John Hirdes, Ph.D., University of Waterloo

Verena Menec, Ph.D., University of Manotoba

MAY 2007

Report of the External Review Committee

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND OVERVIEW

The External Review Committee (referred to as the Committee) was composed of three

outside members (Jon Pynoos, John Hirdes and Verena Menec) and an internal SFU

member (Anthony Pen). In advance of our visit, the Committee received materials

prepared by the Department of Gerontology (referred to as the Department) along with

Terms of Reference and an Itinerary for the Site Visit. The material prepared by the

Department included a Self Study Report, Department Faculty and Gerontology Research

Centre (GRC) CV's, the Department's Constitution, Grant Funding, Peer Review

Publications, and the GRC Annual Report. On day two of the review, the Committee was

also provided upon its request with a copy of the report of the previous External Review

Committee.

The visit took place from March 28-31, 2007. It included meetings with senior university

administrators, Department faculty and staff, staff of the Harbour Centre library,

members of the Steering Committee, GRC Research Associates, students representing all

programs, and alumni. Meetings occurred at both the Harbour Centre and Burnaby

Campuses with time allocated for a tour of the Living Lab.

The Committee's overall view is that the program is very strong with excellent

leadership, a small but solid faculty, an international reputation, and a staff committed to

its mission. The Department also has good links with the community, enhanced by its

location at the Harbour Centre. Its intellectual stature has been enhanced since the last

review by increased publications in peer reviewed journals, presentations at professional

conferences, research grants, and participation in the development of large aging related

data sets. Its focus on the psycho-social aspects of aging and the built environment

distinguish it from other aging programs. The Department also has appropriate and well

thought out plans to improve the program, many of which the Committee supports such

as the creation of a new Ph.D. program and the addition of new faculty.

The report covers the items identified in the Terms of Reference for the review. It is

divided into six sections: Educational Programs (PhD, Masters Program, Diploma, and

Minor), Research, the Gerontology Research Centre, Departmental Members'

Participation in Administration, and Fit/Synergies with other Units/Faculties. In each

section we provide the Committee's assessment of the current situation followed by our

recommendations.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

A. PhD in Gerontology

Among its major initiatives for the next five years, the Department plans to launch a new

PhD in Gerontology. The Department's plan is based on the need for such a program in

Canada, demand among students, and the difficulty of the current interdisciplinary PhD

in the Simon Fraser system. The Committee finds that the proposed PhD will fill a gap in

that it will complement the two existing gerontology PhD programs in Canada (one in

French at the University of Sherbrooke and the other oriented towards aging, health and

well-being at the University of Waterloo). It will better serve prospective SFU students

who might otherwise go to PhD programs in the United States or Europe where systems

(e.g., health care, governmental) and data sets for research are different, making it

difficult to directly apply what is learned to Canada. The Committee agrees with the

Department that the proposed PhD program will play a distinct role and expand the

capacity of Canadian universities to serve the emerging needs of an aging society.

Based on the evidence of the Department's survey of its students and our discussion with

current master's students, (three out of five who indicated an interest in pursuing a PhD if

it is available) there will be a demand for the program. A cautionary note based on the

experience of U.S. programs is the demand may be initially limited as aging has not yet

been completely accepted as a field and that students interested in aging may still opt for

what they consider safer, more traditional disciplines (e.g., sociology, political science,

0 ?

psychology).

While it may be possible to tweak the existing system to create such a program, our

discussions with faculty and students associated with the existing interdisciplinary PhD

indicate it is very cumbersome and poses barriers to attracting the best candidates.

Moreover, there is a strong enough foundation on which to build a more free standing

PhD program in that existing Gerontology faculty have appropriate skill sets to support it,

an increasing number of research grants, and emerging large data sets (see research) that

will provide students with excellent opportunity for training.

• The program should consider titling itself the "PhD in Aging, Health and the Built

Environment" This would provide the flexibility to cover the research strengths of

the Department and identify to incoming students the foci of the program. The

review team does not think that the PhD program should have two streams, as

proposed by the Department as the limited number of faculty members cannot

support it.

• It is imperative to add a minimum of one new full time faculty member to support

the PhD program with an emphasis on creating gender balance among the faculty.

• Additional administrative staff is also needed to support the program.

• The PhD program should be built gradually, starting with an intake of 1-2

students in the first 2 years with a focus on admitting the highest quality students

only.

There needs to be guaranteed funding for students during the first 2 years, either

through RA positions and/or scholarships (e.g., BCNAR or GRC may provide

opportunities to provide support).

The Department Chair needs to be in contact with other PhD programs in North

America and elsewhere in the world to learn from their experience and explore

opportunities for collaborative relationships.

The Department must expand available workspace for PhD and other students.

B. Masters Program in Gerontology

The Masters Program in Gerontology (MA) at

SFU

is a successful, well-established

program that draws high quality students. The review committee was impressed by the

enthusiasm, motivation, and academic potential of the graduate students we met during

the review. There appeared to be a good collegial atmosphere among the graduate

students, and they spoke positively of their experience at SFU. The current and past MA

students have pursued appropriate topics for graduate research that has- generally yielded

good quality theses. The review committee was struck by the strong publication record of

the MA students.

The lack of a PhD program poses an unfortunate barrier to high quality masters students

who wish to continue their graduate training at the doctoral level at SFU. As noted above,

the interdisciplinary doctoral program does not appear to be a viable option for general

use. As a result, the high quality MA students produced by SFU are sometimes compelled

to go elsewhere to complete a PhD.

There were a number of good examples of internships that MA students experienced as

part of their program at SFU. The work settings and activities were diverse and

appropriate for individuals pursuing a graduate level education. These internships were

often obtained by students with limited administrative support or guidance from the

department, which does not have adequate staff resources to meet this need. The

committee felt that students would benefit from additional support to find internship

placements and supervision to ensure that experiences are productive and fit with the

mandate of the department.

Given the small faculty complement, junior faculty supervise more students than would

be typical at other universities; this has the potential to stretch faculty too thin and delay

graduation. It also can adversely affect the career development of junior faculty if they

are overburdened with student supervision. The small size of the department also means

that MA students sometimes have difficulty in finding members for committees. The

review committee felt that better linkages with the GRC would allow its research

associates to play a valuable role in the graduate program.

17

__^

The average length to complete the MA program was somewhat longer than expected.

This appeared to be due, at least in part, to the need for students to pursue employment to

support themselves over the course of their studies.

• There should be increased involvement of GRC research associates in the

graduate program, including as PhD committee members and supervision of MA

students.

• The university should establish a mechanism to appoint grant-funded research

associates as faculty members in order for them to supervise students. This

practice has been used successfully to support gerontology graduate programs in

other Canadian universities.

• The average length of MA completion should be reduced to 2 years. This may

require further scholarship funding to reduce the need for students to support

themselves through employment (e.g., RA positions). When students do pursue

RA positions consideration should be given to linking the RA experience to the

student's MA thesis wherever possible.

• The Department (and university) needs to clarify the requirements for the MA

project. It appears to the committee that current requirements for the project are

not clearly distinguishable from a thesis.

• The Department should collaborate with the public policy program to develop a

•

joint public policy course. All graduate students would benefit from this course.

The Department should consider making it a required course for PhD students.

• Independent courses should be offered on an on-going basis so that students can

explore areas of interest. However, the department needs to provide careful

oversight of independent courses to ensure that students do not take too many or

take them all from the same instructor.

C. The Diploma in Gerontology

The Committee feels that the Diploma Program serves an important purpose for some

students. However several of the problems identified in the previous review continued to

be evident. Specifically, while the Diploma Program meets the needs of students with a

professional or administrative background who want to gain expertise in gerontology, it

does not appear to meet the needs of students with non-professional backgrounds who

want to enter the field of aging. During our meeting with current and former diploma

students there was a clear sense of concern about the lack of employment opportunities in

gerontology for those without additional professional or managerial credentials. This was

an important source of frustration for some individuals who expected the diploma to

prepare them for a career in gerontology.

•

There is a strong sense of disenfranchisement among diploma students, some of whom

felt they were "second class" students. They felt they were not included in department

functions, and they sometimes felt that they were marginalized in favor of graduate

students. However, a positive development was an effort by the diploma students to form

a student group to represent their views and to establish positive linkages with graduate

students.

The diploma students also voiced concerns about the lack of support with the practicum

and availability of courses. While they were generally enthusiastic about the courses they

were able to take, they were concerned that courses they were interested in were not

consistently available.

• The Committee recommends that the Diploma Program be discontinued for

• students with non-professional/non-management backgrounds. The Diploma

Program should be targeted at clinicians or managers of community organizations

or long-term care facilities. Literature outlining the program must provide clear

description of the purpose of and target audience for the program.

• If the diploma is-targeted at students with professional or managerial

backgrounds, the practicum will no longer be necessary and could be dropped.

• A gerontology faculty member must be assigned as an associate chair for

undergraduate studies, with responsibilities that include oversight of the diploma

and minor programs.

D. The Minor in Gerontology

The Gerontology Minor serves an important purpose and enrollment is expected to

continue to grow. The quality of the teaching is excellent and the minor is a desirable

credential for students enrolled in other programs.

The Committee was particularly impressed with the quality of the sessional instructors.

However, we were concerned about the number of courses being taught by sessionals. It

was felt that the program could be at jeopardy if they leave or retire. A further concern is

that there does not appear to be a strong link between sessional instructors and the

Department. Given the vital importance of sessionals to this program, it was felt that a

strong effort should be made to better integrate these instructors into the activities of the

department.

As was the case with diploma students, there was a concern that some courses were not

available to minor students every year.

• There needs to be a long-term strategy for retention and recruitment of sessionals.

• There needs to be stronger integration of sessionals into the Department (e.g.,

sessionals should be invited to Departmental meetings).

• The review team does NOT support the development of a major at this time, given the

size of the department. This possible addition of a major should be revisited in a few

years. The current priority for expansion of educational offerings should be the PhD

program.

• The distance education courses should be upgraded to use the latest interactive

technology to encourage more interaction between faculty and students.

• Core courses must be offered on an annual basis; courses that are currently listed

should be taught at least bi-annually or they should be dropped from the academic

calendar.

3. RESEARCH

The Department has two main strengths: psycho-social aspects of health and the built

environment. During the Committee's site visit, the Department was in the process of

hiring a new faculty member, whose time will be split between the Department and the

Directorship of the GRC. Given that the individual being considered for the position has

expertise in the built environment, this will further strengthen that area.

The Committee was impressed with the clear improvement in research productivity and

quality of research since the last Departmental review, as evidenced by the substantial

increase in peer-reviewed publications and grants, including tn-council grants. The

research productivity is especially noteworthy, given the small number of faculty

members. The Committee feels that the Michael Smith Foundation BCNAR grant is a

particular asset, as it identifies the Department and Simon Fraser University as a leader in

aging research in BC. It also creates opportunities for students currently in the

Department and has the potential to attract more students into the field of aging.

The Committee further feels that the discussions that the Department has had with the

Faculty of Health Sciences regarding the RDC and housing of other data (e.g., vital

statistics) are a positive step, as they create a link to that faculty. The data repository has

great potential for faculty and students who are conducting research in the area of

psycho-social aspects of health, and it could be an important data source for PhD

dissertations.

Although the Committee feels that the GRC and Living Laboratory are assets, there was

an impression that they function too much in isolation from the Department.

Consequently, opportunities to strengthen the Department are sometimes missed.

Specifically, some of the research conducted by the GRC does not appear to bolster the

two research areas in the Department by, for instance, leading to peer-reviewed

publications, grants, or student research projects. The Living Laboratory is under-utilized

by Department faculty and students. The Committee acknowledges that the new Director

of the GRC may help facilitate the integration of the GRC and Living Laboratory with

the Department.

SRecommendations

• The Department should maintain its focus on and continue to expand the existing

areas of strength (i.e., psycho-social aspects of health and the built environment).

• There needs to be better integration of the GRC and the Living laboratory with the

Department, including greater participation of Department members in GRC

activities.

• Better integration of BCNAR with the Department is needed. In this respect, the

new GRC Director and the Department Chair should play major leadership roles

in BCNAR.

• The Department should play a major role in the development of the new data

repository in the Faculty of Health Sciences.

• The Department should also play a major role in getting access to linked BC data.

The possibility of creating secure, remote access from the Department (i.e.

Downtown campus) to any linked BC data holdings should be explored as this

will greatly facilitate research.

4. GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE

The Committee recognizes that the Gerontology Research Centre (GRC) continues to be

an asset, as it plays an important role in creating a link between the university and the

community. The GRC has clearly been helpful in advancing Simon Fraser's role in aging

research and has contributed to the development of the Department. The GRC continues

to play a major role in attracting endowment funds of a magnitude that is unparalleled in

any other Canadian gerontology centre. High quality products like the Fact Book are

helpful for promoting aging in the community.

The major concern that the Committee has in regards to the GRC relates to its -

relationship with the Department and, as noted above, our assessment that there could be

better synergy between the GRC and the Department, which would be of mutual benefit.

Moreover, there is duplication with services available at the University in terms of the

library holdings. Such duplication is particularly unnecessary, given that the University

library has excellent library support and resources in the area of aging, which are readily

accessible to everybody.

• There needs to be better alignment of the GRC with Departmental priorities and

its areas of strength.

• There must an emphasis on hiring high quality PhD level research associates and

the establishment of an endowed research chair. These individuals should be

involved in Departmental activities, such as supervision of students or teaching of

courses.

The reporting structure of the GRC should be modified such that the Dean of the

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences delegates her/his authority to the Department

Chair. This would mean that the GRC director reports to the Chair, thereby

ensuring that the direction of the GRC fits with the mandate of Department and

that there is appropriate synergy between the

GRC

and the Department.

• The steering committee was originally founded to support the

GRC,

but has been

less active with the formation of the Department. We recommend the dissolution

of the steering committee and formation of an advisory board comprised of

community stakeholders, representatives of government/regional health

authorities, as well as university representatives.

• Given the space constraints of the Department and the

GRC,

we recommend that

the

GRC

library be moved to the Belzberg library and that freed-up space be

reconfigured as work space for students and/or faculty.

• The Information Officer should discontinue librarian functions (e.g., providing

assistance with conducting library searches, cataloguing holdings), because there

is excellent support through the Belzberg library, which has a librarian

specifically assigned to the area of aging.

• The Committee recognizes that the Information Officer plays an important role in

supporting faculty members, sessional instructors and students, maintaining

websites, and producing newsletters. The Committee recommends that he

continue to do this work, but that he should also start to play a role in knowledge

transfer activities beyond the current publication of newsletters.

• The GRC should examine the way its newsletters are disseminated. Given the

increasing emphasis on disseminating information electronically, this option

should be explored.

5. DEPARTMENT MEMBERS' PARTICIPATION IN ADMINISTRATION

The current Chair of the Department has established a collegial atmosphere among the

gerontology faculty and staff who have a sense of enfranchisement and involvement in

major decisions. Nevertheless, there is some ambiguity in the lines of authority and

inefficiencies in administration. Although there is some collaboration with researchers

outside the university, there could be more both within the Department and with other

units on campus. Faculty members, however, seem stretched to the limits given research,

teaching and administrative responsibilities. Two faculty members have spouses with

academic appointments in other countries (U.K. and USA). This raises a concern about

future retention and quality of life. Anchoring faculty in the Department will be even

more important with a new PhD program, again underscoring the need for strategies to

attract and retain faculty members.

Recommendations ?

• There should be graduate and undergraduate chairs with the authority to make

decisions over their respective portfolios.

• Sessionals, who as noted above, play an important teaching role in the

Department should be more involved in departmental activities such as meetings

and events.

• There should be greater collaboration among Department members on research

projects as well as with other faculty in departments across campus (see below).

6. FIT/SYNERGIES WITH OTHER UNITS/FACULTIES

The Department has numerous shared interests with other units/faculties at SFU.

Examples include: public policy, BC IT, sociology, urban studies, kinesiology,

geography, engineering and health sciences.

While there is great potential for new collaboration to emerge with the expansion of the

Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), the review committee did not feel that Gerontology

needed to be located in FHS to realize those collaborative linkages.

SFU's Gerontology Department has excellent links to the other universities in BC

through the British Columbia Network on Aging Research. SFU has played an important

leadership role in this network and every effort should be made to capitalize on new

opportunities that may arise from BCNAR.

The addition of the new GRC Director (Andrew Sixsmith) and a new post-doctoral

fellow (Eunju Hwang) brings the potential for expanded international collaborations.

While SFU already has a strong international presence (e.g., as a result of hosting the

2001 International Association on Gerontology Conference in Vancouver), it was felt that

these individuals would bring new opportunities to establish linkages in aging, health and

the built environment.

The committee also felt that the relationship between the Department and its alumni

appears to be positive. The department should continue to foster interactions with its

alumni, particularly with those in settings that may be appropriate for internships.

• The Committee strongly recommends that Gerontology should at this point

remain within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS). The Department is

in an important transitional stage following the founding of the GRC and the

establishment of the Department. FASS provides an appropriate and supportive

academic context for the new PhD.

• Sufficient resources should be allocated to ensure that the Department continues

to play a major role in BCNAR.

• The Department should establish an on-going dialogue with the Faculty of Health

Sciences to identify areas of mutual interest and opportunities for collaboration in

graduate education and research.

• There should be more formalized interaction between alumni and the Department

through the practicum and internship placement. In addition, some alumni could

serve as externals on committees for theses or projects with a more applied focus.

ii:

Faculty of

Arts and Social Sciences

RECEIVED

ATTENTION Bitt Krane, Associate VP Academic

Faculty

FROM

John T. Pierce, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Arts and Social Sciences

LRE ?

-Response to Gerontology External Review

I consider this to be a very strong and positive assessment of a

Burnaby, BC Canada

department that "punches well above its weight". I think the

V5A 1S6

Review Committee (RCJ succinctly captures the success of the

604-291-4415 (Tel.)

unit with the following: "...[the] program is very strong with

604-291-3033 (Fax)

excellent leadership, a small but solid faculty, an international

www.sfu.ca/arts

(Web)

reputation, and a staff committed to its mission

. Furthermore.

RC acknowledges that the department has succeeded in

•

the

mailing address

differentiating itself from other programs through its focus on

AQ6168

the psycho-social aspects of aging and the built environment.

8888

University Drive

Burnaby, BC Canada

All

of this said, there are inevitable "teething' and course

\'SA 1S6

corrections issues in an expanding program which must be

addressed if Gerontology is to reach its potential and continue

the leadership role that it has carved out for itself.

I do not intend to focus on all the issues raised. I believe that

Dr. Wister has effectively responded to various and sundry

concerns raised by the PC. Instead I wish to identify four areas

that will require attention.

11 PhD Program: The RC was supportive of the newly

proposed PhD program although there was concern

expressed regarding the demand for the program unless

it was properly differentiated from other programs. I

think Dr. Wister has addressed these concerns although

I would urge him and his colleagues to think about the

proper marketing strategies for a new program. It is

•

clear that the program will require at least one

additional faculty member and perhaps additional

staffing, but the final determination of numbers will be

heavily dependent upon an accurate assessment of

demand and the willingness of the University to support

-ILNiI: L.\J•T,'.I1 I ? T1ININ ?

i! WORLD

ii'.

Faculty of

Arts and Social Sciences

this initiative, which clearly overlaps with the research

mission of the University in the area of Health.

21 Synergies: Clearly closer ties need to be developed

between Health Sciences, maintenance of databases and

to Public Policy. I understand that Gerontology and

Public Policy are considering a joint course which would

strengthen these ties. Joint courses between Health

Science and Gerontology would be an effective .way to

strengthen their respective MA programs.

31 Gerontology Research Centre (GRCJ: Closer ties were

both research and graduate supervision. My office has

recently supported the appointment of a new external

Director of the GRC and I am confident, as is Dr. Wister,

that this individual has the credentials and desire to

build the necessary bridges. I also support Dr. Wisters

suggestion to re-examine the role of the GRC Steering

Committee.

4) Other Programming: The MA is a highly successful

program and Like the RC, I see room for improvement in

completion times, ties with the GRC and expanded

internships. These changes can be accomplished with

some better planning. I, however, do not support the

RC's suggestion that the diploma be limited to

professionals. It is clear that Gerontology needs to do a

better job of how the diploma is portrayed. I am

encouraged by Dr. Wisters suggestion that a survey be

conducted of diploma students to better gauge

expectations.

11^--)L 

JTP/rt

CC:

A. Wister, Chair, Department of Gerontology

I;?. 

0

%L.\l. ?

IUSIH L.lvrnNIr y

HI

NKING OF THE WORLD

I)II':\Ir.VIINr ()1

(:ER')Nrc)1()t;Y

(;rRON1(:,L(')(;y IiSEAR(:1t (::pNruI

MEMO

ATTENTION

Glynn Nicholls, Director, Academic

Department olGerontology

Planning and Budgeting

Andrew Wister, Chair, Dept. of

800-5 15

West Hastin g

s Street

Vancouver BC Canada V(B K3

Response to External Review

T: 778.782.S062

F: 778.782.w66

cc John Pierce, Dean of Arts and Social Sciences

The Gerontology Department has carefully reviewed the external report of the Review

Team. We find their recommendations to be very useful for the future development of

•

the Gerontology Department and Gerontology

Research Centre (G RC) at SFU. Overall,

the reviews of the Gerontology Department and the GRC are extremely positive. There

is clear support for our strategic plan, in particular, the initiation of a PhD Program in

Gerontology at SFU. The recommendations also parallel our request for an additional

faculty position and staff resources commensurate with expansion of our graduate

programs and the anticipated growth in undergraduate enrolment. The Department of

Gerontology has ratified the response to the review, which is organized in the order of

points in the external review report.

Educational Programs

PhD in Gerontology

A Proposal for a PhD in Gerontology has been approved by the ACNGP and is moving

to the final stages of approval in the university. The departmental review strongly

supports the proposal, and adds that "it is imperative to add a minimum of one new full-

time faculty member to support the PhD Program with an emphasis on creating balance

among the faculty." They also support the request for additional staff resources to

support the program. We concur with their recommendation that the PhD Program

should begin gradually with small numbers of highly qualified students. As suggested,

we will be able to guarantee a minimum level of funding for two years within the

funding restrictions at SFU; provide work space; and the Chair will continue contact

with other programs to explore collaborate opportunities. The Chair of Gerontology has

. ?

recently been discussing a Memorandum of Understanding outlining a mutually

supportive relationship between SFU Gerontology and Sherbrooke's graduate

Programs in Gerontology. These efforts will be expanded.

TH.KI'JG

I)EP:\R1\iINT ()I CER()NTOIOGY

c;FR()NTOLO(; y

1flSEA1CH CENTRE

A final recommendation pertaining to the PhD Program is to change the title to: "PhD

in Aging, Health and the Built Environment" and eliminate the two streams - Aging

and Environment, and Health and Aging. The Gerontology Department disagrees with

this recommendation. The title change suggests that a student must pursue research that

cuts across the two themes, which may deter potential students from applying.

Furthermore, our PhD proposal currently requires that students choose a minimum of

two (out of five) courses in either of these two major themes, but provides considerable

options. These are termed concentrations, and we do not have separate streams per se in

the proposed program. The rationale is that we would be building on the strengths of

the Masters Pro g

ram that shares these thematic concentrations.

Masters Program in Gerontology

The Masters Program received a glowing assessment by the Review Team. While some

of the suggestions are instructive, some others appear to have been based on

assumptions that are misinformed. The first recommendation is to increase the

involvement of GRC research associates in the graduate program. However, research

associates and post-doctoral fellows have and continue to sit on thesis/project

committees. Given that the GRC has been increasing the number of high quality PhDs

appointed into these positions (see GRC section), we anticipate that supervision by

GRC staff will certainly escalate. We also have 20 Adjunct Professors, five Associate

Members, and a significant number of professionals working in the field of

Gerontology outside of SFU who also serve on theses. The second recommendation

suggests that SFU should have a mechanism to appoint grant-funded research associates

as faculty members to allow them to supervise students. Any of the above listed

individuals currently may act as a Co-Senior Supervisor, in conjunction with a faculty

member from Gerontology. This is the norm in Graduate Studies at SFU in order to

provide stability in supervision and to make certain that there is a Departmental

representative serving as a senior supervisor who is familiar with SFIJ policies.

years. Currently our completion time is 2.4 years, which I understand is lower than the

large majority of departments. Recently, the Department decreased the required

coursework by one course. Although we agree that two years is a reasonable target,

there are factors that are outside of our control. There is a systemic issue that many

students must work part-time to support themselves because of limited funding. While

our students receive a significant number of awards (SSHRC, MSFHR, SFU Entrance

Scholarships, Graduate Fellowships, internal awards, etc.), some require or choose

Research and Teaching Assistantships to support them, and further their careers. We

also have some students who work full-time while completing their degree. Our faculty

I.)rrAR1r%1ENT OF (;LR)]O1.OGY

(;F.RONroL(.)(;y ii.sirc.;r•i

(;r:.NTRE

will continue to provide excellent supervisory support in a timely manner.

It is also requested that we differentiate the thesis and project requirement in the MA.

Program. These requirements are delineated in a document distributed and discussed

with students during orientation (not supplied to the Review Team, but available upon

request). The main distinguishing feature is that a thesis is expected to be a publishable

work, while a project likely would not be because of a more circumscribed literature

review, methodology, analysis and less depth. We also provide examples of each for

students and faculty. The decision whether a student completes a project or thesis is

made at the proposal defense stage by their supervisory committee.

The recommendation to create ajoint public policy/gerontology course is a good one,

and will be explored. We have had Masters students from the Public Policy Program in

. ?

our graduate course GERO 801 Health Policy and Aging, and our students may take

relevant courses from their program. A joint course is more challenging to mount for

obvious reasons. Finally, with respect to Independent courses, Directed Studies courses

are available to Masters students if a faculty member is willing, but with a relatively

small graduate program and small faculty base, we have chosen to offer more graduate

classes (a minimum of six per year) and recommend taking these courses at the Masters

level.

Diploma in Gerontology

The Review Team felt that while the Diploma in Gerontology (DGT) serves a purpose

for students with professional, community or administrative backgrounds who want to

further their expertise in Gerontology, it is less valuable for "non-professional" students

(those not having work experience). The Department is aware that a small non-

representative number of DGT students (who have yet to complete their diploma)

voiced such a complaint to the Review Team. We believe that this led to an inaccurate

assessment of the value of the DGT, leading to the recommendation that the DGT be

discontinued for non-professional students. The Department strongly disagrees with this

recommendation for several reasons. The DGT accepts about 1

students per year.

About one-third of these take the DGT to raise their knowledge-base in Gerontology in

order to apply to the .

Masters Program, and are a combination of "professional" and

"non-professional" students as described by the Review Team. Another third are

individuals (usually returning students) that fit the "professional" categorization. The

final third are students who want to add specialized knowledge in Gerontology to their

degree field for the purpose of increasing their job prospects. We have communicated

with many DGT alumni, and we have conducted a survey in the past. The results of

these analyses indicate that many students taking the DGT directly after their BA find

I)EPARTMEN1 OF GERONTOLOGY

GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE

jobs in the field, if they do not choose to further their education. While they do not

experience the same employment opportunities as our Master's graduates, they none the

less significantly increase their career opportunities in a growing sector of the labour

market (health, community services, government, etc.). Restricting the degree to only

students previously or currently working in aging-related fields would shrink the

program significantly, and would definitely remove employment and further

educational opportunities for many students. The Department proposes to: I) conduct

another survey of DGT graduates in order to track their employment paths; 2) increase

our marketing of the DGT to prospective employers to enhance its value; 3) use the

practicum/internship supervisor to help DGT students gain employment experience in

better quality positions; and 4) review the description of the DGT in the calendar,

promotional material and web site to make certain that it accurately reflects

employment prospects associated with the diploma. We agree with the final

recommendation in this section and are in the process of identifying a new faculty

undergraduate chair. This has previously been part of the Chair's portfolio.

Minor in Gerontology

The growth and success of the Minor in Gerontology is highlighted in the Review

Team's assessment. Our classes are at capacity and could be expanded further with

additional faculty. This underscores the mounting interest in Gerontology among

students, and reflects the maturation of the discipline, as well as social needs in an

aging population. The Review Team noted that our instructors are of very high quality

compared to most units, and that we strongly rely on them. They have recommended

that a long-term strategy for retention and recruitment of sessionals be implemented,

and that sessionals should be more strongly integrated into the Department. We have

approximately four courses per year taught by sessionals, comprising about 20% of in-

class courses. Proportionately more sessionals teach courses offered through CODE.

With respect to the first point, the Department hasrecently amalgamated several

sessional stipends with monies from a faculty member's CIHR New Investigator Award

to create a three-year Assistant Professorship that has been filled last September. In

addition, the one sessional instructor who teaches multiple courses has been appointed

as a part-time instructor. The Department will examine other ways to retain and attract

quality instructors, but it should be emphasized that these instructors plan to remain

teaching with the Department for as long as possible. Furthermore, we turn away

several interested instructors each year, and currently we have 20 Adjunct Professors.

With respect to the second point, the Department has immediately adopted a policy to

invite sessional instructors to all Departmental meetings, rather than only targeted

meetings and events as in the past, in order to better integrate them into the Department.

It should be noted that sessional instructors have offices and are involved in many

I)EPARTI1iNl ()I GERONTOLOGY

GER(N rOI()GY P FSFANCEI CENTPE

aspects of the Department and GRC.

Turning to curriculum and program development, we also agree with the Review Team

that a major in Gerontology is premature, and that emphasis should be placed on the

development of the PhD Program. A recommendation was made to offer all required

courses each year and others within a two year period. The Gerontology Department

provided the Review Team with scheduling information (05/06 and 06/07) in Appendix

13, demonstrating that we indeed offer all required courses at this rate. In that two year

period, we offered

courses (of which 13 were graduate courses); including 18

different undergraduate courses, and eight of our nine graduate courses. We are also

developing two new undergraduate courses and four new graduate courses (with the

PhD Program) to add this list.

It is also recommended that we utilize the latest interactive technology in our distance

education courses. The majority of these currently use WebCt. Furthermore, based on

this recommendation, the Chair of Gerontology met with CODE staff and a plan is

taking shape to have a Gerontology course used as a prototype for a video component

integrated intoWebCt. This will entail taping faculty keynotes in specialized areas of

gerontology that fit into the most populated course (GERO/SA 420 Sociology of

Aging) with over 200 students per year. Gerontology also reviewed all distance course

offerings with CODE in mid-June to determine updating of courses and new course

development for the next five terms.

Research

The Review Team was very impressed with the research productivity of the faculty

since the last Departmental review, especially given the small faculty base. They also

note that the MSFHR grant supporting the BC Network for Aging Research (one of

eight provincial population health networks) housed at SFU Gerontology (two of six

Co-leaders are Gerontology faculty) identifies the Department and SFU as a leader in

aging research. It also creates opportunities for students and synergies for research

collaboration. They also support the involvement of the Department in the development

of a Research Data Centre at SFU, and other data linkage opportunities connected with

the data warehouse. The principal recommendations made by the Review Team are to

continue with current research foci, better align the GRC and the Department, including

expansion of the program of research connected to the Living Lab (joint SFU

Gerontology/BCIT research facility), leveraging BCNAR resources within the

Department, and to be involved in data access issues.

The Department concurs with the recommendation to continue its focus on our major

Ill

DEPAR'I'MET OF GER')N'rc)Loc;y

GERONFOL()GY RESIA1(;Fr CUNTRF

research strengths. The newly hired (Sept 2007) Director of the Gerontology Research

Centre (Dr. Sixsmith) from the University of Liverpool is a full professor with

internationally recognized expertise in Technology and Aging, and is a P1 or Co-PI on

several major cross-national research consortia studying e-health and assistive

technologies for older populations that align perfectly with the mandate and research

opportunities in the Living Lab. He will assume a leadership role in revitalizing the

research program connected to the Living Lab. The collaborative leadership style of the

new Director will play a role in fostering greater integration of the GRC and

departmental members, and the fostering of new synergies (also see next section). The

new Director will also be appointed a BCNAR Co-leader, joining the Chair of the

Gerontology Department on the BCNAR executive. This organizational structure was

developed prior to the review and is consistent with the strategic plan of BCN AR.

The Department's role in the RDC has already been established. The Chair of the

Gerontology Department is on the SFU proposal for an RDC site, and has been the SFU

representative (and Executive member) on the BC Interuniversity RDC housed at UBC.

Furthermore, in his capacity as Co-leader of BCNAR, the Chair of the Gerontology

Department has been actively working with MSFHR; the BC Ministry of Health; the

UBC CHSPR data linkage group and Population Health Laboratory Observatory

(PHLO); and the recent health data platform development to form a new Steering

committee mandated with health data access and data linkage activities in BC. The

Chair has been recently invited to help develop and to sit on this committee. This stems

from the BCNAR Annual Conference entitled, Building Health Research Capacity in

BC: Utilization, Integration and Access to Health Data held at the Wosk Dialogue

Centre in Feb 2007 organized

by Dr. Wister. Over 100 university, government, and

community researchers and stakeholders from across the province participated at this

highly successful conference and dialogue. We have also been working closely with the

Faculty of Health Sciences data warehouse group. SFU Gerontology will therefore be

well-represented in future health data access activities in the province and within SFU, -

need to be at the Burnaby campus, where construction is in process. The health data

linkage activities of PHLO are aimed at developing remote access, which would serve

all BC research communities equally.

Gerontology Research Centre

The Review Team clearly recognizes that the GRC is an asset to the Department. The

historical development and organizational structure of the GRC and Gerontology

Programs has led to some degree of separation, although these units enjoy considerable

mutually supportive activities and resource leveraging, and the Director of the GRC is a

)

\ 1-.A'!I t\lVlI[i \ ?

T H 7

N K 1 N 0 GF 'E 'JORLj

I)Fi'ARTMCNl ()1 CI()NiLO(;'Y

cFRoNToI)c; y rr.sEA1c11 CENTR1

departmental faculty member. The main recommendation pertains to increasing the

integration of these units.

In his role as Acting Director of the GRC for the last several years, the Chair of the

Gerontology Department has taken an active role in addressing the recommendation to

align the units. Gerontology received departmental status in 2004 and has created a

Departmental constitution in which certain GRC activities are linked to the Department.

For instance, post-doctoral hires (even those funded through the GRC), visiting

professors and researchers in residence, are now vetted by the Department and coupled

with Departmental supervisors or collaborators. Furthermore, as noted above, the

arrival of the new GRC Director in September provides an opportunity for

organizational change as well as a shift in the culture of the Gerontology unit as a

whole. The new Director's collaborative leadership style is consistent with the Chair's,

and will support the mutual aim to further enhance an intellectual community that

coalesces Departmental and GRC research and educational goals. It should be noted,

however, that some GRC activities are unique, such as community outreach, and other

direct involvement with seniors, and more applied research activities.

The retiring of a prior research associate in educational gerontology afforded an

opportunity to replace this research foci with one in Culture and Aging, which the GRC

and Department feel is needed. The last hire was a PhD with expertise in housing issues

of Asian older adults, and we are currently interviewing for a second post-doctoral

position also in the area of Culture and Aging. Also, we are leveraging funds within

BCNAR to jointly fund a third post-doctoral research position that would focus on data

linkage opportunities connected to the Dementia Clinic with other sources. The most

recent hires areas being considered to teach sessional courses in the Department, and

future hires will be provided similar opportunities, given their expertise. These

developments will also attract further interest in post-doctoral and academic visitors to

the GRC and Department.

The GRC constitution delineates a decision-making structure that originally included all

Deans of faculties at SFU, but was subsequently replaced by the current Gerontology

Steering Committee. Currently, it is chaired by Dr. Robert Gordon. with members from

various departments across the university. Since the Gerontolog

unit has become a

department, it is necessary to re-examine the need for a Steering Committee comprised

of only members not in the Department. This is especially timely given the difficulty in

recruiting Steering Committee members from across campus. The Review team has

comprised of community stakeholders, government representatives/health authorities,

as well as university representatives. This organizational structure may not solve the

underlying alignment problem. BCNAR currently has community and government

DEP:RTMENF OF GERONTOlOGY

GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE

representatives on its Advisory Board, making the recommended structure of the SFU

Gerontology Advisory Board redundant. In order to better address this issue, the GRC

and Department recommends that a meeting be organized that includes the new GRC

Director, the Chair, and the current Steering Committee to discuss several options with

respect to the dissolution of the latter or its replacement, as well as any necessary

changes to the constitution of the GRC. One option is to add Gerontology faculty to the

Steering Committee as members along with members from other departments with

interests in aging research. With respect to reporting structure, as stated in Policy 40.01,

the GRC reports to the Dean of FASS as a Schedule "A" Centre. We are confident that

an organizational structure will be agreed upon that will serve the needs of the

Department and the GRC. Having said this, it should be noted that there has never been

a major organizational problem stemming from disagreements between the GRC and

Department to date.

The recommendation that the GRC library holding should be turned over to the

Belzberg library and that the Information Officer (10) discontinue library functions is

not supported by the Department or the GRC. The library houses a large number of

publications that have been donated by faculty or purchased through the GRC

endowments, including the Imperial Oil Gerontology Research Collection.

Some of

these are "grey' publications not available in university libraries. A total of 485 new

books, reports, government documents and videos were acquired over the last year,

representing a 140% increase from the previous year, and representing 5,247 items.

Among the new acquisitions were: 66 new titles on CDs in PDF format; 14 VHS and

DVD videos to the newly reorganized AV collection which now has 109 titles (a newly

donated DVD players allows teachers and students to view the collection in the Centre:

77 new pamphlets, reports, bibliographies, reprints of articles categorized by subject of

field; and I 12 journal issues and 70 newsletters. These are catalogued by the 10 using

ProCite bibliographic software and uploaded to the BRS database of the SFU library

catalogue system on a regular basis to make the GRCIC catalogue available online. The

library holdings are used by community, faculty, and students. In addition, the JO

provides a variety of services to fill information requests. In the last year, there were

922 in-person, email, and telephone requests for information handled by the 10 (an

increase of 17% over last year). These included: 705 SFU researchers; 132 students;

and 85 community, government, business, media and other external users. The 10

conducted 1,000 searches of electronic data bases such as AgeLine, Medline. Psycinfo,

etc delivering irformation directly to requestors. In addition, the GRC librar

is a hub

of activity for stidents to work on research projects, essays and other projects.

Furthermore, our faculty shares information resources by housing them in a centrally

located and easily accessible area with rapid library support from our 10. The moving

of the GRC holdings would significantly disrupt these resources, services and functions.

The Department and GRC are in the process of reviewing all library holdings in an

.\S1I 1\iV1iH ?

THNKIMG ?

W--R'_3

l)1.PARJ\IEN1' (it GIi()N TO LOGY

CF•.RONFOLOGY rSrAH(:H

CENiPF

effort to remove outdated publications and to increase its utility.

The full FTE GRC position of Information Officer, requiring librarian training, was

created in the original formation of the centre to support the broader community. Over

time, the 10 has taken on the duties of managing two Newsletters, three web sites,

conducting library searches for GRC staff, faculty and students, as well as many other

the 10 worked on the first iteration of the Canadian Health Network, and has helped to

create the BCNAR searchable research database (RAD). These activities were covered

by these grants, therefore reducing the 10's costs to the GRC. We anticipate that there

will be an increase in the amount of time that the 10 will devote to other knowledge

transfer activities-connected to BCNAR, given that we have received an additional

$375,000 MSFHR grant ($1.375 million total) with a significant amount devoted to

provincial knowledge transfer strategies. Finally, we have created a sub-committee to

examine organization and distribution of the Newsletters.

Department Administration

The Review Team states that "the Chair of the Department has established a collegial

atmosphere among faculty and staff who have a sense of enfranchisement and

involvement in major decisions." However, suggestions are made to improve

administrative efficiency. Most of these have been addressed in the recent

establishment of a Gerontology Constitution. Currently, the graduate chair has the

authority to make decisions with the support of the Department faculty, as with all

decisions. We concur that we need to have the undergraduate portfolio given to a

faculty member (previous covered by the Chair due to limited resources), and we have

already adopted the recommendation to invite sessionals to all meetings.

Synergies with other Units

The recommendations in this section are consistent with our strategic plans. We agree

with the Review Team that Gerontology should remain in the Faculty of Arts and

Social Sciences (FASS) and not be moved into the Faculty of Health Sciences (FH). We

concur with the Review Team that FASS provides an appropriate and supportive

academic context for the Gerontology unit. Furthermore, movement into a new faculty

could disrupt the development of a PhD in Gerontology, and other strategic plans for

growth. Additionally, many students seek out our programs (and we are viewed as a