlighted three courses that are either not offered or

offered too infrequently.

Perception is

not offered "sporadically," as stated in the Report.

Indeed, until this year it was offered twice a year for the past 6 years. As indicated

above, when Dr. Spalek returns from Study Leave, we expect to resume the previous

schedule.

Sensation

has been offered 3 times in the past 6 years, and it is being offered in

the current semester. We agree that

Theories of Personality

should be taught more

frequently and the UGSC is currently discussing this course with Social and Clinical

faculty to develop a strategy to regularize this offering.

Finally there is a minor error in the preamble to Recommendation 1. The report states

that in second year all Major and Honour's students must take at least one course in

biological

perception/cognition

areas and at least two courses in

developmental,

social, personality/abnormaUclinical

and

law and psychology

areas. In fact, such

students must take one course from each group and at least one other course from either

group.

Recommendation 2: The Department should continue to work with Introductory

Psychology lecturers to maintain the quality of the introductory psychology courses,

including tutorial sections, albeit with reduced resources.

We appreciate that the Review Team recognizes the quality of our Introductory

Psychology experience. We fully agree that PSYC 100 and 102 are core strengths in the

Department and we are proud of the courses. It should be noted that at the time of the

review,

all

students in these courses were still involved in small-group tutorials (19

students per tutorial). However, as a result of a significant out to the TA budget coupled

with a substantial increase in enrollment, we have been forced to move to "open labs,"

wherein students attend a lab that is supervised by a Teaching Assistant or the Course

Instructor. Unfortunately it is clear that budget allocations are not likely to return to

levels that are even close to that required to maintain our Introductory Psychology

courses even in this modified pedagogical format. As a consequence, we have decided to

take this dilemma as an opportunity and a challenge to consider new course structures

and instructional formats that are even more challenging and engaging for our

undergraduate student while at the same time are more fiscally realistic given our current

and projected budget situation. The current structure of the UGSC includes

representation from all sectors of the Department and is examining the delivery of PSYC

100 and 102, and the level of support they are receiving, and are preparing

recommendations regarding the future of Introductory Psychology at SFU. We expect

that they will bring these recommendations forward early in 2009 for full consideration

by the Department as a whole.

,i'i.

Recommendation 3: The Department should review the workload associated with

the delivery of writing intensive courses and make appropriate adjustments

the

teaching assignments of faculty members who teach the course, and

the

appropriate assignment of teaching assistants to those courses.

Without question the introduction of the WQB requirements at SFU has created

difficulties for Department Chairs with respect to the allocation of equitable workloads

and with distribution of teaching resources. The differential formula for additional

financial resources for the offering of writing intensive courses was developed by a

committee without specific input from the teaching units (or at least Psychology). The

review document addresses three specific points to which we respond. First, the review

document alleges that conversion of the second-year research methods course into a

writing intensive course has resulted in added workload that makes it difficult to recruit

faculty to teach it. This is clearly the case. Fortunately there are some faculty who enjoy

teaching this course and choose to remain involved in its delivery. As well, we have

attempted to share the offering of this course by having area coordinators include it

within their respective areas on a rotating basis. However, the reviewers are correct in

suggesting that this scenario may not service us well into the future. Indeed, the fact is

that since Psychology 201 became a writing-intensive course, the teaching work load has

increased substantially. The course currently requires the instructor to manage up to 6 or

7 TAs and to supervise students through the execution and write-up of a research project.

This is likely to be compounded by the fact that further cuts to our budget will mean that

the TA support necessary to mount these writing intensive courses will not be sustained

in the future. As well, should we experience any further reduction in the number of

faculty (without replacement) then future offerings of these courses will have to come at

the expense of specialized courses offered within our thematic streams. Clearly, we

cannot expect faculty to continue to offer writing-intensive courses without adequate

support and resources. Consequently, unless the budget situation improves the Chair will

have to take concrete steps to establish differential weighting of individual faculty

workloads that include writing intensive courses.

Second, the review notes problems with our current practice of reliance on faculty to

volunteer as guest lecturers in our third year writing intensive course, PSYC 300. Since

the inception of this course the Chair has maintained a list of "volunteers". To date, the

uptake has been broad and balanced such that nearly all faculty have participated at least

twice. However, we do recognize that this cannot continue in such an ad hoc manner and

at a recent Department meeting we approved the distribution of participation in this

course as part of the Chair's assignment of workload.

Finally, the reviewers note the difficulties associated with maintaining an adequate pool

of TM who have the requisite skills for assignment to these writing intensive courses.

This again is a complex problem that was not adequately foreseen by the architects of the

WQB scheme. Specific TA assignments are done by the Department Assistant, Bev

Davino. She is sensitive to the needs and demands of writing-intensive courses and

makes every effort to ensure that students who apply to TA and who have the expertise to

TA writing-intensive courses are assigned to those courses. Nevertheless, the

110.

Department is exploring a number of options for the future preparation of TAs within the

sstrictures of future budget constraints.

Recommendation 4: The Department should consider restructuring the third year

writing intensive course so that guest lecturers are not required; alternatively,

faculty teaching assignments should be structured such that the responsibility for

providing a guest lecture in this course is distributed evenly across all faculty.

We have addressed this recommendation in our response to Recommendation 3.

Recommendation 5: The Department should assign office space to Lecturers

equivalent to that provided to tenure-stream faculty and work with Lecturers to

identif y

other ways in which the Department could support and recognize their

contributions.

This is somewhat difficult to respond to given that we are unaware of any instance where

this has not been done. Within the Department the distinction between Tenure-stream

faculty and Lecturers is effectively one ofterminology only. Generally, Lecturers'

offices are comparable to tenure-stream faculty offices. It is unfortunate that one

Lecturer was in an office that was substandard. That individual was offered office space

equivalent to most other tenure-stream faculty but declined that option and chose to

remain in his (less than adequate) space until a larger office became available. Such

space has since become available and the Lecturer has moved offices. We are fortunate

•

to have Lecturers who are highly qualified in their own fields and they are excellent

teachers. We agree that it is important to recognize their abilities and to draw on their

expertise. Currently, two of our Lecturers are members of the Undergraduate Studies

Committee and as such have a strong voice in the continued development of the

Undergraduate program. In the broader context, all faculty, staff and students are

considered valued members and the Department of Psychology regularly seeks out

tangible ways to recognize the contributions of all sectors of our community.

Recommendation 6: The Department should establish overall learning outcomes for

its undergraduate program,

USC

these outcomes as the basis for course-specific

learning outcomes and determine appropriate structures for specific courses on the

basis of these learning outcomes.

This recommendation will be discussed and reviewed in the UGSC. In particular, we

agree that we need to clarify the objectives of the introductory psychology courses and

the 200-level courses that serve as an introduction to the main areas in psychology. At

issue here is the extent to which we value cumulative learning and course

prerequisites.

Throughout this review process the UGSC remains sensitive to the fact that it is

important to allow some flexibility for instructors to determine how to deliver their

courses to achieve the stated learning outcomes. In the past few years, with the recent,

rapid, and generally unanticipated budget cuts, the manner in which courses are delivered

in the Undergraduate program had to be modified quickly. For example, tutorials in our

Introductory Psychology Courses

and in our

Statistics

courses were retained, but

'II.

converted to open labs, as they were considered essential to student learning. Across our

entire program it is critical that we make every attempt to maintain the integrity of our

academic experience

within

the context of our budget reality.

Recommendation 7: The Department should develop objective and publicly

accessible indices of course and program quality and teaching excellence.

We agree that it is important to assess the quality of our courses, programs, and

instruction in a transparent and objective manner. Indeed, this External Review itself is

an objective and publicly accessible indicator of program quality. Consistent with SFU

policy most instructors obtain student evaluations of the quality of their courses, and the

quality of faculty members' teaching is evaluated every two years by the TPC. However,

the Freedom of

Information and Protection

of Privacy Act,

sections 22(3)(d) and

22(3)(g), prevent disclosure of instructor/course evaluation ratings. On our own initiative

we recently implemented a Teaching Award in the Department of Psychology in memory

of our late colleague, Dr. Barry Beyerstein. It will be awarded annually and the recipient

will be publicly acknowledged within and outside of the department.

Recommendation

The Department

should strive to make competitive offers to its

prospective graduate students. To this end, the University should endeavour to

provide the Department with more detailed, advance information about the funding

situation for graduate students, even if the information is simply a minimum that

could be expanded later.

The budget cuts of recent years have had a serious impact on our ability to fund the

tutorial system that has historically been used in the instruction of our undergraduates.

This, in turn, has been used to provide funding support to our graduate students through

Teaching Assistant/Tutor Marker (TA/TM) contracts. Although many of our students

have funding through scholarships, many find it necessary to supplement their income

through TA/TMships or RAships. The decreased TA/TM support is resulting in

decreased attractiveness and viability of enrolling in and/or continuing studies in the

psychology graduate program at SFU. Additionally, the reduced availability of

opportunities to lead tutorials has the potential to further reduce the attractiveness of

graduate school training at SFU, since these opportunities were welcomed by students

eager to develop their instructional skills for future academic positions and appreciated

by prospective employers.

In order to maintain our commitment for ongoing funding to our continuing graduate

students in the face of budget cuts, the number of new offers extended (and subsequently

accepted) was set to that of approximately

years ago. However, the offers that were

made were comparable if not more generous than offers extended by other psychology

departments in British Columbia. Although other departments make mention of funding

possibilities beyond the 2nd year they qualify those with caveats of pending funding

availability. We chose to not make offers of 2nd year TA or fellowship funding because

budgets for future years are not known and we thought it prudent not to mislead

applicants when several years in a row we have faced major cuts to our budgets. The lack

I,'

I7..

• ?

of competitiveness of offers that can be extended by psychology departments in British

Columbia vis-I-vis departments from some other provinces in Canada or from other

countries is a major issue that must be combated with senior administrative leadership in

the procurement of graduate funding.

Recommendation 9: Applicants to the graduate program should be asked to list I to

3 cognate areas of interest, and rank order potential supervisors within those areas.

Application files should be shared across the different areas to maximize the chance

that there will be optimal student/supervisor matches, and to increase the intake of

excellent graduate students

In meetings over the past several months, the newly constituted Graduate Studies

Committee (GSC) of the Department and subcommittees (e.g., Clinical Program

Admissions Process Review Subcommittee) have initiated and will continue to review

and endeavour to improve the application forms fur admission to the Psychology

Department graduate program and the process of evaluating applications across the

Department. The suggestion by the external review committee for changes to our

admissions forms and process are appreciated and will be incorporated where possible.

Recommendation 10: The Department

should keep records of its offers of admission

and yield, including information about each

student's

origin (i.e., SFU or

elsewhere), broken down by cognate area.

Although at each admission cycle, the Department has all of the information on offers

and acceptances and maintains overall summaries of offers and yield (e.g., Clinical

Program admission statistics over the previous seven years are posted on our website), we

have not maintained detailed annual summaries of the type suggested (i.e., offers and

yield by origin and cognate area) which can be easily accessed for review. The

Department Graduate Studies Committee appreciates the suggestion of the external

review committee and will maintain detailed annual summaries for historical review.

Recommendation 11:

The

Department

should be more explicit in articulating the

overall and area-specific goals of the graduate program, and determine whether

there is a need/desire for similar

breadth

requirements and modes of training across

the areas. Assuming there will be a diversity of approaches, the Department should

ensure that students and faculty have a full understanding of the differences, and

that

the basis for the differences is well defined.

Area faculty regularly discuss and update curriculum goals. At a recent department-wide

retreat (spring 2008), the issue of diversity of curricular expectation across areas was

raised. The areas and the newly constituted Department Graduate Studies Committee

have reviewed and will continue to revisit the pedagogical goals of the graduate program

in general and as pertains to breadth requirements. The Department and the course

calendar provide explicit definition of what constitutes satisfaction of the breadth

requirement for students in the clinical program which are consistent with APA/CPA

guidelines. The broad definition of what constitutes satisfaction of the breadth

requirement for the other graduate students in the Department (i.e., satisfactory

completion of a course outside of the student's area) is indicated on the Department

website, and was incorporated in recent changes to the course calendar. The explicit

specification of the breadth requirements for all our graduate students has been

incorporated into course calendar changes to be reviewed October 2008 by the FASS

GSC.

Recommendation

12: The Department should determine a system to balance the

workload (real and perceived) for faculty in terms of undergraduate and

graduate

courses (and upper-level and lower-level courses within the undergraduate

program).

The Chair of the Department works very carefully to address workload equity for faculty

while endeavouring to meet the instructional needs of the undergraduate and graduate

students within the guidelines set forth by the University and the needs to meet

undergraduate enrollment targets. It is not clear how developing a "system" aimed at

achieving these outcomes would be advantageous. For example, graduate courses within

the Clinical program (most of which are open to Experimental students) are program

requirements within the guidelines for APA/CPA accreditation. Faculty workload is

therefore impacted by specific expertise, which faculty are on study leave, the availability

of sessional instructors, and a host of other factors. Consequently, developing balanced

workloads across the Department is a far more nuanced process than it is systematic.

Consequently, the Chair takes a very open approach to the allocation of workload to

minimize any misperception of unfairness.

Recommendation

13: The minimum number of students required for a graduate

course should be set explicitly to 3, especially in the context of required graduate

courses (e.g.,

the clinical program).

Generally, minimum class sizes are set forth by the University and adhered to by the

Department. Moreover, specifying an enrollment of 3 as sufficient for a graduate course

would make the workload balance of graduate and undergraduate teaching assignments

referred to in Recommendation 12 even more difficult to achieve.

Recommendation 14: The Department

should move forward on

developing a fast-

track system for promotion from the MA to PhD program.

A fast-track system is already in place through a mechanism provided by the University.

To increase awareness for this option, the Department has ratified changes to the course

calendar describing the availability of this option. it is important to note that the fast-

track option is doable only for the Experimental program as the requirements for

APA/CPA accreditation do not make this possible for the Clinical program.

Recommendation 15: The Department should reconsider the course requirements in

the context of clinical and experimental psychology programs across Canada, and

IlL!:.

• ?

determine what the requirements should be in terms of the pedagogical goals of the

program.

The area faculty

and

GSC regularly review

and

discuss

course

requirements. At a recent

department

retreat (spring 2008), the question of

what

constitutes core curriculum

was

discussed broadly, with a wide

variety

opinions

expressed. As detailed in the self-

study, the GSC has compared

our graduate program

across North America

with

regard to

core

curriculum.

However, we have not specifically

compared

ourselves with all

Canadian

universities, only with some of the

leading

ones. We should also

point out that

our

Clinical

program was

recently re-accredited, with

the

evaluation of

course

requirements being

part

of that process. Nevertheless, the suggestion of

considering our

requirements explicitly in

contrast

with requirements across

Canada

is an excellent

suggestion, and

we will contact CPA for such summary information.

Recommendation 16: The Department should ensure that students receive funding

at a level that enables them to focus on their studies, rather than having to

supplement their income by taking jobs external to the University. At a minimum,

the Department should gain a better understanding of the financial pressures faced

by students, and the conditions leading students to take outside positions that slow

down their progress in the program.

It is important to note at the

outset that in some cases

the

external

work

taken

on by

graduate students can have

high value in

terms

of providing

students with skills that will

. ?

be relevant to

jobs that

they

may ultimately

seeking

(some work is policy

oriented and

some is research based).

Nevertheless, as evidenced in

minutes

monthly Department

meetings,

the

Department is keenly aware

of the

general financial pressures faced

by the

students. At every opportunity,

the

Graduate Program Chair and the Chair

of the

Department makes a case for the necessity

improved graduate student funding

senior administration in

one-on-one

meetings as

well as in public

forums. Nonetheless,

the suggestion from

the

review committee that

the

"Department should gain a better

understanding

of the

financial pressures" is reasonable, and an explicit survey

graduates regarding perceived barriers to their educational progress

will be

considered.

think that it is important to

note

again that

the

recent dramatic reduction

funding

for

TAships is a

major contributor to these

problems.

However, we also think it is

important to

point

out

that,

beyond just the obvious financial

consequences,

the

almost

complete

switch to the

tutor/marker model has

appreciably

reduced

the

opportunity

for

graduate students

obtain valuable teaching experience as discussion leaders. Given

that many

our

students will

end up

teaching roles,

see

the

reduction in direct

teaching experience as a disappointing trend.

Recommendation 17: The Department should determine the feasibility of course..

based (differential fee) graduate programs. They should be implemented only if

they

are

pedagogically sound and sustainable. Ideally, such programs would provide

additional resources to support the PhD program, while providing important

educational opportunities to MA level students.

X [-^.

The Department has variously discussed mechanisms to increase funding to our graduate

program. This matter will be further discussed and opportunities considered where

appropriate. However, the opportunity for such programs within psychology departments

is generally limited. One notable exception is the "Doctor of Psychology" program,

commonly referred to as the PsyD. The possibility of developing a PsyD program has

been previously considered by the Clinical program and a Departmental Task Force

report on PsyD programs was written by Clinical faculty at the request of the senior

administration some time ago. The conclusion was that this was not a viable option for

our Department at this time due to concerns such the availability of faculty and the

significant costs involved in establishing such a program. This suggestion was not raised

with the Review Team by Clinical faculty who would have provided the Team with the

history of a possible PsyD program in our department. It is also of some concern that the

requirements of a PsyD program are often viewed as being "less onerous" than those of a

research-based clinical program.

In the preamble to Recommendation 17, it was specifically suggested that the Department

explore the feasibility of launching a program in Analysis, Theory and Methods. The

claim is made that "Given the relatively small number of graduate students in the Theory

and Methods Area, this sort of program would not strain resources in the same way that a

PsyD might." Again, while we are most certainly open to considering such a program, it

would be a mistake to assume that a smaller number of graduate students in the Theory

and Methods Area means that the Area is less taxed resource-wise. In particular, in

addition to supervising their own students, faculty (and their students) in this area provide

extraordinary service to students in all areas of the Department with respect to the

methodological and statistical challenges they face in their research.

Recommendation 18: The Department should ensure that students are aware of the

role of the graduate chair, and that information relevant to their programs is

conveyed in a timely, clear, and accessible manner.

The Department graduate student handbook is available to all students on the Department

website, and a hardcopy

is distributed to incoming students in their first semester of their

enrolment. The Department Graduate Program Chair also has a copy of it posted on the

bulletin board outside her office. As such, it is surprising that students are not aware of

the handbook. In order to remind students of its existence, the graduate program chair or

secretary will send out annual reminders of its location, and notify students and faculty

whenever it is updated.

The Department graduate student caucus, annually, holds a first year student orientation

at which the Department Graduate Program chair is introduced and a summary of the

activities of the graduate program chair provided. Additionally

this year, the role of the

Department Graduate Studies Committee was detailed. This year, in another effort to

increase visibility and awareness of the role of the Graduate Program Chair and the

Graduate Studies Committee, an email to new and current students was sent out to

welcome everyone to the new academic year, stating the Graduate Program Chair and

secretary's continued service, and introducing the new members of the

GSC. The

II(D.

. ?

Graduate Program Chair and the graduate program secretary regularly email students

about deadlines (e.g., registration, scholarship), relevant training opportunities, etc.

Furthermore, they each regularly process paperwork for all of the students including

annual progress evaluations.

Recommendation 19: The Department should implement an administrative model

that includes a distinct Clinical Area, but that facilitates and encourages interaction

across areas and between clinical and experimental researchers.

The Department has agreed, in principle, to move in such a direction.

Recommendation 20: The Department should consider restructuring the non-

clinical research areas

so that graduate programs have critical mass and/or ideally

should hire additional faculty members in groups that are relatively small after the

restructuring of a separate Clinical area.

This recommendation anticipates the difficulties in achieving Recommendation 19. Any

reaffihiation of faculty to a new Area will have implications for our efforts to build

concentrations of expertise within the research foci of the Department. We are not sure

that the desire of the Department to support the evolution of a Clinical Area should come

at the expense of restructuring the non-clinical areas. In the preamble to this

recommendation the authors indicate, in a parenthetical example, that restructuring might

involve the merger of the social and developmental areas and/or that new hires "work at

. ?

the intersection of two or more areas." Not surprisingly, the members of the Social Area

would strongly support (as would any Area) the suggestion that the Department give

priority to hiring additional faculty in areas like developmental and social; areas that

might be left much smaller by the formation of a Clinical Area. However, the notion that

combining the Social and Developmental Areas would address the situation is far too

simplistic. The work and approaches of current faculty in these two areas are very

different. It would take careful planning and likely require additional strategic hiring to

create a social and developmental area. Indeed, any move to restructure the non-clinical

areas would require careful consideration regarding whether there are potential links

between the interests and approaches taken by faculty members in the respective areas,

and in terms of whether there are any advantages to graduate students and faculty in the

areas to be combined.

Clearly, we would favour a solution to this concern that is consistent with the alternative

provided by the reviewers - that the Department seek to strengthen those areas impacted

by restructuring of a separate Clinical Area. However, given the current budget situation,

it is unlikely that this solution is a serious alternative. Consequently, the Clinical

Program coordinator and the Chair's Advisory Committee will work to develop a

mechanism that will achieves the administrative and scholarly benefits for a distinct

Clinical Area but respects to desire of many faculty to remain closely tied to the research

foci of the established thematic areas within the Department.

Recommendation 21: The Department should establish distinct Appointments,

Tenure and Promotion, Graduate Studies, and Undergraduate Studies Committees,

and ensure broad faculty area representation on each of these committees.

The Department has recently approved the establishment of distinct Graduate Studies,

and Undergraduate Studies Committees. Those committees are up and running with

broad representation from all constituencies in the Department. The annual establishment

of the Tenure and Promotion Committee is determined by University policy to which we

will continue to adhere. For the past several years, the work of the Appointments

Committee has been conducted by the Chair's Advisory Committee. We intend to

maintain this arrangement until we have completed a revision to our Department

Constitution.

Recommendation

22: The Chair's Advisory Committee should review the

Psychology Department Constitution, propose appropriate revisions to the

Constitution, and ensure that the faculty, staff, and students are engaged

the

revision process.

That work is currently ongoing.

Recommendation

23: Care should be taken

to ensure that the

lines of

communication are open and clear between FASS and the Department, between the

Chair and the Department, and between the

Department

and students.

Obviously we concur with the need to ensure that all lines of communication remain open

and clear. Indeed, the success of a large Department such as ours hinges on our ability to

do so. Generally, all Department Meetings are open with the need for closed sessions

kept to those instances for which confidentiality is absolutely required. The minutes of

all open meetings are available to all members of the Department. Further, there is both

graduate and undergraduate student representation at Departmental meetings, with the

goal being that student needs and concerns are brought to the Department, and that issues

discussed at Departmental meetings are communicated to the student body by their

representatives.

Recommendation 24: The Department should continue to monitor space needs, and

the University should respond appropriately, including developing contingency

plans

for future events that could delay

research programs.

Generally we have been pleased with the efforts of the Dean's Office to ensure adequate

research space for new faculty. Most recently we expanded into new space resulting

from the reorganization of units within R.C. Brown Hall. This allowed us effectively to

address the needs of our most recent hires as well as some current faculty who, to date,

have had no research space. However, once again the Department has exhausted all

options currently within the Psychology footprint in the R.C. Brown Hall.

ycI.

The reviewers note that "A major concern was that temporary space does not seem to

have been made available to house the students and faculty whose space was flooded

during the 2007-2008 fiscal year". That is not entirely accurate. For the most part we

had outstanding and very timely cooperation from the Department Chair and the IT staff,

in securing temporary space for some research activities (analysis, office space for

students). This is not to say that research

activities

and student projects have not been

substantially delayed. Some faculty had no opportunities for data collection during that

period because the electrically shielded booths for EEG acquisition could not be moved.

Recommendation 25: Administrative support staff and IT support staff should be

commended for

their work,

and

their

complement should not be reduced below

their present levels.

We recognize that the Department of Psychology enjoys the finest administrative and

technical staff teams at SFU. We regularly seek out occasions to celebrate and commend

them for their contributions. In fact, the Optimal Working Environment Committee is

specifically charged with organizing such events. Perhaps most importantly, these

individuals are regarded as colleagues rather than staff Coping with the challenges

facing our unit would not be possible with out their support and we hope that the senior

administration similarly recognizes that maintaining (if not expanding) the current

complement level is critical if we are to survive the current fiscal situation and still

remain a Department with vital research and teaching mandates.

. ?

Recommendation 26: The Department should be commended for its contribution to

research at SFU to date, and it should look to expand its research success where

possible. Specifically, the Department should aim for a goal of at least 75% funded

researchers from tn-council agencies, with particular growth potential for clinical

researchers and for researchers applying to CIHR.

think that this is an appropriate target and one that we should embrace. The reviewed

team noted that the overall figure for externally determined tn-council funding sits at

55%.

However, if one considers these data in a slightly different way it would suggest

that we are well on our way to achieving the recommended target. Specifically, of the 15

faculty that have joined our Department during the tenure of the current Department

Chair, 14 have been successful in obtaining tn-council funding (one was on maternity

leave during and postponed her first submission). Further, 4 of these individuals hold

clinical certification. As well, the success of our faculty in receiving MSFHR Scholar

Awards is a major source of pride to the Department.

Recommendation 27: The University should re-examine the system of mentorship,

interval reviews, and grants facilitation to ensure that Psychology researchers are

provided with the assistance they need to increase their foothold in external funding,

particularly CIHR funding.

We appreciate the extensive consideration of data undertaken by the review team in order

to make the case fur our remarkable success in securing research funding over the past 5

,liiq.

years. However, we think it important to expand on the comments concerning grants

facilitation and mentorship/guidance. First, faculty concerns surrounding these matters

should not be taken as a criticism of the grants facilitators themselves. To the contrary,

the individuals who hold these positions are outstanding; both in terms of the quality of

their work and their dedication to

assisting

in the success of faculty grant applications. In

some ways it is unfortunate that the grants facilitation system is formally decentralized at

SFU. Consequently, in the specific context of FASS, it is impossible for a single

individual to serve the breadth (not to mention the volume) of scholarship that exists

within the FASS with uniform effectiveness. Fortunately, the grants facilitators across

the University are able to coordinate themselves outside of the formal decentralization

and work collaboratively and frequently share their expertise. Indeed, the extraordinary

success that the Department of Psychology has enjoyed with respect to securing research

chair positions would not have been possible had we not been able to reach out to grants

facilitators from other Faculties to supplement the strengths of the FASS facilitator. We

are hopeful that the current academic reorganization of SFU will make it even more

possible to match the specific expertise of grants facilitators from across the University to

the specific scholarly focus of individual faculty.

Recommendation 28: The Psychology Department should hire one additional

faculty member in the behavioural neuroscience area, to maintain its strong position

in this area, and to ensure that emerging connections and interdisciplinary

interactions across SFU departments continue to mature.

We obviously

agree. The senior leadership of Simon Fraser University has made

considerable mention of its interest in developing greater interdisciplinary research and

academic themes. Interestingly, neuroscience is widely considered to be one of the best

examples of the benefits of an interdisciplinary approach. Although the review team

notes our already strong position from which to expand neuroscience at SFU,

clear

mandate for expansion from the senior administration would allow for broader

engagement

and

participation of other outstanding neuroscientists in the biological

sciences at SFU.

In addition to that important area for the Department, we would be remiss if we did not

point out that, since the external review,

Joan

Foster retired as Lecturer in the Theory and

Methods Area. The is a significant loss to an area that is not only responsible for a heavy

load of required courses, but is a productive, unique, and developing program area. It is

within Theory and Methods that the foundational issues

of the discipline

are addressed.

Indeed the area is engaged in profound scholarship that

is the source of Departmental

pride. The Department Chair has clearly outlined to the Dean the impact of not filling

that position at the earliest possible opportunity.

Recommendation 29: The senior administration should facilitate the establishment

of formal links between the Psychology Department and the Faculty of Health

Sciences, with the goals of helping groups already involved in interdisciplinary

health research expand their success and facilitating the developments of new

groups as appropriate.

The new Dean of Health Sciences seems genuinely committed to lifting whatever

impediments to facilitating interaction with the Faculty of Health Sciences that may have

existed in the past. Consequently, we look forward with optimism. One specific

opportunity might involve our current efforts to attract an outstanding candidate for our

LEEF Chair in the Prevention of Youth Violence. The candidate has expressed

considerable interest in developing a Centre that would have formal connections with

members in the Faculty of Health Sciences.

Recommendation 30: The Psychology in the City initiative should receive financial

support as a significant outreach and undergraduate student recruitment tool for

SFU, and Public Relations should work with

the Department to determine other

ways in which the Department can contribute to raising the profile of research and

education at SFU.

We appreciate that the review team recognizes the value and unique character of "Psych

in the City". Planning for the 2009 event is already underway and we will intend to make

efforts to continue to develop this initiative. We have been discussing several

possibilities for future development including evenings devoted to psychological aspects

of contemporary events (e.g., violence, terrorism, racism), publishing an annual volume

of the series, bringing in high-profile speakers to anchor our in-house presenters, even the

possibility of "fur credit" attendance. The public response has been overwhelming and

we hope that the University will seek out opportunities to assist us in making Psych in the

City even an greater success.

i42.1.

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

July 2008

ALLISON SEKULER (Chair)

Professor and Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience

Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour

Associate Vice-President (Research), McMaster University

CLIVE SELIGMAN

Professor, Department

Psychology, University

Western Ontario

SHELAGH TOWSON

Associate Professor and Head, Department

Psychology, University

Windsor

DAVID GOODMAN

Professor, School

Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University

INTRODUCTION

The present review was initiated by the office of the Vice-President (Academic), as part of a regular

system of comprehensive departmental reviews at Simon Fraser University. Prior to our visit, we

received an extensive set of documents, including the Department of Psychology's Self-Study Re-

port (2008), the clinical program's Self-Study Report (2008), the Three Year Plan for the Faculty

of Arts and Social Sciences (October 16, 2006), the University's Five Year Strategic Research Plan

(September, 2005), and the University's Three Year Academic Plan (March 20, 2007). During and

subsequent to our visit, we requested and were provided with additional information as needed by

Departmental and University staff. We also received several private emails, some quite detailed,

from individuals in the Department either emphasizing issues that had come up at our meetings

or raising new issues.

We would like to thank the SFU senior administration and the Department of Psychology

for their cordial and efficient hosting of our review. Our visit took place from April 9-12, in-

clusive. At the beginning and end of our visit, we met with senior administrators in two small

group sessions, including the Associate VP Academic, Bill Krane; the Dean of Graduate Studies,

. Jonathan Driver; the Director of Academic Planning, Glynn Nicholls; the VP Research, Mario

Pinto; the Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS), Tom Perry; and the VP

Academic, John Waterhouse. We also met individually with the FASS Associate Dean and with

the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, George Agnes. During our visit, we met with the Chair's

Advisory Committee, the faculty of the Department in a large group, and in separate meetings

with each of the five cognate areas as well as with the clinical area, with the lecturers responsible

for teaching the introductory psychology courses, the IT manager, Richard Blackwell, and IT staff,

the Manager of Academic and Administrative Services, Bev Davino, and her staff, and graduate

and undergraduate students. We met individually with the Department Chair, Dan Weeks; the

Director of Clinical Training, Arlene Young; the Director of the Clinical Psychology Clinic, Rene

Weideman; the Graduate Associate Chair, Rachel Fouladi; and Urs Ribary, who gave us a tour

of the Down Syndrome Research Foundation. Because of time constraints, we were not able to

meet in person with the Associate University Librarian, Collections Services, Gwen Bird; and the

Liaison Librarian for Psychology, Percilla Groves, but we received a Report from prepared for the

External Review by Gwen Bird and Percilla Groves. Although we clearly cannot have as thorough

an understanding of the issues and culture of the Department as someone who is immersed in the

environment for a longer period of time, we were impressed with the candour with which faculty,

staff, and students spoke to us, and the breadth of issues that we discussed during our short visit.

Our comments here are guided by the Terms of Reference provided as part of the review ma-

terials. Specifically, we have endeavored to assess and comment on the Department's strengths

and weaknesses, opportunities for change, and the quality and effectiveness of various aspects of

the Department: undergraduate and graduate programs, departmental governance, infrastructure,

and research. Where appropriate, we have provided specific recommendations.

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM

The structure of the undergraduate program described in the Psychology Department self-study

and in the SFU Calendar is consistent with that offered in other Canadian psychology programs,

starting with a required introductory psychology course, and courses in research methods and data

analysis. A course on the history of psychology is also included in this initial requirement cluster,

which we think is a good idea to provide students with context for their field of study. We were

also pleased to see that the Department has been innovative in dealing with the great demand

for courses in introductory psychology, creating an alternative first year course for non-psychology

majors, first offered in Fall 2006. The presence of that course shows that the Department un-

derstands that different students have different needs and desires, and that the Department has

worked to accommodate different groups of students. At the second year level, all students in

both Major and Honours programs are required to take at least one course from the biological

or perception/cognition areas, and at least two courses from the developmental, social, personal-

ity/abnormal/clinical, and law and psychology areas. This requirement ensures that all students

are exposed to both the NSERC and SSHRC aspects of psychology, and also provides an intro-

duction for the more advanced third and fourth year courses in the seven areas identified in the

self-study as reflecting faculty expertise: biological, perception/cognition, developmental, social,

personality/abnormal, theory and methods, and law and forensic.

Although the undergraduate calendar lists a diverse range of courses, examination of the 2008-

2009 course offerings indicates that 16 of the courses included in the psychology undergraduate

curriculum will not be offered, including one of the core second year courses,

Introduction to The-

p23.

• ones

Personality,

which has not been offered since Spring 2006. Two other second year core

courses, Introduction to Cognitive Psychology

and

Introduction to Abnormal Psychology,

were of-

fered twice in 2007-2008 but will be offered only once during 2008-2009. Several other courses in

key areas (e.g., sensation and perception) are offered only sporadically. Only seven undergraduate

courses are scheduled to be offered during Summer 2009, compared to 11 in Summer 2008. En-

rolment in undergraduate psychology courses has not decreased, and it is our understanding that

this significant reduction in course offerings is due in large part to budget constraints leading to

the reduction of the number of sessional instructors.

The 2006 Survey of 2004 Baccalaureate Graduates indicated that 57% reported encountering

course availability problems, and this concern was also expressed by the undergraduate students

whose comments were included in the Self-Study and by the undergraduate students with whom

we met. The reduction in number of courses offered reduces the integrity of the curriculum and

will increase course availability problems.

Recommendation 1: The Department should review and modify its undergraduate

curriculum to ensure

that all courses

are offered every year or every other

year, while

preserving thematic structuring so that all students are able to complete both in-

troductory and advanced courses in their areas of interest.

Reducing the number of

thematic areas,

by combining some of the smaller themes, may help students feel they

are able to take courses in their core area.

With regard to course and program quality, we concur with previous external reviews that have

identified the Introductory Psychology course as one of the Department's strengths. Despite the

budget constraints that have led to a decrease in the number of Teaching Assistants, the introduc-

tory psychology course still includes a tutorial component, although the tutorial size has increased

beyond optimal levels. From our discussion with students, it is clear that they appreciate the op-

portunity to engage in a tutorial in the class, and that it is one of the more enjoyable experiences

for them in first year. Our review of the Introductory Psychology syllabi and related materials in-

dicates that students are provided with more challenging learning outcomes and assignments than

is usually the case in first year introductory psychology courses in Canada, and the Department

should be commended for its efforts.

Recommendation 2: The Department should continue to work with the Introductory

Psychology lecturers to maintain the quality of the introductory psychology courses,

including tutorial sections, albeit with reduced resources.

The Psychology Department also should be commended for converting the second year intro-

ductory research methods course into a writing-intensive course and developing a new third year

writing-intensive course. Information provided in the Self-Study suggests that both these courses

have been well-received by students. However, the added workload associated with the second year

course makes it difficult to recruit faculty members to teach it. In the case of the third year course,

• this problem seems to have been avoided to a certain extent by hiring a Lecturer to coordinate this

course. However, the current reliance in this course on faculty to volunteer as guest lecturers has

been somewhat problematic. A further concern is that these courses require substantial support

from TAs with the requisite skills to mark the writing assignments. Formerly, graduate students

completed their first TA assignment in the introductory psychology course sequence and acquired

the skills necessary for competence in more advanced courses. The reduction in the number of TA

positions means that the TAs assigned to these writing intensive courses may not have had any

prior marking or teaching experience.

Recommendation 3: The Department should review the workload associated with the

delivery of writing intensive courses and make appropriate adjustments in the teach-

ing assignments of faculty members who teach the courses, and in the appropriate

assignment of teaching assistants to those courses.

Recommendation 4: The Department should consider restructuring the third year

writing intensive course so that guest lecturers are not required; alternatively, faculty

teaching assignments should be structured such that the responsibility for providing

a guest lecture in this course is distributed evenly across all faculty.

We note that two of these three courses, central to the undergraduate curriculum, are the re-

sponsibility of non-tenure stream Lecturers, one of whom is also responsible for the development

and delivery of the new introductory psychology course for non-majors. The undergraduate pro-

gram could not function without these teaching faculty, and the Psychology Department should

ensure that their contributions receive tangible recognition, that they are fully integrated into

departmental activities, and that concerns about job security are addressed.

Recommendation 5: The Department should assign office space to Lecturers equiv-

alent to that provided to tenure-stream faculty and work with Lecturers to identify

other ways in which the Department could support and recognize their contributions.

The overriding issue of concern to both faculty and students with reference to course and

program quality was the elimination of lab and tutorial components from courses other than the

introductory psychology and writing intensive courses. It is our understanding that prior to the

2007-2008 academic year, the tutorial system was an integral part of all SFU programs, and was,

in fact, one of the hallmarks of a Simon Fraser undergraduate education. Consistent with that

vision, most SFU psychology courses included both large lectures and small tutorial groups. Now,

because of the reduction in the number of TAs, faculty have had to choose between replacing the

tutorial component of their course with a lecture or assuming some lab or tutorial sections them-

selves. In the current financial climate, the reinstatement of tutorial sections in all undergraduate

courses is unlikely in the foreseeable future, and we would suggest that the use of a lecture or tuto-

rial model should be determined by pedagogical considerations rather than instructor preference.

Specifically, introductory level learning outcomes differ from advanced learning outcomes and may

be best achieved by different instructional approaches.

Recommendation 6: The Department should establish overall learning outcomes for

its undergraduate program, use these outcomes as the basis for course-specific learn-

ing outcomes, and determine appropriate structures for specific courses on the basis

of these learning outcomes.

All the materials we reviewed and all our conversations indicated that faculty care passion-

ately about their teaching, and that this passion is conveyed to their students. However, access

to objective measures of teaching excellence would have been helpful to us, and we believe such

measures would be helpful to the Psychology Department in its efforts to improve the quality of

undergraduate education, and to secure the funding it needs to sustain its undergraduate program.

At our universities, student evaluations of teaching provide useful ammunition in budget wars, but

it is our understanding that at SFU, even summary evaluation data are unavailable due to privacy

legislation. We would suggest that the Psychology Department consider the creation of its own

measures; after all, as psychologists, we know how to measure!

Recommendation

The Department should develop objective and publicly accessi-

ble indices of course and program quality and teaching excellence.

GRADUATE PROGRAM

The graduate program trains students at both the Masters and PhD levels, in both experimen-

tal and clinical training environments. The program traditionally has handled a large number of

. graduate students for the size of its faculty complement (98 graduate students currently enrolled).

From 2002-3 until 2006-7, overall graduate enrolment increased by about 27% in Psychology, in

line with an overall increase of about 30% in FASS generally; PhD enrolment is growing more

slowly in Psychology than MA enrolment (in contrast to FASS overall, where the growth at MA

and PhD levels is relatively balanced). However, in terms of total enrolment figures, Psychology

appears to have a more balanced combination of MA and PhD level students than most other

FASS departments, which tend to be heavily biased toward MA level training. Although growth

has been strong in recent years, there are some concerns that decreased certainty of funding will

lead to a decline in graduate enrolment.

With respect to funding of graduate students, it is clear that the recent budget cuts have had

a significant impact on the way the Department funds and admits graduate students. Although

Departments in non-FASS faculties seem to have been given flexibility in terms of how they can

deal with the budget cuts, FASS seems to have allocated the cuts specifically to the budget im-

pacting on TAships and sessional teaching. This has made it more difficult for the Department

to plan appropriately for admissions. For example, although the Dean of Graduate Studies is

able to provide some information about graduate fellowships, information about TAships (which

comes from FASS) has been slower to come, making planning quite difficult. Even providing the

Department with partial information about a minimum number of TAships could be provided to

the Department, that would be a tremendous help for planning. As it stands, the Department is

making quite limited offers to prospective graduate students, both in terms of the numbers of offers

• going out and the value and guaranteed duration of each offer. Although that conservative ap-

proach may be fiscally responsible, it will likely lead to difficulties in the recruitment and retention

of graduate students, which will have a downstream negative effect on the Department's ability to

12.

bring in research funding, recruit and retain strong faculty, and recruit and retain undergraduates.

Recommendation 8: The Department should strive to make competitive offers to its

prospective graduate students. To this end, the University should endeavour to pro-

vide the Department with more detailed, advance information about the funding

situation for graduate students, even if the information is simply a minimum that

could be expanded later.

addition to funding problems impacting of graduate student recruitment, it was clear that

there also are some inefficiencies in the process of admission, related to the structure of the de-

partment at the graduate level. Students currently are aligned with one of 5 cognate areas: Bi-

ological/Cognitive, Developmental, Forensic, Social, and Theory & Methods (TAM), where each

area contains both experimental and clinical focused students and faculty. This structure is, as

described below, transitioning from the 5x2 model to a 6x1 model, in which Clinical becomes an

area in its own right. It appears that when students apply to the program, they specify one area

of interest, and in some cases only faculty within that area (or even only specific faculty members

within the area) vet the application. We were surprised that there was not a more explicit system

for sharing information about graduate applications; when such sharing occurs, it appears to be on

an ad hoc basis. There is also great concern that with Clinical becoming a separate area, faculty

within the Experimental areas will no longer have access to the files of students who apply to

Clinical as their first choice, even if the Clinical area does not accept the students. Clearly, this

is not in the best interest of the students or of the Department. It was, however, difficult for us

to gauge the extent to which areas historically were able to admit the numbers of students they

wanted, as admissions/yield information was not available for areas other than Clinical.

Recommendation 9: Applicants to the graduate program should be asked to list 1 to

3 cognate areas of interest, and rank order potential supervisors within those areas.

Application files should be shared across the different areas to maximize the chance

that there will be optimal student /supervisor matches, and to increase the intake of

excellent graduate students.

Recommendation 10: The Department should keep records of its offers of admission

and yield, including information about each student's origin (i.e., SFU or elsewhere),

broken down by cognate area.

All of the areas have some form of breadth requirement, although the issue of breadth is not

addressed in the same way across the cognate areas. Additionally, there are several different mod-

els of graduate training across cognate areas: course-based, apprenticeship, and hybrid. Such

diversity of approaches may not be inappropriate, given the norms in each of the areas of research,

but care should be taken to ensure that there is transparency within the program so that students

and faculty have a good understanding of what the requirements are and why they differ from one

area to the next.

(G?7.

• Recommendation 11: The Department should be more explicit in articulating the

overall and area-specific goals of the graduate program, and determine whether there

need/desire for similar breadth

requirements and modes of training across the

areas. Assuming there will be a diversity of approaches, the Department should en-

sure that students and faculty have a full understanding of the differences, and

that

the basis for the differences is

well defined.

The diversity of areas and approaches to training has led to some perceived inequalities in

terms of the relative balance of contributions to undergraduate and graduate teaching. There

is, for example, some perception that Clinical faculty are advantaged in terms of teaching pri-

marily graduate courses, whereas other faculty teach primarily in undergraduate courses (in their

words "subsidizing" the clinical program). There is some perception that moving to a different

administrative model (from the 5x2 to the.6x1 model) may increase the stresses in both graduate

supervision and the ability to offer graduate courses.

The perceived inequalities are compounded by confusion among the faculty regarding the mini-

mum enrolments for graduate courses, and the repercussions associated with offering a course that

does not reach that minimum enrolment. For example, some faculty stated that they were required

to teach (sometimes substantially) higher loads in later terms to make up for graduate courses can-

celled because fewer than 5 students enrolled; other faculty stated that they were allowed to teach

graduate courses with just 3 students enrolled; and still others said that even when courses were

cancelled their later loads were not increased. Clearly, regardless of ground truth, there is a good

deal of confusion with respect to this issue. This serves as a deterrent for faculty to offer graduate

courses, and makes it more difficult for graduate students to take courses required for their program.

Recommendation 12: The Department

should determine a system to balance the

workload (real and perceived) for faculty in terms of undergraduate and graduate

courses (and upper-level and lower-level courses within the undergraduate program).

Recommendation 13: The minimum number of students required for a graduate course

should be set explicitly to 3, especially in the context of required graduate courses

(e.g., in the clinical program).

One concern that needs to be addressed across all areas is that the time-to-completion for MA

students is higher in Psychology than in other FASS departments (median terms-to-completion

10.5 in Psychology versus 5.0 in FASS), and in comparison with other Canadian Psychology de-

partments. The time-to-completion for MA students has been increasing over recent years, and

may partially explain delays in the growth to the Ph.D. program. The time-to-completion for

Ph.D. students does not seem excessive in comparison with other FASS departments or Psychol-

ogy departments nationally. Interestingly, time-to-completion did not seem an issue of importance

to most faculty or students, as neither group perceives financial consequences to taking longer in

the MA program. However, we think there may be financial and other consequences, including

. the fact that this delays the time to move into the workforce and PhD programs, and it may make

SFU's students less competitive in terms of entry to other programs. The excessive duration of

the MA program may be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a red flag to institutions not familiar with

the SFU program. Fewer transfers within SFU to the PhD program also mean decreased funding

compared

to FASS internally

to 3 for MA

(as

students).

we understand it, in the internal system, a PhD student is worth 6 BIUs

In understanding why the MA program takes so long for students to complete, three potential

factors stand out to us: 1) students may be working outside their program to help make ends

meet, delaying their time-to-completion, 2) students may require extra time to complete intern-

ships and/or community service aspects of the program, 3) the program is extremely course heavy

(especially the clinical program), which makes it more difficult to balance course requirements and

research (especially when graduate courses may not be offered, as discussed above). Clearly, there

are special concerns when designing a program that requires APA/CPA accreditation, or when

internships are involved. However, a cursory review of MA course requirements in other SFU

FASS departments suggests that Psychology students are required to take several more courses in

their MA, compared to other research-based MA programs, which may contribute to additional

time-to-completion in the SFU context. The department voted recently to develop a fast-track

system for promotion from the MA to PhD program, which is increasingly common at research

universities around Canada. There was, however, some disagreement within the Department re-

garding the viability of that approach.

Recommendation 14: The Department should move forward on developing a fast-

track system for promotion from the MA to PhD program.

Recommendation 15: The Department should reconsider the course requirements in

the context of clinical and experimental psychology programs across Canada, and

determine what the requirements should be in terms of the pedagogical goals of the

program.

Recommendation 16: The Department should ensure that students receive funding at

a level that enables them to focus on their studies, rather than having to supplement

their income by taking jobs external to the University. At a minimum, the Depart-

ment should gain a better understanding of the financial pressures faced by students,

and the conditions leading students to take outside positions that slow down their

progress in the program.

Another trend in graduate education across Canada is the introduction of course-based grad-

uate programs where appropriate. It had been suggested by some faculty during our visit that

the Department should consider a PsyD program, with the assumption that the requirements of

a PsyD program would be less onerous than a research-based clinical PhD program, and might

reduce the strain between clinical and non-clincal faculty. In our view, however, based on our

experiences with PsyD programs elsewhere in North America, the PsyD program could be more

costly to support and more labour intensive, and, consequently be more disruptive than useful. If

the Department were to consider a PsyD option, a careful and thorough analysis should be done

beforehand to determine the relative costs and benefits, both in terms of financial obligations and

faculty resources.

A course-based program that seems more likely to succeed and to benefit students and the De-

partment is an MA in Analysis, Theory and Methods. Such a program would be both extremely

useful for and attractive to students, providing them with critical skills that would enable them

to move onto standard PhD programs and/or to move into the workforce (e.g., as statisticians,

or public policy workers). If students in the program paid their own tuition, and did not receive

TAships, the Department could potentially use the additional income to support the PhD pro-

grams. Given the relatively small number of graduate students in the Theory and Methods area,

this sort of program would not strain resources in the same way that a PsyD might. The Depart-

ment was open to this possibility, and had discussed it in some form in the past. As with a PsyD

program, a full analysis should be done beforehand to ensure the feasibility and sustainability of

this sort of program, but we believe it is more likely to succeed.

Recommendation 17: The Department should determine the feasibility of course-

based (differential fee) graduate programs. They should be implemented only if they

are pedagogically sound and sustainable. Ideally, such programs would provide addi-

tional resources to support the PhD program, while providing important educational

opportunities to MA level students.

Whatever adjustments are made to the graduate program, the issues of communication and

• transparency need to be addressed. Only 9 graduate students out of a possible 93 attended the

meeting with us, and about half of those were on the graduate student caucus. it is not clear why

the turnout was so low (we experienced something even more extreme for undergraduates, with

only 2 students attending our meeting), but we certainly did give the students' comments cautious

consideration. As described above, students were concerned with factors such as the range of

course offerings, sequencing of courses, and their funding. In general though, it was clear in our

discussion that the graduate students who attended the meeting (whom we presume are among

the most engaged in the Department), had relatively little knowledge about and understanding of

the structure and governance of the graduate program. For example, although the Department

has a handbook for graduate students, these students seemed unaware of the handbook or simply

did not make use of it, despite the fact that many of their questions and concerns were addressed

in the handbook. More puzzling to us, they claimed not to know what role the graduate chair

played; some of them claimed not to know that there even was a position of graduate chair. The

graduate chair herself, and the graduate secretary seemed surprised by such comments, and the

graduate chair (who has only recently taken over the role) seemed eager to connect better with

the students. Regardless, it is clear that there is a level of disconnection between students and the

Departmental administration.

Recommendation 18: The Department should ensure that students are aware of the

role of the graduate chair, and that information relevant to their programs is conveyed

in a timely, clear, and accessible manner.

,3.

For

GOVERNANCE

several years, the Department

has organized itself into five cognate areas, reflecting the sub-

disciplines of psychology represented in the department: Biological/Cognitive, Developmental,

Forensic, Social, and Theory and Methods. The novel aspect of this organization, as far as we

know unique in Canada, is that each of these areas included faculty members from both the exper-

imental and clinical psychology programs, and has therefore been characterized as a 5 x 2 model.

This approach appears to have been successful in increasing research collaboration across experi-

mental and clinical psychology, increasing participation of faculty members in two or more areas,

strengthening the graduate programs of the sub-disciplines by offering more faculty personnel and

thus more variety in research, and demonstrating the unity of the basic and applied aspects of

psychology.

We note that the 2001 external review of the Department, while applauding the new direction,

cautioned that it should not become an organizational straitjacket, and that the organizational

structure would need to be reviewed. In fact, our conversations with faculty in the existing five

cognate areas indicated mixed perceptions, both within and between areas, of the utility of the 5

x 2 model. Recently, the Department has decided to return to a more conventional 6 x 1 model, in

which the Clinical area becomes an area in its own right. Although the rationale behind the 5x2

model is strong from a pedagogical perspective, the model may have been inherently unstable for

a number of reasons: clinical psychology is a genuine sub-discipline of psychology, not all of the

ten cells of the 5 X 2 were filled, some collaboration felt forced, and so on.

We take the view that organizational structure is not destiny, and we urge members of the

Psychology Department to regard the 6 x 1 model primarily as a way to facilitate departmental

administration that does not preclude the continuation of valuable cross-area research collabora-

tions. For example, both the clinical and experimental members of the the Forensic group made it

quite clear to us that they were happy to continue working together and intended to do so. In that

regard, we note the 7 x 1 undergraduate curriculum template presented in the Department's self-

study document: biological, perception/cognition, developmental, social, personality/abnormal,

theory and methods, and law and forensic. This is not to suggest that the appropriate model is

therefore a 7 x 1, but to illustrate the fact that the division of the Department into areas for ad-

ministrative convenience does not have to be consistent with its division according to disciplinary

content.

Recommendation 19: The Department should implement an administrative model

that includes a distinct Clinical Area, but that facilitates and encourages interac-

tions across areas and between clinical and experimental researchers.

Of course, while the proposed restructuring solves some problems, it leads to others. Most

critically, without formal association of some of the clinicians, the Social and Developmental areas

of the Department shrink to about 3 faculty members each. Such small numbers of faculty may

not provide the critical mass required for maintenance and strengthening of graduate programs in

social and developmental psychology. Therefore, the Department might consider restructuring the

non-clinical areas (e.g., potentially merging the Social and Developmental areas) and/or increasing

3(.

• the faculty complement in areas that may not be able to run viable graduate programs with small

complements. Given the small numbers of new hires expected over the next few years, it would

be advantageous to ensure that new hires work at the intersection of two or more research areas,

providing multiple strengths to the department and increasing the level of collaboration across

areas.

Recommendation 20: The Department should consider restructuring the non-clinical

research areas so that graduate programs have critical mass and/or ideally should hire

additional faculty members in groups that are relatively small after the restructuring

of a separate Clinical area.

Our understanding is that the main committee responsible for decision making is the Chair's

Advisory Committee (CAC), which consists of the coordinators of the different cognate areas of

the Department, the Chair of the Department, the Associate Chairs for the Graduate and Under-

graduate programs, and student representatives. This organizational structure is found in many

psychology departments and appears to have worked well in many respects. The description of the

CAC, and other Departmental decision making bodies, is contained in a Department constitution

that was last revised in 1997. However, the constitution was not mentioned to us in any of our

meetings, a silence that may imply lack of familiarity with the document.

Although, theoretically, there are a number of self-contained committees in addition to the

. CAC, the self-study document (2008) indicates that for the past several years, the duties of four

other key committees (Appointments, Tenure and Promotion, Graduate Studies, Undergraduate

Studies) have been assumed by the CAC. Although this change in committee structure may have

been perceived as an efficient way to deal with a wide range of Departmental concerns, it is clear

from our discussions with faculty and students that there are a number of drawbacks to this ap-

proach. The feedback we received during our visit suggested that decisions made at the level of

the CAC did not always flow evenly from the committee to professors and students in the various

areas, that the rationale behind the CAC's specific decisions was not always transparent, and that

there was some confusion regarding the nature of the decision-making process itself. We were in-

formed during our visit that the Department was creating (or perhaps resuscitating) the separate

Undergraduate and Graduate Studies Committees to deal with the implications of the budget cuts

for these programs, to ensure that more individuals are engaged in the decision making processes,

and to facilitate the timely and efficient transfer of information about decisions and policies. We

applaud this reorganization and suggest that the Appointments and Tenure and Promotion Com-

mittees also be re-established. Among other advantages, the diffusion of decision-making across

several committees provides younger faculty members with the opportunity to assume some ad-

ministrative responsibility and experience, which is important in ensuring the sustainability of

Department leadership.

Recommendation 21: The Department should establish distinct Appointments, Tenure

and Promotion, Graduate Studies, and Undergraduate Studies Committees, and en-

sure broad faculty area representation on each of these committees.

p132-.

Recommendation 22: The Chair's Advisory Committee should review the Psychol-

ogy Department Constitution, propose appropriate revisions to the Constitution, and

ensure that the faculty, staff, and students are engaged in the revision process.

The proposed creation of distinct Departmental committees addressing different areas of con-

cern should also go a long way toward addressing the recurring communication problems we saw

throughout our visit. In the current climate of ongoing and pending budget cuts it is essential

that the lines of communication improve. For example, many members of the Department did

not know that Psychology receives double the number of teaching credits as do other FASS de-

partments, and they have little understanding of how FASS allocates money to the Department.

There is a great deal of confusion over whether the funds from awards, such as the Michael Smith

Awards, return to the Department; there was also some suggestion by faculty that the University

is not in compliance with the requirements of the Michael Smith foundation. Our understanding

is that the University is in compliance, but clearly there needs to be better communication around

this issue. Currently, winners of the Michael Smith Awards have sometimes been made to feel

that their achievements have harmed their own area's teaching program or added to the teaching

load of their colleagues. There also was some confusion and concern about how some recent hires

came about, and such concerns likely will increase as the rate of future appointments slows given

current budget constraints. Budgeting decisions are rightly the purview of the chair. However,

as the Department works its way through the budget cuts it is critical that the Chair keep the

Department aware of the budget constraints and the difficult choices he faces. Fortunately, the

Chair is generally perceived as having done a good job, and he has the credibility to lead the de- -

partment in implementing the needed governance changes suggested by the faculty and identified

in our report.

Recommendation 23: Care should be taken to ensure that the lines of communication

are open and clear between FASS and the Department, between the Chair and the

Department, and between the Department and students.

INFRASTRUCTURE

[NB: During our visit, we were shown very little research space, so our assessments in terms

of the

quality and quantity

that space are based on what little we did see, on our reading of the advance

materials, and on our conversations with faculty, students, and staff.]

Another area in which the Chair has shown strong leadership, is in terms of ensuring that

the Department has appropriate space and infrastructure. Over the past five years the Chair has

worked hard with his colleagues to rationalize and expand space for teaching and research. It

appears that this effort has been largely successful. All faculty who want a lab have one, and

these labs seem sufficient for present needs; all graduate students have offices (typically shared),

and private space has been arranged for students who are teaching assistants to meet with their

own students. There is a computer lab for graduate students, and access to computers for under-

graduates as well. Animal laboratories are located with other such labs in a central building. The

33.

• clinical psychology clinic is modern and spacious, with appropriately designed space for individual

and group therapy sessions. The Psychology Department shops and technical services are modern,

and do a good job of meeting the research needs of the faculty and students.

However, the creation of adequate space for research has left at least one faculty member with

substandard office space (windowless, poorly ventilated, furnace pipes on ceiling). Even in some of

the more typical offices, there is virtually no room for students to sit and meet with faculty. Faculty

also had concerns about the adequacy of space in the Department for departmental colloquia and

meetings. Although there is a boardroom, it is badly in need of updating, and our understanding

is that the Department has had a difficult time arranging for this to be done because they do

not directly control the scheduling or maintenance of the room. It also is not clear what facilities

are used by faculty and students who wish to administer experimental measures to groups of re-

search participants. A major concern was that temporary space does not seem to have been made

available to house the students and faculty whose assigned research space was flooded during the

2007-2008 academic year. The lack of alternative, adequate space resulted in delays in ongoing

research, could jeopardize faculty's competitiveness in obtaining NSERC and CIHR grants, and

will likely further delay the time-to-completion for graduate students training in those labs.

Recommendation 24: The Department should continue to monitor space needs, and

the University should respond appropriately, including developing contingency plans

for future events that could delay research programs.

Faculty and students alike viewed the administrative support staff to be efficient, pleasant, and

dedicated. Our own interactions with the staff, to whom we continually made requests for new in-

formation or for old information recoded in different ways, led us to conclude that the Department

is exceptionally well served by its administrative support staff. The staff in turn reported that

they enjoyed working with the faculty, and that their office space and equipment were adequate.

We were equally impressed with the calibre of the IT support staff. These department members

fulfill a critical function in the Psychology Department. Without their expertise and, in partic-

ular, their ability to innovate in creating purpose-built IT equipment for faculty, much necessary

research would not be carried out.

Recommendation 25: Administrative support staff and IT support staff should be

commended for their work, and their complement should not be reduced below their

present levels.

RESEARCH

The faculty in the Psychology Department are productive and well-respected. According to infor-

mation in the self-study document, the faculty publish on average 2 books a year and over 100

3Lf

journal articles, chapters, reviews and reports, and give over 160 presentations at scientific meet-

ings, nationally and internationally. In the 2001 external review of the department it is reported

that the department earned $407 thousand in research grants. In 2007, 163 projects were funded

to the sum of $4 million. This is a remarkable increase, attributable, in part, to excellent hiring

during this century, and increased granting opportunities that have been acted upon by Psychology

faculty. The latest statistics show that 55% of the faculty have externally determined tn-council

funding, and 90% have research funding of some sort. There are discrepancies among the funding

for different areas - ranging from a high of 86.4% tn-council funding for the non-clinical biologi-

cal/cognitive group down to a low of 30.8% tn-council funding for all Clinical faculty. The SSHRC

supported faculty seem to have a higher success rate than the average SSHRC success rate for

Canadian psychology departments, and the NSERC faculty also seem very well funded. Although

the department has relatively fewer CIHR grants, this is an improvement over zero CIHR funding

noted in the 2001 external report, and recent hires in the broad area of health (as defined by CIHR)

certainly increase the opportunities for researchers to expand their research funding base. It was

clear from speaking to faculty that there is a need for more mentorship/guidance in helping some

of the faculty move into fundable positions from the tn-councils and/or to expand their funding

possibilities. Although there is a system of grants facilitators in place, the faculty expressed some

concerns that the system was not optimally designed to help them branch into new granting areas

(e.g., CIHR).

A comparison of the Psychology Department with the rest of FASS indicates that, overall,

Psychology brings in about 18% of all of the grants, and 25% of all funding in FASS, including

28% of all external funding. These are impressive statistics, especially in light of the fact that

Psychology accounts for only about 11% of the FASS Faculty FTEs. Another useful comparison

involves the calculation of research intensity, or dollars per researcher. This comparison indicates

that, over the last four years for which we had data, Psychology faculty had a research intensity of

$63,028 for external funds, compared to non-psychology FASS faculty with a research intensity of

$20,148 for external funds. In other words, Psychology faculty are bringing in 3 times more money

per person than other FASS faculty, and they are also bringing in about 72% more grants per

person (Psychology has almost 2 grants per person, whereas non-psychology FASS faculty have

just over 1 per person).

In addition to funding and publication indicators, other indicators of research prominence in-

clude: four Michael Smith Awards, two CRCs, one Leading Edge Foundation Chair, one Burnaby

Mountain Chair, one University Professorship, and the Saleem Shah Award for Early Career Ex-

cellence in Psychology and Law. Clearly, this is a strong department overall.

Recommendation 26: The Department should be commended for its contribution to

research at SFU to date, and it should look to expand its research success where

possible. Specifically, the Department should aim for a goal of at least 75% funded

researchers from tn-council agencies, with particular growth potential for clinical re-

searchers and for researchers applying to CIHR.

Recommendation 27: The University should re-examine the system of mentorship,

internal reviews, and grants facilitation to ensure that Psychology researchers are

jX3

provided with the assistance they need to increase their foothold in external funding,

particularly CIHR funding.

In our initial discussions with senior administrators at SFU, it was clear that a University-wide

goal is to increase collaboration among researchers both across the university and with external

partners, as appropriate. The Psychology Department is well positioned to make a strong con-

tribution toward this goal; it already has a history of interdisciplinary and collaborative research,

and faculty in the Department clearly are motivated to do even more. Several areas that stand

out on this front are neuroscience, health science, and forensics.

There are ongoing collaborations of Psychology researchers with faculty in Biology and Kine-

siology, and this group jointly created a new BSc program in neuroscience. This is an extremely

timely addition to the undergraduate program at SFU, as it will be one of only a few coherent un-

dergraduate neuroscience programs in Canada, and this is an area of great and increasing demand.

There also is interest in forming a graduate neuroscience program and an Institute of Neuroscience.

These would be natural next steps, and would act to increase the visibility of the neuroscience group

in Psychology and across the campus. In terms of external partnerships, preliminary discussions

have taken place to consider developing a formal connection with the Hotchkiss Brain Institute

at the University of Calgary, whose expertise in animal neuroscience nicely complements SFU's

strength in human neuroscience. The Department's strength and breadth in neuroscience suffered

a recent setback with the death of Professor Barry Beyerstein, whose position should be replaced

as soon as possible. Professor Beyerstein's research involved cellular and molecular techniques,

. and, consequently, he was a natural link to neuroscientists working at a range of levels across the

campus. The behavioural neuroscience group is strong in neuroimaging and a leading expert in

imaging research, Professor Urs Ribary, was hired recently to help lead the effort to increase the

collaborative links in neuroscience among SFU researchers, hospitals and other research labs.

Recommendation 28: The Psychology Department should hire one additional faculty

member in the behavioural neuroscience area, to maintain its strong position in this

area, and to ensure that emerging connections and interdisciplinary interactions across

SFU departments continue to mature.

Psychologists play a large and obvious role in the health sciences, especially in a department

with an excellent clinical psychology program. In the past, before a Faculty of Health Sciences

(FHS) was established, the psychology department played a large role in health research with other

researchers on the campus. However, based on our discussions with faculty, these earlier associa-

tions seem to have been severed when the FHS was established. The involvement of psychology

faculty members with FHS is now perceived to be increasingly difficult and based on personal

initiative rather than on a formal connection. The failure to maintain and strengthen ties between

the Psychology Department and the FHS does not make logical or strategic sense, as significant

expertise within the Department is being missed. We understand that there has been a recent

leadership change within the FHS, and we are hopeful that this will lead to a reconsideration of

the links between FHS and Psychology.

Two areas that are particularly ripe for increased interactions with FHS are the behavioural neu-

roscience areas, through its connections with the Downs Syndrome Research Foundation (DSRF),

and the forensic area, through its leadership in the the Institute for Law and Mental Health. The

DSRF is a compelling story of how the University can partner with external groups to advance un-

dergraduate and graduate education, research, and public service. DSRF's MEG system provides

a unique regional facility, which could be a centrepiece for the University and aid tremendously in

raising the Department's and the University's profile, and in helping to establish new collabora-

tions. Although the facility already attracts collaborators from around Canada and internationally,

there is clearly room for expansion on this front, and the DSRF and the Department are eager

to work toward that expansion. Overall, the Department's research at the DSRF is an excellent

example of the synergies between basic and applied research. In a similar vein, the Department

is fortunate to have an extremely strong forensic and law group, which is a leading partner in the

Institute for Law and Mental Health, an interdisciplinary effort with worldwide reach and impact.

It is particularly impressive that this group has been so successful even though SFU does not have

its own law school.

Recommendation 29: The senior administration should facilitate the establishment of

formal links between the Psychology Department and the Faculty of Health Sciences,

with the goals of helping groups already involved in interdisciplinary health research

expand their success and facilitating the developments of new groups as appropriate.

There is tremendous potential for positive public relations work related to these interdisci-

plinary interactions and to other research in the Department. We note that the Department has

been proactive in spreading the "good word" about its research, with the introduction of the

Psychology in the City

program. This year's version of the outreach program consisted of four

evenings in April when faculty presented highlights of their research to the general public, with

each week focusing on a different theme of research. The lecture given during the week we visited

drew about 150 people, many of them high school students. Obviously, this program is not only a

wonderful way to disseminate the interesting and important findings of modern psychology and to

provide more accountability to the general public, but it is also an invaluable tool to recruit new

undergraduate students. This program should be commended and supported, and could serve a

model for other departments in FASS and around the University.

Recommendation 30: The

Psychology in the City

initiative should receive financial

support as a significant outreach and undergraduate student recruitment tool for SFU,

and Public Relations should work with the Department to determine other ways in

which the Department can contribute to raising the profile of research and education

at SFU.

SUMMARY

Overall, the Psychology Department at Simon Fraser University is quite strong. The faculty care

deeply about the quality of education of their undergraduate and graduate students, and the

Department is clearly one of the strongest, if not the strongest department, in FASS in terms of

• research funding and research quality. The Department has been forward thinking with respect

to interdisciplinary research and outreach, and has a clear desire to build on its successes. There

are, as in many departments and universities, areas that can be improved, primarily related to the

(real or perceived) level of communication and to related issues of governance. The Department

seems aware of some of these problems already, and has made some initial plans to address them.

The Department is also struggling to maintain its commitment to teaching and research in the

face of budget cuts, the effects of which seem to be compounded by the particular constraints

placed on the Department in terms of budget lines from where the cuts must come. Clearly,

in the current budget climate, some reduction in sessionals and TAships is likely, but it would

be useful for the Department to have more flexibility in how their cuts are implemented (as

is the case for Departments in non-FASS Faculties). In determining which courses will have

reduced support, the Department needs to give serious consideration to the pedagogical role of

tutorials in undergraduate education, and determine where that approach would be most useful.

Additionally, a system needs to be implemented to ensure that the Department can continue to

attract strong graduate students, including a mechanism to provide competitive and long-term

funding in recruiting students. The Department and the University need to ensure that a cycle

of decline is not started, with a decline in graduate students leading to a decline in research

productivity and funding and undergraduate education, leading to a decline in the ability to recruit

and retain outstanding faculty. The Department currently has many outstanding attributes, and it

is competitive at the national and international level. However, the Department and the University

are at an important crossroads, and care must be taken to ensure that Psychology remains strong

for the future.

jn?