From the members of the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure:

Paul Budra, Department of English

Jonathan Chu, Undergraduate Student Representative

Charmaine Dean, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science

Jane Friesen, Department of Economics

Frank Gobas, School of Resource & Environmental Management

Craig Janes, Faculty of Health Sciences

Robert Krider, Faculty of Business Administration

Jack Martin, Faculty of Education

Sue Roppel, Special Project Advisor to the Vice President, Academic

Van Truong, Graduate Student Representative

John Waterhouse, Vice-President, Academic (Task Force Chair)

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Acknowled2ements

The Task Force wishes to take this opportunity to sincerely recognize the exceptional efforts of

those individuals who served on the Academic Structure Working Groups without whose

expertise, time, and careful deliberations, this report would not have been possible. We also

wish to whole-heartedly thank those members of the University community who provided

presentations, facilitated sessions or attended the full-day Interdisciplinarity Charette Day. The

identification of barriers and creative insights into solutions formed a fundamentally important

framework for the recommendations we have developed with regard to enhancing

interdisciplinarity at Simon Fraser University. Similarly, we owe a special thank you to Dr. Jock

Munro who assumed the role of facilitator for the development of a vision for an environmental

initiative at Simon Fraser University. We also recognize and thank those individuals who

participated in the full day Environmental Visioning Workshop, who have proactively engaged

with the extended processes around the environmental initiative, and who have developed

proposals and alerted us to initiatives elsewhere in this important area.

Equally important, we are indebted to all members of the University community who have so

thoughtfully and fully engaged with us in the design of the future of Simon Fraser University.

Your presence and insights offered at Working Group meetings, Open Forums, consultation

processes, and written feedback have been extremely useful and directing. This report and the

recommendations contained within it could not have arisen without your active engagement.

Finally, and by no means least, the Task Force wishes to sincerely thank Ms. Sharon Eng who

served as Secretary to the Task Force, and Ms. Gwen English who was responsible for the

development and maintenance of the Task Force's website.

Page 2 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

•.. 2

Volume I: Introduction and Background

••• 5

Setting the Stage

... S

Designing SFU for 2025

... 6

Structure of Our Report

. ..l1

Volume II: Major Structural Change

... 12

Process Overview

..13

Major Structural Recommendations of the Task Force

Faculty of Engineering and Computing

... 17

2. ?

Faculty of Contemporary Arts, Communication & Design

3. ?

.32

iii. Dissolution of Faculty of Applied Sciences

iv. College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning

.34

.34

v. ?

Institute for Advanced Scholarship

.43

Volume III: Interdisciplinarity

. . .46

What is Interdisciplinarity?

. . .47

Process Overview

. . .48

Evidence of Successful Interdisciplinarity at SFU

. ..49

Issues Raised and Areas Identified for Review, Support or Redesign

. . .49

Multifaceted Strategy

. ..51

i. ?

Support. Facilitation, Championship

Centres and Institutes Reform

.52

ii. ?

.53

.55

.56

.56

Interdisciplinary Performance Review Mechanism

. . .57

Financial Support

Summary and Recommendations

.58

Programs, Processes and Other Activities

.59

Volume

IV:

.. .61

a. Specific Academic Program Areas

. . .62

i. ?

Cognitive Science Program

Publishing Program Consolidation

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

v. Foreign Language Study Program ?

. . .66

b. Existing Structures and Activities

. . .69

c. - Process Review

.71

Student Mobility / Course Access Review ?

. . .71

ii. Graduate Student Interdisciplinary Program Review

. . .71

d. Infrastructure Support

. . .72

Volume V: Academic Structural Elements

... 73

a. General Overview

. . .74

b. Department and School?

.75

c. Independent Programs

d. College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning

.75

.. .76

e. College Programs

. . .77

f. Centres and Institutes

. . .78

Faculty Participation in Centres and Institutes

. . .80

ii.

Centre and Institute Quality Review

...80

g. Summary and Recommendations ?

. . .81

Volume VI: Implementation ?

. . .82

a. Implementation issues

i. Implementation Issues for Students, Faculty and Staff

.83

Implementation Issues for Administrative Areas, Systems and

.83

it.

Implementation and Prioritization of Recommendations

.85 ?

Infrastructure Support

. . .92

External Fundraising ?

Appendix A - Principles to Guide Phase 2 Task Force

.95

Senate Consideration ?

. . .95

Appendices

Appendix B - Procedural Framework to Guide Phase 2 Task Force

Appendix C - Phase I Task Force Summary of the Vision for SFU in the Year 2025

Appendix D - Summary of Submissions to the Phase 2 Task Force

Appendix E - Summary of Working Group Composition and Submission Distribution

Appendix F - Summary of all Task Force Recommendations

g. Appendix G - Bibliographic References

Page 4 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

VOLUME I - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Settin2 the Stajie

In 1965, Simon Fraser University opened its doors to its first students, faculty, and staff. Since

those beginnings only slightly more than 40 years ago, Simon Fraser University has grown into

an internationally recognized, comprehensive research institution with about 30 Departments and

Schools, six Faculties, more than 18,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students and

3,000 FTE graduate students, a faculty complement of approximately 900 FTE, and a staff

complement of approximately 2,000 FTE.

The growth of the University has been extraordinary over the past decade alone, and we have

witnessed dramatic changes in the range and scope of academic activities within the University

including the expansion of our activities to span four campuses'. We have also experienced

significant changes in the external social, political, demographic, fiscal and intellectual contexts.

During these changes we have, consistent with our legacy, kept our eye on the future to ensure

that we are able to make meaningful contributions to society and the world in which we live

through our research, teaching and outreach.

It is in the context of these forces that in October 2005, the Vice President, Academic created a

Faculty Structure Task Force (hereinafter referred to as the Phase 1 Task Force) to examine the

question:

Is Simon Fraser University's current academic structure one that best reflects our

qualities and strengths and one that will enable us to most effectively and visibly advance

our strategic goals?

Notably, this review did not occur within a context of financial crisis, crisis of reputation, or

crisis of vision, often typical of restructuring exercises at other academic institutions.

After a year of detailed study and review, the Phase 1 Task Force had the following conclusion:

We believe it essential that Simon Fraser University preserve the foundations upon

which it has been built. Any changes to Faculty structure therefore must preserve six

pillars: strong core disciplines, a comprehensive liberal arts and science education,

interdisciplinarity, integration with our many communities, excellence in educational

programming and research, and an international reputation for innovation.

[Nonetheless, as we imagine the

. future,] the University should consider and thoroughly

examine the potential of alternative academic configurations, structures and/or systems

qfsupport

(p.

Final Report, FSTF).

Campuses include Burnaby Mountain campus. Surrey campus, Vancouver campus (which includes Harbour

Centre. the Wosk Centre for Dialogue, the Segal Graduate School of Business, and the various Contemporary Arts

studio facilities in the downtown eastside) and the Kamloops campus. We also have a presence at the Great

Northern Way Campus, but due to the joint institutional nature of this development we have not claimed it as an

SFIJ campus in this report.

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SRI'

We note that the call to proceed with an examination of the University's structure was not one

marked by an air of caution or conservatism. Rather, it was a call with a commitment to create

the best University possible for the future and to unbridle the spirit of ingenuity and imagination

that is resident throughout the University community.

With [our] foundations in place and kept intact, the Faculty Structure Task Force

believes that where change is required, we must not hesitate and we must be prepared to

be bold. We must direct ourselves to creatively imagine, design and build our future;

embrace change as opportunity; and, to construct an academic structure that will ensure

that in all areas of the University, we can realize our goal to be -the best comprehensive

research university in Canada. (p.2, Final Report, FSTF)

And thus, on the basis of the Phase 1 Task Force findings, Senate approved the establishment of

a Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure in November 2006. The mandate of this second

phase was threefold:

I. Consider and evaluate proposals from the University community as well as those

developed by the Phase 2 Task Force itself and, following exploration and consultation

with the University community, recommend to Senate an overall academic unit

con

fIguration for Simon Fraser University;

Consider and evaluate the coherence, roles, responsibilities, functions, administrative

requirements, costs, and terminology of the structural building blocks employed at Simon

Fraser University (i.e. programs, schools, departments, centres, and institutes) and.

following exploration and consultation with the University community, recommend to

Senate a strategy that will provide definitional clarity, administrative effectiveness, and

appropriate differentiation among these structures; and,

Consider and evaluate the University 's effectiveness in incubating, facilitating, and

supporting interdisciplinary research and programming and, following exploration and

consultation with the University community, recommend structural and/or policy changes

that will enhance interdisciplinary innovation in the future.

Senate also approved from the Phase I Task Force Final Report, eight principles and a

procedural framework to guide the Phase 2 Task Force in its work. The principles and

procedural framework are captured as Appendix A and B, respectively, to this report.

Desiv,inA'

SFU for 2025

The Phase I Task Force conducted its initial assessment of whether Simon Fraser University

should further delve into issues of academic structure and interdisciplinarity in view of what the

University should strive to be by the year 2025. Their vision is presented as Appendix C. Their

vision of 2025, and the four qualities we will define below as emblematic of that vision, was

premised in large part in consideration of a number of critically important transformations in the

external and internal context of Simon Fraser University. While we do not wish to reiterate all of

Page 6 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

those arguments, there are several that are so important to the future of Simon Fraser University

that we felt they should be highlighted again here.

First, historically Simon Fraser University has operated primarily within an environment where

the demand for university spaces exceeded supply. As the University witnessed recently, this

trend is radically changing. Within the next decade, the age 18-21 population of British

Columbia (one of our traditionally primary enrolment populations)- will decline by

3.6%.

Further, it is predicted that BC Grade 12 Enrolment will flat-line over the period 2004-2014. In

combination with an increasingly diversified post-secondary education system in British

Columbia and the likely extension of degree certification within some areas of the BC College

sector, it will be increasingly necessary for Simon Fraser University to compete for

undergraduate enrolments. We must ensure that the University is clearly recognized for its

strengths, its unique attributes and core commitments and the quality of its teaching and its

research. Simon Fraser University must also emerge as offering a distinct and unparalleled

undergraduate education.

While these population projections are of serious concern, a more optimistic picture emerges for

other population profiles. For example, the age

25-29

population of British Columbia will

actually grow by 21% during the 2004-2014 period, and immigration continues to outpace

domestic population growth. Further, the provincial demographic data is not uniform by region,

and we expect that Surrey will continue to see 18-21 population growth. Notwithstanding

regional variation in the 18-21 age profile, it is clear that there will be an increasing need for

• several areas of university education: postgraduate education at the master, and doctoral level,

recertification programming for the qualified immigrant population seeking domestic

qualification, and innumerable new demands for lifelong learning opportunities.

Second, the University's financial composite has changed dramatically since 2000 alone. While

historically supported primarily from the Provincial Government, this revenue source to the

University has dropped dramatically as a proportion of overall operating funding: from 69.2% in

2000/01 to

53.9%

in 2004/05. To continue to sustain high quality educational programming and

excellent research facilities the University has had to diversity its funding strategy. Such

diversification will be increasingly important in the future. This means that we must continue to

expand our reputation for research and teaching excellence nationally and internationally. We

must ensure that we are able to attract the best students from around the world, and that the

overall vision, direction, and reputation of the University is seen as attractive to potential

financial benefactors. We echo the sentiments though of the first phase Task Force that while

doing so we must "remain absolutely and fundamentally committed to the intellectual autonomy

of the University, to preserving the liberty of our institution, to honoring our core commitments,

and to fundamentally preserving the raison d'etre of a University to engage in knowledge

conceived within a framework of inquiry, explanation, and discovery of phenomena."

(p.

6, Final

Report, FSTF)

In addition to the two external contextual frameworks drawn from the first phase Task Force,

there have been several additional developments in the external environment that are noteworthy.

0 ?

First, the British Columbia Provincial Government continues to expand access to post-secondary

Page 7 Of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SF(J"

education. Simon Fraser University must ensure that all of its programs are seen as a first choice

for outstanding undergraduate and graduate students. The University has demonstrated its

commitment historically, and through recent initiatives, to offer an unparalleled educational

experience for students. At the undergraduate level, initiatives such as the Student Learning

Commons, the undergraduate curriculum initiative (W-Q-B), the cohort approach to learning at

the Surrey campus and in first year programming (Explorations, TechOne, and Science One), our

innovations in pedagogical delivery as exemplified by the Semester inDialogue, the dual

jeiR-t-

degree program in Computing Science, and proposed international experiential programs in

Business Administration and Arts and Social Sciences, are all exemplary of this commitment.

Further, our trimester operations, tutorial system, and flexible programmifig structures all signify

our commitment to a unique undergraduate educational experience. At the graduate level, Simon

Fraser University has established a strong record of excellence in disciplinary and

interdisciplinary studies across the University. Our outstanding researchers, world-class Chairs,

and research success as demonstrated by research council and other support, all provide a top-

level graduate learning environment. We recognize these successes, but also believe that we can

do more. The Task Force proposes additional structures and initiatives in this report that we

believe will build on the past successes of Simon Fraser University and will ensure that we offer

one of the best educational experiences and learning environments for undergraduate and

graduate students in the country. attracting the highest quality students from around the world.

Second, the "Campus 2020" report (April 2007) by Jeff Plant, QC and Special Advisor to the BC

Provincial Government, noted that academic excellence must be the cornerstone of the

province's post-secondary educational strategy: "Our research-intensive institutions must

continue to be the key incubators of the innovation needed to address our most pressing social

and environmental challenges and to develop a strong economy. They must also be places of

teaching excellence, and they must be destinations of choice for the best and brightest students

from across the province and around the world." (Campus 2020,

4) The imperative of serving

as an incubator of innovation as we address pressing social and environmental challenges is an

important motivational underpinning for the ultimate recommendations found within this Phase 2

Task Force report. The Task Force believes that the additions we offer to structural building

blocks to enable incubation and adaptability, the areas of new focus for the University that we

recommend through alignment of academic units and new program creation, and the

multifaceted strategy we suggest for interdisciplinarity, will help Simon Fraser University play a

fundamental role as an incubator of innovation and as a place for addressing pressing social and

environmental challenges in our changing world.

A third recent contextual change is the appearance of a new tiering of the Canadian University

system. Universities that consider themselves to be Tier I are typically those research-intensive

institutions with medical schools. However, recently the University of Waterloo has become

part of the Tier I league. We are concerned that the tiering of Canadian Universities may have a

direct impact on the way in which universities generally are able to participate in, and exert

influence upon, provincial, national and, potentially even, international research agendas. We

must ensure that Simon Fraser University is widely recognized nationally and internationally as a

Tier I University should the tiering that appears to be on the horizon actually take hold within

the Canadian post-secondary context. As a consequence, we believe that it is imperative for

Simon Fraser University's research excellence to be better profiled and better facilitated.

Page 8 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU

• especially in the most pressing areas of societal need such as health and the environment.

Further, as the future of research success is comprehensively intertwined with excellence in

graduate education, we believe we should look for opportunities to significantly expand our

graduate offerings and more effectively involve graduate students in our research activities.

A fourth contextual change that deserves noting is the increasing profile and attention to issues

of environmental concern. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in November 2007 to a group

including Al Gore for drawing attention to issues of global warming and climate change is

illustrative of the level of societal importance and the inescapable conclusion that the world must

become urgently proactive in discovering and studying solutions to environmental problems. It

did not go unnoticed by the Task Force that within a day of the awarding of the Nobel Peace

Prize, universities across Canada rushed to report in local and national newspapers the members

of their -

faculty who have been actively involved in the various national and international global

climate change programs and related initiatives.

A fifth recent development in the external environment is the noticeable move by universities

and funding agencies internationally over the past 5-10 years to integrate knowledge

communities in an effort to enhance knowledge creation and address socially relevant global

issues. The transformation of the Canadian Medical Council into the interdisciplinary Canadian

Institutes for Health Research, the United States National Research Council's 2001 study and

identification of the eight "Grand Challenges" confronting the large Environmental

Observatories, the multi-billion dollar initiative by Stanford University to develop four

multidisciplinary initiatives

, the blossoming of a literature, and perhaps the appearance of a

nascent field of study in interdisciplinary pedagogy, is in evidence.

Within the Canadian University sector, there are signs of response. As examples, we have seen

in 2007 alone the creation of a semi-virtual College of Interdisciplinarity at the University of

British Columbia, and the development of three new virtual Interdisciplinary Schools at the

University of Saskatchewan. We have also seen an increase in program funding envelopes with

criteria seeking demonstration of interdisciplinary research teams. All of these are testament to

the changing intellectual context. And while some skeptics may view these developments as the

trend of the "OOs", the President of Stanford University, Dr. John Henness', has argued

that the

transformation of knowledge and understanding by multidisciplinarity will be as revolutionizing

as technology has been over the past two decades. The Task Force believes that there is

compelling evidence to support his prediction.

Sixth, the Task Force has observed a significant shift in the positioning of major United States

institutions towards expanded engagement, connectivity, and efforts to be relevant to

communities and individuals around the world. It is apparent that the major US Universities are

looking outwards and are taking their obligation to be socially responsible to a scale, and in

ways, previously unimagined.

The initiatives are: (I) The Initiative on Human Health. (2) The Initiative on the Environment and Sustainability,

The International Initiative and (4) The Arts Initiative: Engaging the Arts and Creativity (see website for further

details http://multi.stanford.edu/initiatives/).

This was a report of his words by Dr. Roberta Katz, Associate Vice President for Strategic Planning. Stanford

University.

Page 9 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Seventh, and finally, we have noticed significant initiatives in the resuscitation of the arts and

culture as a key role for, and responsibility of, universities. An example of the revival in arts and

culture is evidenced by Stanford University, who, in response to demand by external donors and

friends of the University, have set as one of their four multidisciplinary initiatives, "The Arts

Initiative: Engaging the Arts and Creativity". This initiative was commenced in 2006.

Coordinated through the Stanford Institute for Creativity and the Arts, the Institute has been

mandated to "act as the nerve center for the development of new undergraduate arts programs,

hosting artists in residence, administering new multidisciplinary graduate degree programs,

awarding grants for multidisciplinary arts research and teaching, iiicubating collaborative

performances and exhibitions and providing centralized communication". (Stanford website

http://multi.stanford.edu/initiaiives/)

Within the context of the above observations, the more detailed internal and external context

framework provided in the Final Report of the Phase I Task Force, the analysis and

recommendations of the five Academic Structure Working Groups, and the feedback received

from the University community, the Phase 2 Task Force has concluded that we must design

Simon Fraser University for 2025 so that it can be described by four key qualities. We note that

many of these attributes are currently in evidence in various areas of the University. We

recognize these strengths and aim to build upon them.

(1)

Faculty members will see Simon Fraser University as a place where they can effectively

pursue disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge discovery, application, and practice

of their art; where they can easily share their discoveries, applications and arts with

colleagues and communities; where they are able to identify and engage with colleagues

with whom they wish to collaborate; where their energy and creativity for programmatic

and research innovation will find incubation, support and development; and where this

environment will lead to the attraction and retention of a world-class academic

complement.

(2)

Graduate students will see Simon Fraser University as a place where they are afforded an

expanded range of outstanding programmatic options; where there is a diverse range of

opportunities for disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses of study; where they are

intimately connected with the research agenda and activities of the University; and where

this combination will continue our success in recruiting superb students interested in

pursuing advanced exploration of disciplines and interdisciplines.

(3)

The design of our undergraduate programs will be recognizably distinct and of

exceptional quality providing students with life-changing experiences, a wide range of

opportunities to study within, and at the intersections of, disciplines, and which.

therefore, will continue to attract students of the highest caliber from local, national and

international origins.

(4)

Our communities, both locally and internationally, will see Simon Fraser University as a

place where we fulfill our social responsibility to provide learning opportunities to all

members of society through a comprehensive collection of programming that spans non-

Page 10of97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

credit and credit learning; where we actively pursue and contribute to understanding

k ?

and

knowled g

e development concerning the social and environmental problems of the world;

and where we provide our students with opportunities to learn with others and participate

in initiatives in communities around the world.

As we develop our recommendations, we will strive to build upon our existing strengths and

accomplishments and ensure that, throughout Simon Fraser University, - these qualities are

showcased.

Structure of Our Report

Given the significant ground to be covered over the course of our threefold mandate, the Task

Force has decided to organized our report into volumes. These are necessarily interrelated, but

can also stand as topic focused sub-reports.

Volume II - Major Structural Change: This volume provides the core recommendations of the

Task Force with regard to changes in the academic structure - the creation of three new Faculties,

the disbanding of the Faculty of Applied Sciences, the creation of a new College of Lifelong and

Experiential Learning, and a proposal for the development of a Simon Fraser University Institute

for Advanced Scholarship.

• Volume III - Interdisciplinarity: In this volume, the Task Force identifies the successes of Simon

Fraser University to date in supporting interdisciplinarity, highlights existing barriers to effective

pursuit of interdisciplinary teaching and research, and lays out a multifaceted strategy for

improved facilitation, nurturing and incubation of interdisciplinary initiatives.

Volume IV - Programs, Processes and Other Activities: This volume presents the Task Force's

recommendations related to specific programs such as a new IT/ICT Program, TechOne. the

Cognitive Science Program, a Foreign Language Studies Program, and consolidation of

Publishing programs and initiatives. In addition, this volume recommends the creation of several

process reviews designed to enhance the student experience. Finally, Volume IV speaks to

several issues raised by various areas of the University community in submissions to the Task

Force.

Volume V - Academic Structural Elements: Notable in this volume is the definition and

conceptualization of a new entity - the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning - and a

sub-category of structure, the College Program. Also of critical importance in this Volume is a

re-conceptualization of the Centres and Institutes R40.01 policy envisioned.

Volume VI - Implementation: This final volume of our report speaks to issues of

implementation, costs analysis, impact on individuals, and administrative process.

Page 11 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

"REMOVING BARRIERS: A DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE OFSFU"

VOLUME Il—MAJOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE

Presented to the University Community ?

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SRi"

Page 12of97

VOLUME II— MAJOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE

Process Overview

In January 2007, the Task Force issued a call for proposals regarding the academic structural

configuration of the University. This call produced 25 proposals from a broad cross-section of

the University (see Appendix D for a list of submissions). Given the number of proposals

received and the need for detailed investigation and evaluation of each, the Task Force created

five Academic Structure Working Groups (see Appendix E for the Working Group composition

and submission assignment). Each Working Group was chaired by a member of the Task Force

and augmented with several faculty members from the University community who had cognate

interests in the proposals being considered but who were not from any of the units identified in

the proposals. A student representative, either graduate or undergraduate, was also a member of

each Working Group.

The Working Groups engaged in extensive consultation with the units and individuals from

which proposals were submitted and met with interested members of the University community

who wished to discuss proposals with the Working Groups. Working Group 3 which considered

proposals from the broad areas of environment, development and sustainability, also held an

Open Forum on the Environment for all interested members of the University community. In

total, more than 260 members of the University community were consulted as part of the

Working Groups' activities. In June 2007, each Working Group submitted a report to the Task

Force containing their assessment of the submissions and their recommendations. These reports

are available for review on the Task Force website.

Upon receipt of the Working Group reports, the Task Force held five Open Forums - one on each

of the Working Group reports. In total, approximately 225 members of the University

community interacted with the Task Force and provided their views and insights on the

recommendations and contents of the Working Group reports. A summary of feedback received

at the five Open Forums is available for review on the Task Force website. In addition, all

written feedback to the Task Force is available on our site.

Three exceptions to the general support of the Working Group directions are noteworthy:

(I) Health

In essence, Working Group 2, which dealt with proposals around the area of health,

Collaborative Health Research Institute to stimulate the development of increased

collaboration and communication between the Faculty of Health Sciences and other

individuals and units engaged in health research and teaching across the University. Initially,

in response to this report, the School of Kinesiology reiterated their interest in joining the

Faculty of Health Sciences as an intact unit. As understanding of orientations, philosophical

underpinnings, and woridviews evolved between members of the Faculty of Health Sciences

and School of Kinesiology, the School of Kinesiology subsequently determined for a number

of reasons outlined in Volume II, that realignment to the Faculty of Science would prove a

Page 13 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

better environment for them. Additionally, there was little interest by anyone in the creation

There has been mixed support for this initiative. We believe the majority of concerns can be

classified into one of four issues: the significant new direction for- the -University that this

proposal represents and our collective conservative inclinations to proceed cautiously and

with known entities; the uncertainty over what is envisioned for the academic oversight of

credit programming within the College; concerns about whether thrs represents a de-facto

expansion of the portfolio of Continuing Studies; and, concerns about the ways in which this

structure may be perceived to overlap or potentially duplicate activities that are occurring

within other academic areas of the University. Further, while there is evidence of strong

support in some quarters for an experiential credit component for undergraduate education,

there are a number of unanswered questions as to how this would intersect with the W.Q.B

initiative, what its impact might be on degree completion timeframes, and the view that this

might be the creation of unnecessary administrative bureaucracy for activities that could be

diffusely accommodated within existing academic units, elements of which already exist or

are being developed.

The recommendation by Working Group

Language Training

to reposition the Language Training Institute

outside of the Department of Linguistics has received general support from the majority of

the members of the Language Training Institute but we understand there is a desire for

continued connection with the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. The Dean's office of the

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences does not support any change to the positioning of the

Language Training Institute. The Working Group proposal to relocate this unit into the new

College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning has received opposition. We believe that the

primary reasons for this opposition are fourfold: (1) there are resource implications for the

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences attributed to the Language Training Institute; (2) some

view the Language Training Institute as intimately connected with the research being

conducted in the Department of Linguistics in areas of language pedagogy, language

learning, and language and culture;

the Working Group report may not have clearly

outlined the view of its members that they did not see area-based language learning (such as

French, Ancient Greek, etc.) moving to the College which raised concerns by the area-based

disciplines; and, (4) there appears to be misunderstanding about what the vision for the

College is, which we believe is leading to some false assumptions about the academic quality

and interconnection of its activities with disciplines across the University.

The issues and concerns identified above will each be addressed in the corresponding subsection

later in this Volume.

In consideration of the content of the Working Group reports and the feedback and issues raised

through the consultation process, the Task Force initiated several follow up processes as follows:

Page 14of97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future ofSFtJ"

• • The Schools of Computing Science and Engineering Science were asked to provide the

Task Force with further input as to what the unique arguments were for a combination of

their -two units, what collaborative initiatives they envisioned in the future, the

distinctiveness of their plans within the Canadian context, and the implications for their

proposal on the Network Support Group.

• The Task Force requested that the Schools of Communication, Contemporary Arts.

Interactive Arts and Technology, and the Master of Publishing Program each provide the

Task Force with their unit's view as to the proposal from Working Group 4 for the

creation of a new Faculty that would be comprised of their units.

• The Task Force also initiated an independently-led visioning process on a potential

initiative in the environment for Simon Fraser University. Dr. Jock Munro, professor

emeritus of Simon Fraser University, was appointed to this role. Dr. Munro prepared a

draft discussion paper, held an Environmental Visioning Workshop with 16 faculty

members, and hosted an Open Forum on the Environment on November 1, 2007 as part

of his activities as facilitator. Dr. Munro's final report was submitted to the Task Force

on November 6, 2007.

• The Task Force explored with each of the stakeholders in the TechOne program possible

location of that program should the Task Force recommend the creation of new Faculties

that would position the units that the TechOne serves in multiple Faculties.

• The Task Force sought a response from each of the units that submitted a proposal to the

Task Force in the area of the environment for their feedback on a proposal by the Task

Force for the establishment of a new Faculty in the environment and the nature of a

planning blueprint to be developed by an Environment Planning Committee.

The Task Force released its Discussion Document (a previous version of this report) on

December 17, 2007. Since that time we have held four Open Forums and received a variety of

written and verbal responses. In total, more than 125 members of the University community

joined us in person, or on-line, in the Open Forum consultation process. We have also received a

response from the Simon Fraser University Faculty Association that was based on a member's

survey, although we have not been advised of the number of individuals the feedback contained

in the report may represent. In addition to public consultation processes, the Task Force also

held discussions on the report with the Senate Committee on University Priorities, as well as the

Academic Chairs/Directors meeting group, and the Deans and Vice Presidents.

Generally, the Task Force is of the view that the major brushstrokes of its recommendations were

supported and well received by the University community. Notwithstanding a generally positive

reception, there were several areas of the report that attracted considerable discussion and

important issues and concerns were raised. We summarize the major areas as follows:

• There was confusion as to the nature of the College of Lifelong and Experiential

Learning and a need for clearer presentation and rationale for the choice of terminology.

the conception of 'experiential" learning, and the interface with other areas of the

University.

• There was concern about the relocation of foreign language training to the College.

Page 15 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• There was a concern about the geographic challenges of a multi-campus reality,

particularly in the context of the recommendation for a new Faculty of Communication,

Contemporary Arts and Design.

• There was concern about the long-term positioning of the TechOne program although

there is not consensus about where its future home should be.

• There was concern about the recommendation to have the Network Support Group

reviewed by the Chief Information Officer of the University and -a call for it to be located-

in the proposed new Faculty of Engineering and Computing.

• The proposed new Environment Faculty was not seen as sufficiently inclusive of

potential collaborators, contributors, or relocating faculty members from the Faculty of

Science.

• Despite support for the general thrust of the revisions to the Centres and Institutes policy,

some colleagues felt that the conceptualization was overly complex and would add

administrative burden as a consequence.

• A concern was raised that the multifaceted interdisciplinarity strategy was insufficiently

resourced.

• An overarching concern was expressed for the current

- budgetary environment of the

University and how new strategic directions fit within this context.

In addition to the feedback above, the Task Force received a series of suggestions for

improving the report, including suggestions for specific changes. These have all been

carefully considered, and many of them have informed revisions to the report.

Major Structural Recommendations of the Task Force

Overview

Although the rest of this volume will provide full discussion of our recommendations, we

thought it might be helpful to the reader to have an overall vision of the changes we propose in

relation to the University's academic structure. The major changes-that are being recommended

by the Task Force are as follows:

. the elimination of the existing Faculty of Applied Sciences

• the creation of three new Faculties:

• Faculty of Communication, Art and Design (name to be determined) consisting of

the Schools of Communication, Contemporary Arts, Interactive Arts &

Technology and the Master of Publishing Program

• Faculty of Engineering and Computing, comprised of the Schools of Engineering

Science and Computing Science

• Faculty of Environment and Sustainability (name to be determined)

initially

comprised of the School of Resource and Environmental Management. the

The new Faculty will have to be identified through a collaborative naming process. The term "Sustainability" is

important to the Centre for Sustainable Development and to the Graduate Certificate Program in Development

g e 16of97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future ofSFU"

• Department of Geography, the Environmental Science Program restructured into a

new Department of Environmental Sciences, the Centre for Sustainable

Community Development, and the Graduate Certificate Program in Development

Studies.

the realignment of the School of Kinesiology to the Faculty of Science

• the establishment of a College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning comprised of two

divisions:

o Experiential Learning Division initially including an amalgamated Semester in

Dialogue and the Centre for Dialogue

o Lifelong Learning Division comprised of the existing Continuing Studies

activities, and Distance Education

• the future development of an Institute for Advanced Scholarship

A series of other recommendations appear within the detailed discussion that follows this

summary. A summary list of all recommendations of the Task Force is provided as Appendix F.

New Faculties

Faculty of Engineering and Computing

The original submissions of the Schools of Engineering Science and Computing Science called

for the creation of a new Faculty comprised of their two units. In its examination of issues.

Working Group 1 created a list of six potential structural configurations that might effectively

house these units. (WG I report,

9) Four critical issues needed to be answered: (1) To what

extent does the vision for the future of the University wish to strategically highlight Computing

and Engineering?; (2) Should Simon Fraser University integrate a more comprehensive notion of

computational sciences through the inclusion of departments such as Mathematics and Statistics

& Actuarial Science?;

What is the likelihood of success and distinctiveness of a Faculty

comprised of the Schools of Computing Science and Engineering Science within a national

context?; and, (4) What is distinct about their arguments within the internal SFU context? We

have the overriding fifth question that we must assess for all proposals: that being, how would a

Studies. Resource and Environmental Management would like a name that is communicative of the interdisciplinary

vision of the Faculty and the plans for integrating environmental research and teaching across the arts, humanities,

and social, applied, and natural sciences. The Department of Geography clearly prefers the straightforward name

Faculty of Environment. During the activities of Working Group

and the Task Force, we considered various names

for the new Faculty. To some the term, "Faculty of Environment" conveys a historic conceptualization of study in

the environment that existed during the 1970s. To others, the term sustainability potentially communicates a passing

trend and a framework of activism that is not seen as suitable for a permanent structural entity within the University.

The Task Force view is that the term must be chosen so as to communicate effectively to the external community

that the initiative in the environment at Simon Fraser University is built upon a vision of integration across the

. disciplines, that deals with problem-centered topics, and which speaks to a broadly conceived scope of activity. For

reference throughout the remainder of the report we will simply call the new Faculty the Environment Faculty so

as to demonstrate no position on the name by the Task Force.

Page 17of97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU'

new Faculty of Engineering and Computing help Simon Fraser University exemplify the four

qualities that we wish to define ourselves by in 2025?

Simon Fraser University's School of Engineering Science was created in

1983

as a unique, elite,

and atypical, engineering programming, offering distinctive programming from other British

Columbia universities. The School's high technology focus with programming options focused

on such advanced technologies as microelectronics, robotics, mechatronics, biomedical

engineering, multimedia, systems, and telecommunications, set it apart from other Engineering

programs across the nation. Other Engineering programs and Faculties across the country

generally offer a larger spectrum of traditional engineering disciplines such as mechanical, civil,

chemical, materials and aeronautical engineering. Our distinctiveness has enabled Simon Fraser

University's School of Engineering Science to retain a fairly high stature nationally despite its

generally smaller size and less diverse breadth of traditional engineering programming.

The distinctiveness of Simon Fraser University's Engineering Science School also situates it for

alignment with our School of Computing Science which has at its core a technology and

computational focus to its programming. Research and teaching specialization in the School of

Computing Science includes areas such as graphics and usability, computer vision, and

autonomous robots, as well as cross-disciplinary fields such as medical computing,

bioinformatics, computational linguistics, and computer-based music.

Given the generally traditional foci of Engineering units at other Canadian institutions, relatively

few institutions have such a complementary program relationship between their Computing and

Engineering programming as in evident at Simon Fraser University. Those leading U.S.

institutions that share this feature of complementarity - such as MIT, Stanford, Berkeley.

Harvard, and Northwestern - all have both Computing and Engineering within a Faculty or

College of Engineering.

This interconnectedness between Computing Science and Engineering Science is in evidence in

new program initiatives such as the Mechatronics Systems Engineering (MSE) Program. The

launch of the program has exceeded high expectations in the areas of student demand and the

ability to attract outstanding students. In the first year of the program's operations (commencing

September 2007), the MSE Program attracted nearly double the anticipated enrolments, with 71

students enrolled for Fall 2007.

Given the technological and computational focus of both of the Schools of Computing Science

and Engineering Science, the Task Force considered the option of placing Computing Science

and Engineering Science in closer proximity to the Department of Mathematics. This could be

accomplished either by moving the Schools of Engineering Science and Computing Science to

the Faculty of Science or by the realignment of Mathematics to a new Faculty structure

comprised of the three units. The most comprehensive set of multidisciplinary collaborations

both in research and teaching for the School of Computing Science actually exists with the

Department of Mathematics. We note that this strong collaborative environment is effectively

managed across Faculty boundaries and thus, we do not see Faculty boundary divisions as an

obstacle that requires redress by us. Importantly, the Department of Mathematics has equally, if

not stronger, interconnections with the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science and thus

Page 18of97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• any re-conceptualization of the location of Mathematics would by necessity require the

realignment of Statistics and Actuarial Science as well. Notably, both departments are thriving

within the Faculty of Science and are contributing significantly to the overall profile and strength

of that Faculty and to the goals of Simon Fraser University for the year 2025 with regard to the

nature of the faculty complement, undergraduate and graduate student experience, and outreach

and engagement with our communities. As a consequence, we do not believe any structural

proposal that would potentially jeopardize this success, is warranted or justified. We would also

note that the preeminent example of the combination of Computing and Mathematics occurred at

the University of Waterloo some forty years ago. It has led, by all accounts, to exceptional

success for the institution. It is not clear, however, that the opportunities that presented

themselves forty years ago, are necessarily still in place today, and therefore a move in the

direction of bringing these disciplines together in a structural way may have had its moment in

history:

The successful nature of the collaborative relationship between Computing Science and

Mathematics is also found in collaborations between Engineering Science and other areas of the

University, such as Kinesiology in the joint Biomedical Engineering program, and the joint

degree program offered between the School of Engineering Science and the Department of

Physics. We note the clear articulation by Computing Science and Engineering Science's vision

for stimulating both core and interdisciplinary development in the future:

...Interdisciplinary programs with units outside [a new faculty] will remain important.

• and the new faculty will strongly support creation and expansion

such activities while

preserving, advancing, and promoting the traditional engineering and technology

programs. A prerequisite to successful interdisciplinary programs is strong core

disciplines. We envision that the new proposed faculty will nurture and expand the core

disciplines in (JS and ES while fostering a culture that supports interdisciplinary work

through forging strong links with other faculties in the University. For example, by

applying engineering and computing technologies to problems in medicine and health

and Social Sciences;

fostering the emerging nanotechnology revolution with the Faculty

Science; and promotion of the power of information technology through the

University." (page 2, joint submission to the Task Force, October 24, 2007)

A recent report produced by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Association

of Information Systems (AIS), and the Computer Society of the Institute of Electronics and

Electrical Engineers (IEEE-CS), entitled

"Computing Curricula 2005"

reviews five closely

Information Systems, and Software Engineering, and provides recommendations on the future of

these fields. The foci identified by the School of Computing Science and the School of

Engineering Science in the areas of Computer Engineering and Information Systems, as well as

the new emergent areas of biomedical engineering, mechatronics, telecommunications and

information technology are among those highlighted by the "Computing Curricula 2005" report

as critical areas in the future of the disciplines. As a consequence, keeping the partnership and

relationship between Computing Science and Engineering Science together would help to

Page 19of97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

position Simon Fraser University to assume a leadership role in these emerging areas of their

disciplines.

The School of Computing Science boasts one of the largest graduate student complements in the

University. It is imperative as we strive to expand our research profile and activity that we

support the interconnection and fostering of research excellence through the contributions of our

graduate student programming. We must, therefore, ensure that an area-that is able to contribute

significantly to these objectives of the University is well supported within the structural

configuration of the University. The Task Force understands from the School of Computing

Science that the increased attention and visibility that will be achieved through its establishment

as one of two core members in a Faculty of Engineering and Computing will reaffirm the

University's excellence in graduate education in this area and should result in the continued

attractiveness and recruitment success by Computing Science.

The School of Engineering Science seeks to expand its graduate programming. With

Engineering units at 36 other Canadian universities showcased in stand-alone Faculties bearing

that name, the Simon Fraser School of Engineering Science believes that the visibility brought to

their discipline by a new Faculty is a critical component to future recruitment success of graduate

students. It is argued that outstanding graduate students look to study at institutions that have

clearly defined, highly profiled, and focused attention on the discipline. Further, in combination

with the compatibility to graduate programming in Computing Science, it is believed that student

recruitment initiatives can be effectively planned and marshaled in collaborative, cost effective

ways between the two disciplines. With heightened profile and visibility for the Faculty of

Engineering and Computing, the School of Engineering Science also believes this will lead to

increased success in research grant competitions and a shift towards increased faculty

engagement with graduate student supervision and collaborative research projects.

This draws us to the question as to whether the University seeks to highlight and profile

Computing Science and Engineering Science as a strategic area of focus within the

organizational structure of the University and in our communication of dominant strengths to the

external community. With a current combined complement of over 70 faculty members, an

ongoing program of expansion initiated through the provincial government Doubling the

Opportunity (DTO) initiative for computing and engineering programming, a positive reversal to

recent enrolment declines, the continued witness of technological and computational

transformation of society, and the potential for Simon Fraser University to lead innovative

disciplinary and interdisciplinary graduate and undergraduate programming innovation and

expansion within North America, we conclude that the units of Computing Science and

Engineering Science offer a compelling case for distinction within the overall academic

organization of the University.

Recommendation 1: That a Faculty

of Engineering and Computing be established.

Page 20 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

0 ?

Faculty of Contemporary Arts. Communication, and Design (name to be determined

Working Group 4 provided a comprehensive assessment and rationale of the reasons in support

of creating a new Faculty comprised of the Schools of Communication, Contemporary Arts, and

Interactive Arts and Technology. In addition, the report provided recommendations with regard

to the Master of Publishing Program. We note that the Working Group proposed the working

name of a new "Faculty of Contemporary Arts, Communication and Design" but this name does

not have the support of the various constituent units and they would prefer to engage in a process

to name the Faculty if approved.

The Task Force found the Working Group's portrayal and articulation of the reasons for joining

together Communication, Contemporary Arts, Interactive Arts and Technology, and the Master

of Publishing Program into a new Faculty compelling:

"The creation of a Faculty of Contemporary Arts, Communication and Design is

intellectually and socially appropriate and timely. Significant innovations in technology

and media historically have exerted tremendous influence on human societies and

cultures, and have created new possibilities for communication, self and other

understanding and expression, and interaction with the biophysical world. Applications

of new technologies and media permeate every facet of contemporary

life,

and have

enabled forms of communication, art, and design that are significantly restructuring our

forms of life, understanding, and agency. The scholarly study of such applications and

. their socio-cultural, psychological, and aesthetic impact, including ways of representing

critically and expressively the nature of this impact on the human condition, is

necessarily interdisciplinary. It is this scholarly impulse that is shared widely amongst

members of faculty in the Schools of Contemporary Arts, Communication, and Interactive

Arts and Technology, and which provides a foundation for a wide range of applied and

basic research centered on our use of new technology and media, and the ways in which

we are affected and altered by this use." (WG 4 Report,

13)

The Task Force further endorses the view by Working Group 4 that there are unique

opportunities and contextual factors for each of the units that support their enhanced profiling

and the commitment by the University to articulate them as part of its strategic strength to the

external community. With the world's attention on Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics and a new

venue in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver, the School for the Contemporary Arts at its new

Woodward's site in 2009 can help realize President Stevenson's vision for Simon Fraser

University as an international destination for arts and culture, and as a flagship for multifaceted

and diverse social interaction within an urban community. Further, the Task Force believes that

the University has a social responsibility to preserve and promote the arts and art-making as a

societally important activity.

The School of Communication attracts one of the largest departmental undergraduate student

complements in the University and it has established a prominent national reputation for

excellence. Further its undergraduate student enrolment has increased by over

25%

in the last

five years alone. Notwithstanding this success, there will be several recruitment challenges for

the School of Communication in the future. Undergraduate communications programs are

Page 21 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

dramatically expanding within the British Columbia University College system at institutions

such as Malaspina, Kwantlen, and Capilano. While there are currently restrictions on these

programs enabling them to offer only two years of study in communications, it is anticipated that

there will be a move toward full baccalaureate offerings within the BC College System in the

not-too-distant future. Further, increased competition is in evidence from the emergence of new

initiatives in communications programming and research at universities such as Ryerson, York

and the University of Calgary. As the Working Group 4 noted, "The University that will rise to

lead the nation will be one that is (a) clearly distinctive from competitors, (b) provides students

with an exceptional learning experience, and (c) builds interdisciplinary understanding upon core

disciplinary strength. It is a critical moment and opportunity for the future of Simon Fraser

University's School of Communication." (WG 4 Report, p. 18)

The Task Force believes that positioning the School of Communication as one of four signature

units within a new Faculty of intellectually cognate areas who share a philosophical commitment

to interdisciplinarity, experiential, integrative and imaginative learning environments and who

are energized by the potential of their combination to develop new undergraduate and graduate

programming areas and to play an enhanced role in representing the strategic strengths of the

University, will enable it to successfully seize the opportunity that is before it.

Created in 2003, the School of Interactive Arts and Technology has become one of the leaders in

Canada in a field where art, technology, and design converge. Since 2003, a number of

institutions have emerged on the stage to share the prominence of this integrated trilogy. While

we believe that Simon Fraser University's School remains a leader, we also feel it critical that its

development be nurtured, and its maturity facilitated, so as to assure its leadership position for

the future. This requires, in our view, the positioning of the School within an environment that is

defined by its shared philosophical orientation to the value of art, design and technology; to the

commitment to interdisciplinarity and pedagogical innovation; to the recognized contributions of

art and art making, natural and applied science, and theoretical and epistemological research.

While the School has endeavored to create an environment of internal balance among its

elements, it is equally critical to the School to have external balance in its neighboring

community of units. The addition of the School of the Contemporary Arts into the new Faculty

will provide important connectivity to art and design elements within SLAT. There is. however,

a perceived gap by the technology area to have lost some of its external balance by the removal

of the Schools of Computing Science and Engineering Science. It will be critical to develop

"expressways" (to quote the Director of SLAT) between the two Faculties, and the proposed new

collaborative programming in the IT/ICT area (see Volume IV) should be expeditiously

developed and based at the Surrey campus.

The Master of Publishing Program has earned a national reputation as a leader in the publishing

industry in Canada. Its unique approach to professional programming, its quality, and its head-

start in the field, have contributed to significant success. Should the Publishing activities of the

University be consolidated under a single umbrella hosted by the Publishing Program - including

the Master of Publishing Program, the Undergraduate Minor in Publishing, and the Writing and

Publishing Program in Continuing Studies - we believe this would lead to a more expansive and

potentially greater presence for Publishing Studies at Simon Fraser University in the future. We

explore program amalgamation in Volume IV of this report.

Page 22 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Opportunities for inter-unit collaboration by the Schools of Communication, Contemporary Arts,

Interactive Arts and Technology and the Publishing Program, would be prevalent within a new

Faculty. Examples of potential programs include Screen Studies; Technology and Society;

Citizenship and Democracy in a Globalizing World; Global Media and Communication;

Information Technology; Publishing and Technology; and Sport, Commerce, Culture and

Community, to name just a few. ?

Taken together, the Task Force believes that there is a clear and defensible rationale and an

energizing and exciting opportunity for the University community should Senate approve the

Task Force's recommendation for the creation of a new Faculty comprised of the School of

Communication, the School for the Contemporary Arts, the School of Interactive Arts and

Technology, and the Master of Publishing Program.

Importantly we note that there is almost total unanimity within all four of the units that a new

Faculty comprised of their units would provide an excellent academic environment for their

success as researchers and educators.

Recommendation

2: That

a new Faculty (name to be determined) comprised

the

School of

Communication, the School for the Contemporary Arts, the School

Interactive Arts and Technology and the Master

Publishing Program be established.

Environment Faculty

The environment has emerged as a dominant global issue that permeates our society at all levels.

Environmental concerns will increasingly influence the way people live on the planet and shape

global aspirations for improving human wellbeing and health. The University is uniquely

positioned to contribute to the global environmental challenge. This is because of its key role in

education and research as well as its inherent quality of universality which puts the university in

the unique position of housing expertise in the many areas of sciences and humanities relevant to

addressing environmental problems. Furthermore, universities recognize that to remain relevant

and receive broad support from all aspects of society, it is important to respond to the need for

engagement in the area of the environment.

The National Research Council of the United States in 2001 published a report entitled the

"Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences". This report sought to identify a limited number

of "major scientific tasks that are compelling for both intellectual and practical reasons. [and]

that offer potential for major breakthroughs on the basis of recent developments in science and

technology". (Grand Challenges, p.2) The eight grand challenges identified were:

biogeochemical cycles, biological diversity and ecosystem functioning. climate variability,

This labeling by the Working Group is intended as a representation of potential collaborations that would explore

the evolving technology in the publishing industry. It is not a term originating from the Master of Publishing

Program.

6 Voting results on motions to participate in a new Faculty resulted in only three

Schools not supporting a motion for inclusion and two (2) faculty members abstaining from the vote.

faculty members from all

Page 23 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

hydrologic forecasting, infectious disease and the environment, institutions and resource use,

land-use dynamics, and reinventing the use of materials. In the report, the National Research

Council described the complexity of solving environmental problems:

"Perhaps even more challenging for science is that the outcomes of interest within each

grand challenge depend simultaneously on change in more than one driving variable.

The grand challenges require problem-oriented science that -can -integrate physical,

biological, chemical, and human systems well enough to predict the response of critical

regions or phenomena to multiple causal variables, sometimes

referred

to as multiple

stresses. Understanding the interactions of these systems is imperative, because the

many environmental factors now undergoing change make it difficult to assess the impact

of any single change in the Earth system (particularly changes in human activities), and

thus it is difficult to assess the outcomes of spec jfIc mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Understanding how environmental and human outcomes are affected by multiple driving

variables lies beyond the capacity of any single environmental science discipline. Studies

focused on single causal variables are typically inadequate and potentially misleading.

As emphasized throughout this report, the needed understanding will require true

integration of the social sciences and engineering, as well as various disciplines within

the natural sciences, around common research problems. " (Grand Challeng(-,

, s,

71)

The "Grand Challenges" report was followed in September 2007 by a report titled "Rising to the

Challenge: Integrating Social Science into the Natural Science Foundation Environmental

Observatories" by Resources for the Future, It provided a series of recommendations to the

national funding organizations of the United States for how to effectively design integrative

research projects and transform, through participation by the social sciences, the well established

environmental observatories which collect only natural science data.

2005,

the United Nations declared 2005-2014 to be the Decade of Education for Sustainable

Development. This has been followed by three major new higher education initiatives in the

United States: the Higher Education Associations Sustainability Consortium (HEASC), the

Disciplinary Associations Network for Sustainability (DANS), and the Association for the

Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)

. These organizations have

spearheaded numerous initiatives to expand sustainability programming throughout the post-

secondary education system in the United States. Also noteworthy is the recognition that

environmental education needed to become a fundamental component of K-12 education. As a

consequence, there have been a series of State level initiatives introducing sustainability

education components into the K-12 curriculum. These have often been coordinated with

universities and colleges to offer increased teacher training in sustainable development and

environmental science at the master's level.

More locally, there have been two recent significant activities by government with regard to

environment and sustainability initiatives. In November 2007, Mr. Godfrey, the Liberal

Environmental Caucus Chair, introduced into the House of Commons a National Sustainable

See Science article for an overview of the focus and work of these initiatives.

Page 24 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Development Act (C-474). Notably this Act was developed within Simon Fraser University's

School of Resource and Environmental Management. Secondly, the British Columbia Provincial

Government recently declared that the focus of the 2008 provincial budget will be one designed

around priority environmental initiatives. The governments funding priorities are being

developed on the basis of significant citizenry input (including household surveys, public

consultations, and open discussion tables) and this confirms the view of the Task Force that

Simon Fraser University has a critical role to play not only in addressing and researching global

environmental issues but also in providing local citizens and students with comprehensive

environmental understanding and education.

In response to the global environmental crisis and the actions of governments, organizations, and

professional councils, North America universities are restructuring, refocusing, and re-visioning,

their focus on environmental research and teaching. The range of responses is instructive. In the

United States, there has been an increasing occurrence of pan-university, multidisciplinary

environmental initiatives led by the large institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia.

These are often of an initiative-style model built upon dispersed disciplinary Departments,

Faculties, and even Colleges, which form the coordinating nexus of a number of Institutes,

Centres and programs. Typically they are topic-centered and multidisciplinary in approach and

have the benefit of extraordinary levels of funding. In contrast, the Canadian University system

until recently has been predominantly characterized by Faculties of Environment, Departments

of Environmental Science or Departments of Environmental Studies with a clear divide between

the social and natural sciences. Within the past five years, there have been three initiatives that

. have cau

ht the attention of the Working Group and the Task Force. These are the Clayton H.

Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources at the University of Manitoba, the Centre

for Environment at the University of Toronto, and the new Interdisciplinary School of

Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan. Each, in their own way,

seeks to support a more interdisciplinary and expansive conceptualization of environment

spanning the social sciences and natural sciences. The move of universities towards

interdisciplinary collaboration has not gone unnoticed. In a recent article, "A Threat So Big:

Academics Try Collaboration", in the New York Times (December

25,

2007), Jeff Toppin cited

just a few of the major institutions such as Duke University, Arizona State University, University

of California, Berkley, Rochester Institutes of Technology, Yale, and others, which all have

recently developed multidisciplinary initiatives around environmental topics. Interestingly,

almost all have included the word "Sustainability" in their initiative's title. Also interesting is

the significant external funding these initiatives have attracted and the way in which many of

these initiatives involve collaboration with non-academic community and corporate partners.

Dr. Munro has pointed out in his report, that student undergraduate enrolment in environmental

courses at Simon Fraser University has been relatively stable, and thus as overall enrolment of

the University has grown, this has represented a declining proportion of our educational activity.

It is unlikely that there is a lack of student interest in, or demand for, environmental

programming. It may be, though, as one student described at an Open Forum, that there is such

lack of clarity and direction in environmental programming at Simon Fraser University that they

are studying it in spite of the obstacles that exist. Several trends point to a positive student

demand scenario in the future. First, the heightened attention to environmental issues in the

public is increasing prospective student awareness to the importance of research and education in

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

the solution to the world's environmental problems. Second, the "graying of the green

generation" and the accompanying recognition that activism needs to be accompanied by

scientific research is leading to an increasing need for trained environmental managers and

researchers. Third, the interrelated nature of environmental problems has led to a call for a new

type of research and education, one focused on the integration of disciplinary approaches to

discovery and knowledge development. Fourth, movements to increase environmental education

within the K-12 system within North American will lead to increased awareness about the areas

of potential study and career paths available to students who pursue advanced study in the

environment. Finally, a recent poll of high school counselors by Simon Fraser University

resulted in 80 of 110 indicating that there would be a very positive response by prospective

students to the opportunity to study in an Environment Faculty at Simon Fraser University.

From the Task Force perspective, the area of the environment is likely to be one of the most

attractive areas for external fundraising. Over the past few years, the newspapers have reported a

number of multi-million dollar donations to universities who are seeking to expand or reshape

their environmental research and educational programming. Situated in one of the most resource

intensive provinces of Canada, we believe there will be a positive response from provincial

organizations, individuals, and the provincial government to invest in a new Environment

Faculty. At the granting council level we have already witnessed significant new ventures by the

National Research Council of the United States to identify high funding priorities from the

"Grand Challenges" to the environment, and we have seen these require not only balanced

integrated teams from the social and natural sciences, but also significant components for

graduate and undergraduate education initiatives as part of the research proposals. Locally, we

believe there is in the works at the provincial government the design of a graduate enrolment

funding pool dedicated to environmental enrolments. These are likely only the beginning of a

growing commitment by provincial, national, and international governments, agencies,

individuals and organizations to seek to support the advancement of knowledge in searching for

solutions to the environmental problems that plague our communities and our planet.

The field of the environment is clearly a high priority for the University, featuring in the

President's Agenda, the Strategic Research Plan, and in the award of eight Canada Research

Chairs (three of whom are in area of Climate Change), a B.C. Leading Edge Endowment Fund

Chair, and a Chair in Coastal Studies. We have an internationally recognized School of

Resource and Environmental Management, strength in environmental research and teaching

across campus, and a developing nexus of researchers in environmental health and in the areas of

sustainable development and urban studies. As Dr. Jock Munro noted in his Facilitator's report,

there are in fact 23 departments at Simon Fraser University with at least one environmental

course and over 70 faculty members with identifiable environmental interests. Further, there are

currently 11 Centres or Institutes dedicated to an area of the environment. Finally, Simon Fraser

University is a signatory to the Talloires Declaration on university sustainability, a leading

member of the Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT) led by the Public Policy Program,

and a member since 1992 of the China Council for International Development and Cooperation

(CCICED) which is designed to promote cooperation and exchange between China and the

international community in the field of environment and development. Despite these many and

varied activities, we have not achieved a si

g nificantly high profile nationally or internationally

Page 26 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

for Simon Fraser University as a whole in relation to sustainable development or the

environment.

Perhaps because of the expansive and dispersed interests in the areas of environment,

sustainability, and development at Simon Fraser University, it is not surprising that we have

struggled to identify a clear and coherent thematic vision for a new initiative. As the

examination and consultation processes have unfolded through the work of Working Group 3,

the environment facilitator, Dr. Jock Munro, and processes of the Task Force itself, we have

heard many views as to how best to proceed. These have ranged from "proceed cautiously and

grow slowly" to "go big or go home". They have ranged from unit-based clustering to

individual-based reconfiguration to all new appointments. Moreover, the views have ranged

from discipline-based approaches to solely integrated interdisciplinary programming.

Despite the variety of views presented, a series of shared, underlying pillars exist that the Task

Force believes forms a foundation and a vision for a new Environment Faculty.

• The Faculty will result in the emergence of strong interdisciplinary research and

programming occurring in the presence of strong and dynamic disciplines.

• The Faculty will develop new integrative programming bringing together the arts,

humanities, social, natural and applied sciences around problem-centered topics at both

the graduate and undergraduate level.

• The Faculty will be a model for collaborative engagement of faculty members in research

.• and programming initiatives across the University.

• The Faculty will be inclusive by design.

• The Faculty will be a model of programming innovation offering cohort-based degree

programs, capstone "big environmental issues" courses, first year interdisciplinary

courses, non-degree cohort based seminar program on the "big issues" (perhaps one

course per year) leading to a supplementary environmental designation for non-

environment majors, environmental literacy courses, and non-credit and certificate

programming for the external community.

• The Faculty will contribute actively to Simon Fraser University's engagement with its

community, seeking to actively participate in policy debates, citizen education. and

hosting forums, speaker's series and other forms of outreach to the community.

• The Faculty will develop significant international programming partnerships with

countries around the world, thus forming a pivotal part of Simon Fraser University's

international agenda. Such programming will provide students with unparalleled

educational and research opportunities to study issues of development, sustainability and

environment within international settings. Joint programming, field schools, international

exchange programs, dual degree programs, are a few examples of the types of

partnerships that can be imagined.

Given the diverse types of structural elements - Departments, Independent Programs, integrative

curriculum programs, and perhaps other types of curriculum initiatives in the future, the

structuring of interrelationships is critical. We do not envision a Faculty that will be dominated

by departments with only peripheral activity in integrated interdisciplinary programming around

problem-centered issues. We envision instead a system of equally important elements - strong

Page 27 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

disciplinary and interdisciplinary units - contributing to the overall definition and distinctiveness

of an Environment Faculty at Simon Fraser University. To ensure that this objective is met, we

envision that the Chair/Director of each department and interdisciplinary program would have an

equal voice and vote in the activities of the Faculty and would sit as equal members of a Deans

Advisory Committee. The Faculty Interdisciplinary Program Committee would initially develop

the blueprint for new integrative programming, the faculty complement growth associated with

this plan would be directed to the new programs. Long-term decisions on growth, strategic

direction, and budgetary allocation would be a matter of determination by the Dean acting in

collaboration and with the advice of his/her advisory council.

The Faculty itself would be comprised of core departments plus interdisciplinary programming

of various types. New Interdisciplinary Programs will be developed by the Faculty

Interdisciplinary Program Committee as per the Task Force Proposal. Additionally, there will

likely be some Research or Research and Teaching Centres interested in joining the Faculty.

We believe that subsequent to the approval for the creation of an Environment Faculty, it will be

advisable to develop a constitution that will affirm the principles of collaborative development of

the future of the Faculty and identify processes and structures that will deal with the nuances of

the creation of a Faculty with such a diversity of membership.

The most critical gap at present in the understanding of the Task Force is the thematic foci that

we envision as a critical component to the multi-dimensional vision of the Environment Faculty.

While there have been various suggestions put forth to the Task Force, the Working Group, and

the Facilitator, these have not yet been sufficiently explored, discussed, or advanced as a set of

core new directions for the Faculty. As example of what has been mentioned, we offer a few,

though we note that these are not recommendations by the Task Force. They may, however.

serve as points of discussion for the future.

Sample topics include:

• Climate Change / The Science of Global Change

• Global Health and Environment

• Watersheds, Oceans and Fisheries

• Regional and Global Change Impacts and Responses

• Earth Systems, Environmental Change,and Society

• Sustainability and Urbanization

• Strategies for Sustainability Leadership

• Land-Use, Environmental Change, and Sustainability

• Sustainability. Conservation, and Society

• Industrialization. Sustainability and Environmental Policy

• Power and the Urban Environment

• Ethnicity, First Nations Studies and Traditional Ecological Knowledge

• The Social Environment

• Geospatial Technologies and GIS

• Biodiversity and Biological Conservation

Page 28

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• Dr. Jock Munro's report concluded that "most of the opinion in the consultation process

supported the creation of an Environment Faculty...". He identified "four particular issues that

would need to-be addresses as a part of a decision to proceed in this way:

(1)

Agreement on a vision statement that set out the scope and purposes of the Faculty

(2) Decisions on whether any existing units should immediately be transferred to the Faculty

(3) Undertakings to review all existing environmental programs and undertake planning for

new programs

(4) Agreement on mechanisms to encourage effective participation by faculty members and

students in the work of the new Faculty." (p. 26)

The Task Force believes that the vision identified earlier in this section is a vision agreed to by

members of the University community interested in creating a new Environment Faculty. With

regard to issues 2 and

above, the Task Force proposed a multidimensional vision of a new

Environment Faculty to those units who originally submitted proposals to the Task Force which

called for their participation as units within the new Faculty as well as an inclusive process

involving faculty from within and outside the new Faculty in the development of new integrative

problem-centered programming based on the strengths of existing Simon Fraser University

faculty members. We have received strong support from the Department of Geography, the

School for Resource and Environmental Management, the Environmental Science Program. the

Centre for Sustainable Community Development, and the Graduate Certificate Program in

Development. The Urban Studies program was not prepared to support the proposal from the

• Task Force in its current form. Concerns were expressed with regard to the asymmetrical nature

of units in the proposed new Faculty. To offset these concerns, Urban Studies sought to limit the

future growth of the Department of Geography to qualitative, not quantitative, growth only. The

Task Force was not prepared to recommend this limitation, believing that unit growth should be

determined on the basis of student demand and strategic decision making by the Vice, President,

Academic. As a consequence, we understand that the Urban Studies Program will not seek to be

one of the founding units for a new Environment Faculty.

We hope, however, that Urban Studies, as other areas in the University with interests in

environment, development and sustainability, will seek to engage and collaborate with the new

Faculty as it develops new integrative interdisciplinary programming. We are also hopeful that

those members of the Urban Studies Steering Committee who voted

in favor of joining the new

Faculty would serve as key bridges between Urban Studies and the new Faculty so that the new

Faculty will benefit from the expertise and insights that Urban Studies has to offer in broadly

conceived research and teaching in the environment.

We have heard concerns that without the identification of specific thematic foci, and based on

the original founding units identified, it is not clear where some members of the University,

particularly natural scientists, might contribute and collaborate in the new Faculty as there is no

clearly identifiable academic unit to which they might seek full, joint, or temporary appointment.

The Task Force believes strongly that for an initiative in the Environment to be successful it

must have strong participation and representation by the natural, applied, and social sciences, as

Voting results were

in favour,

opposed, and I abstention.

Page 29 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFIJ"

well as public policy, humanities, health, education, and business. In consideration of the

feedback received, the Task Force has reconsidered the way in which we had imagined the

Environmental Science program to develop. We continue to believe that it should be established

as an independent program within the new Faculty. We can see, however, ways in which this

program might be developed further into graduate level programming and ways in which other

consequence we believe that we should be less constraining in our conceptualization and rather

than establishing a house for the existing undergraduate environmental science program alone,

we should instead establish a structure that would enable that program to develop and to attract

other scientists in the development of cognate environmental science type programs. In

conclusion, therefore, we recommend that a Department of Environmental Science be

established within the new Faculty, the founding constituent program of which will be the

existing undergraduate environmental science program.

The Task Force believes that its vision of the new Faculty outlined above and the

recommendations we make elsewhere in this report for changes to policies will considerably

enhance and facilitate the engagement of faculty members in other disciplines in the research and

programming initiatives of the new Faculty. So important is the involvement of other areas of

the University and our inclusive view for new integrative programming that the Task Force

believes it critical that a Faculty Interdisciplinary Programming Committee (FIPC) be

established to develop a blueprint for the future integrative programming of the Environment

Faculty. The FIPC would be comprised of a relatively small number of faculty members

(appointed by the Vice President, Academic) from within and external to the new Faculty, each

of whom would have an equal voice and vote in all matters of the Committee.

The FIPC would have the mandate to develop a blueprint for new integrated programming at the

graduate and undergraduate level based on the following principles:

• develop undergraduate programming of an integrative character (bringing

together humanities, applied, social and natural sciences) around problem-

centered thematic areas

develop graduate programming of an integrative character (bringing together

humanities, applied, social and natural sciences) likely around problem-centered

thematic areas

continue to offer graduate and undergraduate programs that are currently offered

in the constituent units

advance the research agenda and research capacity of the University

have a policy outreach and community engagement role

develop its plan built upon a framework of existing expertise at SFU

Further, the Task Force believes that while it will be important in developing a blueprint for

integrative pro

ramming that builds on existing strengths and expertise across the University,

there will be a need for the deployment of net new faculty positions to ensure the successful

launch of the new Faculty. In this spirit, the Task Force therefore recommends that the FIPC

blueprint also speak to the way in which up to 6-8 new faculty FTEs would be deployed to: ?

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

ensure collaboration among members of the University community outside of the

Environment Faculty

- ensure that undergraduate programming will intersect with, share, and seek

opportunities to streamline new programming with that offered outside of the

Faculty

ensure that graduate programming will intersect with, or share, programming and

graduate supervisory expertise outside of the Faculty

lead to enrolment demand in the integrative areas based on comparative

competition analysis

provide for a variety of ways in which faculty members external to the

Environment Faculty will be able to be involved and contribute to the new

programming (either through joint appointments, secondments. or realignments,

or new hiring requirements)

It is noteworthy that the vision for the new Environment Faculty, as are many other

recommendations in our report, is intimately dependent upon the realization of the vision of

other areas of our mandate. Critical to the full vision of this new Faculty is the achievement of

our recommendations related to a multidimensional strategy for supporting interdisciplinarity.

Paramount here is the adoption of policy recommendations that will significantly enhance faculty

members' abilities to engage, collaborate, and participate in the activities of other academic areas

of the university through more flexible appointment categories, improved evaluation strategies

for interdisciplinary research and teaching, and an Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration that

S ?

is mandated to remove barriers, facilitate collaboration, and connect researchers and educators

seeking to cross disciplinary lines.

Recommendation 3 - That an Environment Faculty (name to be determined) be

established with the following founding units and programs:

- Environmental Science Program as a new Department

Environmental

Science

- Department

Geography

- School

Resource and Environmental Management

- Centre for Sustainable Community Development

- Graduate Certificate Program in Development Studies

Recommendation 4 - That a Faculty Interdisciplinary Programming Committee

(F7PQ be established with the membership, principles, and blueprint development

requirements as outlined in this report and further that this blueprint be presented to

Senate

for approval by April 2009.

Here and elsewhere in this report we will make recommendations that particular processes be considered by

Senate. We use the term "Senate' to represent the full process of review and consideration that leads to Sçnate

approval. In no way do we wish to convey any alteration to the standard processes of consideration of approval that

exist within the University.

Page 31 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

We note that while the Task Force calls for a commitment by the University to provide, as part

of its initial establishment, 6-8 new FTE faculty positions to the Environment Faculty

(conditional upon approval by Senate of the blueprint and provided over a

year time horizon).

If the blueprint planning process identifies a need over the long-term for additional positions,

these would have to be acquired through either the internal annual budgetary process applicable

to all other academic areas of the University, or through the attainment of external fundraising

activities.

We also recommend that given the asymmetry in unit size, the constitution of the Faculty and the

policy concerning the selection of the Dean will need to be constructed to ensure fair

representation and meaningful engagement of each unit in the Faculty regardless of the size of

academic complement. It is also critical that faculty complement growth associated with the

Faculty Interdisciplinary Program Committee blueprint be directed to new interdisciplinary

programming.

Health

In its original submission to the Task Force, the School of Kinesiology favored being relocated

into the Faculty of Health Sciences. The arguments for doing so have merit. The most

compelling argument is the opportunity for Simon Fraser University to realize, through the

inclusion of Kinesiology within the Faculty of Health Sciences, an immediately expanded profile

in Health. As we examined the possibility of the realignment of the School of Kinesiology into

the Faculty of Health Sciences we found, however, that there were also countervailing reasons

that questioned the viability of that structural change. The most important of these are: the desire

by both units to retain their current organizational structure (departmentalization and non-

departmentalization) which they equally see as being integral to their orientation and approach to

programming; the considerably varied conceptualization of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity

and the manifestation of these views in undergraduate and graduate programming; and, the stage

of development of programming within the Faculty of Health Sciences which must be continued

to effectively realize the cross-sectoral approach that integrates cellular to community

perspectives and knowledge approaches in health research and teaching

Our understanding has led us to two major observations:

First, we believe that it is imperative that Simon Fraser University have, and be perceived to

have, a major presence in health-related teaching and research. Our vision, and one that we

believe is widely shared by the University community, is that our profile and presence in Health

must be expanded and deepened over the next five years. We have concluded, however, that

Health at Simon Fraser University will, and should continue to be, located in more than a single

academic unit. There are health researchers working within the vast majority of disciplines in

the University. Among these are Women's Studies, Sociology & Anthropology, Psychology,

History, Political Science, Public Policy, Gerontology, Economics, Kinesiology, Biological

Sciences, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry. Chemistry, Statistics & Actuarial Science.

Mathematics, Interactive Arts & Technology, Business Administration, Education and more. As

a consequence, our recommendations will be directed towards profiling and deepening health

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

research and teachin across the institution both within the disciplines and within initiatives that

help us to realize our

- oals with respect to interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary collaboration.

Second, we have come to realize that there are two very different orientations towards health

programming and research between the School of Kinesiology and the Faculty of Health

Sciences. This distinctiveness and diversity are viewed by the Task Force as two of Simon

Fraser University's considerable strengths. On the one hand, we have the School of Kinesiology,

with its internationally renowned and accredited discipline-based undergraduate program. On

the other hand, we have the Faculty of Health Sciences with its emerging integrated

interdisciplinary programs in population and public health and infectious disease that are

becoming recognized internationally for their unique approach to cross-sectoral health teaching

and research. Both units strongly contribute to defining Simon Fraser University's reputation

and profile in health research and teaching in Canada. The Task Force believes it essential that

these two types of contributions are retained.

In examining all of these factors, the Task Force has concluded that to best realize the School of

Kinesiology and the University's ambitions, the School of Kinesiology should be relocated to the

Faculty of Science. We believe this for a number of reasons, including: (a) Kinesiology's

orientation, and perspective is akin to those held by other science disciplines; (b) Kinesiology's

highly reputed undergraduate program has significant science course content (a total of 34

credits), higher than content from any other area; (c) opportunities for research and teaching

collaboration are plentiful and established within the Faculty of Science, particularly with

• Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and Biological Sciences; and finally, (d) we believe that

the Faculty of Science is a proven stable and productive environment for research and teaching

excellence within the disciplines. These views have led us to conclude that the Faculty of

Science will prove to be a hospitable and supportive home for the School of Kinesiology. It is

our strong preference that the Faculty of Science provide the School of Kinesiology with

incentives to collaborate with the Faculty of Health Science, as with other disciplines, in the

future.

Before setting out our recommendations, the Task Force believes it important to clearly articulate

what our goals are for health research and teaching at Simon Fraser University generally. We

identify these as follows:

Goals:

(1)

That the vision for health research and teaching at Simon Fraser University be bold, and

that it be deepened and expanded.

(2)

That we continue to recognize the benefits of multiple perspectives and orientations to

the study of health and that we recognize that contributions will be made within many

disciplines and through the integration of the natural, applied and social sciences by

means of problem-centered themes. We will find these across all areas of the

University.

That despite our diverse areas of activity in health, we retain as our utmost priority

coherence and clarity in educational programming and the need for making significant

contributions to society and the world through our research and discovery.

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

(4) That while health research and programming will exist in diverse areas across the

University, Simon Fraser University must speak with a strong and single voice to the

external community.

Recommendation 5: That the School of Kinesiology be relocated to the Faculty

Science.

Recommendation 6: That units active in health research and programming pursue the

development

new collaborative initiatives.

Recommendation

That a "SFU Health Network" be established.

The "SFU Health Network" would be developed and managed by the Office for Interdisciplinary

Collaboration. The purpose of the Network would be multi-faceted:

• It would be proactive in stimulating knowledge of, and opportunities for, collaboration

among health researchers across the University through the development of

communication vehicles (i.e. databases, newsletters, colloquium series, semi-annual

events, a dedicated "Research Matters" issue on health at SFU, etc).

• It would present a single portal to the University for health education and research,

serving both as a directory to potential students for health programming across the

University, as well as providing a clear picture of the extent to which Simon Fraser

University is engaged in health related research and teaching.

Faculty ofA

lied Sciences

It follows from the above recommendations for the creation of new Faculties, that the Task Force

believes the Faculty of Applied Sciences should be disbanded.

Recommendation 8: That the Faculty

Applied Sciences be disbanded.

College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning

Working Group

noted in their report that:

"The University's commitment to internationalization, its geographical positioning with

strong ties to the Pacific Rim and East Asia, its reputation for community engagement,

outreach and global participation, its strength in interdisciplinarity both in research and

undergraduate education, and its history of distinctive learning environments, flexibility and

service to diverse populations, provides an unparalleled backdrop upon which to develop

structures and initiatives that are designed for the betterment of students as citizens in the

world."

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

The Working Group further wrote that we need to:

establish Simon Fraser University as a place where students obtain an outstanding

education, enriched by opportunities to engage and experience their world as preparation

for their role in it." (page 3, Working Group 5 report)

The Task Force agrees with the opportunity and need identified by Working Group

Our

vision of Simon Fraser University for 2025, combined with changes to the demographic profile

of students and an exceedingly competitive recruitment environment in the future, demands from

us that undergraduate students have an unparalleled and multifaceted learning experience. The

education provided through our disciplinary structures in the core' areas of arts and humanities,

natural, applied and social sciences, health, and in our professional areas of education and

business administration, is critical and students are well served by the outstanding complement

of faculty who populate these areas. The Task Force believes, however, that there are three ways

in which the University can importantly build upon, complement and supplement the discipline

based learning experience of students. First, we believe that the improved structures in support

of interdisciplinarity and the new capacities that are provided to our research centres and

institutes will provide the mechanisms for the generation of exciting new credit courses that stem

directly from the leading edge interdisciplinary research being undertaken. Second, we believe

that there is an equally exciting opportunity to further enrich the student learning environment by

developing a comprehensive and unmatched network of educational opportunities defined by an

• experiential component. Third, we believe that Continuing Studies as currently exists should be

reconceived as a more integral extension of the disciplines of the University and positioned to

respond to the demographic changes that are before us.

The Task Force has chosen to develop a multifaceted strategy to deal with interdisciplinarity at

Simon Fraser University. It is our view that the three remaining areas -

experiential learning,

community engagement and lifelong learning

can form the cornerstones of a new "College of

Lifelong and Experiential Learning".

Why create a College?. In part the answer is one of pragmatics. We are trying to signal the

creation of a new structural mechanism that will cross-lattice, and interweave with the

disciplinary pillars of the institution. In its mandate and raison d'etre, the "college" is both an

extension of the academic disciplines into our communities through our lifelong learning

programming, distance education activities, and distinct populations service, and it aims to be a

complement to our disciplines by providing a home for supplementary interdisciplinary and

experiential academic programming. From a nomenclature perspective, our academic structure

already defines programs, departments, schools, centres and institutes. We needed to find a term

that would depict the academic mandate of the cross-latticing entity while simultaneously not

confounding it with our existing structures.

Durin g

the first phase of the academic restructuring exercise, the Faculty Structure Task Force

conducted a review of the use of structural elements elsewhere and presented the following

summary:

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future

SFU"

"Colleges have been used both as independent institutional descriptors (in place of the

term University in some countries) or as part of a post-secondary educational system that

uses both Colleges and Universities to distinguish the primarily educational institutions

from those with a research mandate. The English system and its colonial offshoots are

somewhat different; that is, the University has several colleges within itself, and they all

perform both research and pedagogical functions. They are, rather, known for certain

specializations and, perhaps more importantly ih England, for the history of

membership—which may be limited to women, religious orientations, levels of class

differentiation, and so forth. The College structure has also become increasingly used

within a University structure in Canada, to represent differing geographical presences

(i.e. multiple campus environments), to identify a category of residential affiliation

experience such as a Catholic College or Women's College or to organize and

-differentiate undergraduate and graduate education."

(p.

12, FSTF)

Since the time the Phase 1 report was written in July 2006, the University of British Columbia

established a College for Interdisciplinary Studies in January 2007. Its mandate demonstrates

that it has been created in many ways as a parallel structure to the College of Lifelong and

Experiential Learning that we are envisioning for Simon Fraser University.

"The mandate of the College [of Interdisciplinary Studies] will be to facilitate and

support interdisciplinarity campus-wide, and as part of that mandate, to serve as a place

for the creation, development, and dissemination of new and important scholarly

activities which advance the interests of UBC as a whole according to its Trek 2010

strategic vision."

While the UBC "College" is focused on interdisciplinary research, it shares with the College of

Lifelong and Experiential Learning a university-wide function, a home for academic activity, a

role in the supporting, creating and developing new scholarly activity, and in being intimately

tied to the overall strategic vision of the University and the experience for students.

Given the compatibility of our goals with both local and international university systems, we

believe that describing our proposed new initiative as a College is a reasonable, defensible, and

appropriate structural term to be added to Simon Fraser University.

The College would be comprised of two divisions - the Experiential Learning Division and the

Lifelong Learning Division.

The Experiential Learning Division would have the following responsibilities:

• develop, incubate, nourish and house credit (but not degree granting) programming of an

interdisciplinary, cross-Faculty character within College Programs'

• develop a portal to showcase experiential programming and learning opportunities across

the University;

See Volume V - Structural Elements - for a detailed discussion

a College Program.

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFtJ"

• serve as a reference, resource, and support centre for members of the University

community seeking to develop new experiential programming; and,

• coordinate experiential credit administration and adjudication processes in the future

The Lifelong Learning Division would have the following responsibilities:

• develop programs that provide opportunities for coherent pathways between non-credit

and credit learning; and,

• house continuing studies, distance education, and diverse population outreach activities.

The Task Force believes that the creation of the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning

will effectively profile and 'brand' Simon Fraser University as a unique place that

institutionalizes its commitment to excellence in student learning experience.

Over time, the College will house a diverse array of supplemental pan-university programs such

as interdisciplinary capstone programs, integrative thematic semesters or summer workshops,

interdisciplinary graduate certificate programs, etc. While we can imagine that there may be first

year programming in the future (such as a university-wide environmental literacy initiative)

which might prove an excellent initiative for the College, generally we expect that experiential

programming in the College will be focused at the senior undergraduate or graduate levels once

students have attained a clear identity with an academic field and can bring their understanding

of their discipline to interdisciplinary conversations in a broader learning environment. We do

not propose relocating existing first year programs - Explorations, TechOne, or Science One -

into the College unless that becomes the desire of these individual programs in the future.

The College would be mandated to ensure that teaching in all of its various areas is research-

infused and of the highest quality. Further, it is critical that the interdisciplinary programming

that is developed remain intimately interconnected with the disciplines from which they evolve

and enhance, and we would therefore recommend that discipline-based steering committees be

put in place for all College Programs.

Division of Experiential Learning

There is a vast literature on "experiential learning" and "experiential education" and the Task

Force does not pretend to have a complete or necessarily sophisticated understanding of these

fields''. What do we mean by an "experiential" component to the educational experience of

Simon Fraser University? For the Task Force, the answer probably lies somewhere between the

definitions of "experiential learning" and "experiential education". J.J. Stehno's (1986) review

of experiential learning models and D.A. Kolb's (1984) theoretical framework of experiential

learning both articulate four defining features of experiential learning: "(1) action that creates

and experience, (2) reflection on the action and experience, (3) abstractions drawn from the

reflection, and (4) application of the abstraction to a new experience". Experiential education, in

comparison, can be seen to build upon these four features but extends them in two important

The article, "Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21' century" by

Dr. Christian M. Itin, in The Journal of Ex

eriential Education, Fall 1999, has proven useful to us in trying to

decipher the difference between the fields of "experiential education" and "experiential learning".

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

ways. First, "the transactive component between teacher and learner" is critical in experiential

education. Second, experiential education, building upon the work of John Dewey, Kurt Hahn,

and Paulo Freire, also seeks to "consider the larger system level issues of education such as the

socio-political-economic elements in the learning environment" and encourages both learner and

teacher to explore "issues of values, relationship, diversity, inclusion and community"2.

What we are seeking to create is a paradigm in the College that combines course-based learning

(both disciplinary and interdisciplinary) with experience and engagement in the world. We

believe that if fully developed in complement to our discipline based activities, Simon Fraser

University will provide students with an unparalleled education that uniquely prepares them for

their role in an increasingly multidimensional, globally interconnected, and socially conscious

21st century.

The Task Force has a broad, multifaceted vision for developing an experiential component to the

undergraduate learning process at Simon Fraser University. Over time, we imagine that there

will be an expansive and diverse array of experiential opportunities for students. These might

include highly integrated experiences within disciplinary curriculums, participation on leading

edge research teams, engagement in collaborative learning ventures with industrial partners,

interdisciplinary thematic semesters of study, international studies abroad, community project

participation either locally or internationally, work-integrated learning experiences, and others.

We imagine an "experiential component" in its fullest sense. At the most integrative end of the

spectrum we cite the residential component of medical degrees or the PDP program in our own

Faculty of Education as exemplary of an experiential educational component. Less intensive, but

equally representative of an experiential learning activity is the ad-hoc industrial-faculty member

collaborations offered through IRMACS, or the senior undergraduate research assistantships of

undergraduate students. These are integrative examples, demonstrating experiential components

intimately interconnected to the disciplines. There are other examples of initiatives at Simon

Fraser University that qualify for inclusion as an interdisciplinary experiential component to the

learning experience. The Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue which shares many of the

qualities of experiential education in the definition presented earlier combines the features of

comprehensive interdisciplinarity and significant experiential activity, with an array of social,

political, economic, and community issues and values. Both student and educators are intimately

involved in the overall learning experience.

The examples presented so far are less likely to come automatically to mind when one thinks of

Simon Fraser University's activities in "experiential learning". The most commonly associated

types of activities are those that can be broadly classified into our Work-Integrated Learning

(WIL) unit. This unit is the area of primary responsibility and coordination for cooperative

education, volunteer and internship opportunities, career planning, and more recently service

learning. This latter area, commenced in August 2007, is defined by Student Services as a "type

of experiential learning in which students connect their academic learning with community

issues. Typically, community engagement and structured reflection is incorporated into an

academic, for-credit course. Students' academic, career, and personal development is

positively impacted." The Task Force clearly recognizes that the activities being engaged

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• under the umbrella of work-integrated learning and international experiences (such as

learning a foreign language, participating in a field school, international exchange program,

or study-abroad experience) clearly fall under our vision for an experiential component to the

education of Simon Fraser University students. We do not, however, have any desire for the

new College that we ultimately recommend here to seek to assume responsibility for these

activities nor to have the activities currently housed within Student Services relocated to the

College. The College will serve both as a home to new experiential learning activities and as a

conduit of connection between initiatives housed around the University. We encourage and

expect that the College and Student Services will develop a strong and positive relationship with

extensive interaction, just as the College must develop an integrative network of connections

with disciplines across the University.

While we believe that the above examples will clarify our conceptualization of an experiential

component to the educational experience of students, we wish also to note that we are not

referring to those experiences that have been gained prior to enrolling at Simon Fraser University

such as work experience or experiences and activities that might qualify for consideration as part

of the University's Prior Learning Assessment processes. Rather, we are specifically referring to

"experiences" obtained by students as part of their education at Simon Fraser University.

Simon Fraser University has long recognized the value of experiential learning. The

considerable diversity of cooperative learning opportunities for students, our international field

schools, and participation of students in research projects, are just a few of the ways in which we

• offer our students unique experiences to complement their discipline based learning. The

examples and successes to date, speak to the ability of existing Faculty and administrative

structures to successfully innovate and create some forms of experiential learning opportunities

for students. The Cooperative Education and International Field School models are illustrative

for the ways in which they combine both central infrastructure and support with connectivity to

the disciplines they serve.

Over the past five years, the' University has introduced the concept of a semester of study in a

problem-centered area that changes from year to year. We have introduced cohort-based first

year experience programs for undergraduate students. And we have mounted a new

multidisciplinary graduate certificate program in Developmeni. Despite their different foci,

subject matters, and target audience, all three have two qualities in common: they seek to deepen

the experience of students at the University, and they are highly interdisciplinary in design. All

have been highly successful; attracting excellent students and all are being well received. But

each of these learning forms has encountered considerable administrative difficulty within a

structural system that is designed around disciplines.

The Task Force believes that our strengths in this area are hidden. We also believe that we

should expand the opportunities for students to engage in experiential learning as part of their

degree at Simon Fraser University. While there are members of the Task Force who would

propose that this be a mandatory experience for students, defining of the SFU undergraduate

program and that opportunities also be afforded at the graduate level, we ultimately reached the

• view that further exploration of this proposal is required and that we should instead conceive as a

first step, the introduction of opportunities for students to obtain credit for experiential learning.

This will require a thorough review of the way in which such credits fit within other changes to

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

the undergraduate curriculum (W,Q,B), the potential impact on overall degree credit

requirements, and the ways in which these experiences can be evaluated, adjudicated,

implemented and coordinated. Such a review must also identify existing opportunities and

ensure that they are prominently featured in an overall coherent portal of information for

students. While the W-Q-B initiative focused on the undergraduate experience, we believe that

there are also great opportunities to be afforded at the graduate level. For example, many

students in Masters or Doctoral programs in areas of public policy, 'international studies,

environment, health, etc. might find a semester in dialogue, a language certificate program, or a

community project extremely interesting and a value-added component to their degree. Further,

we can even imagine that for some students the opportunity may not present itself during their

degree for a study abroad semester, international field school or language in location program,

but that once they have completed their degree requirements, they might be interested in

participating through an alumni program. This strategy would provide valued continued learning

opportunities for our alumni as well as strengthen their connection to the University, perhaps

leading to Simon Fraser University being the first choice for further post-graduate education or

as an option for financial contribution.

We believe this vision will require a coherent and easily navigable path for students, a portal

opening to a variety of choices supported by an effective structure to support, stimulate, incubate

and nourish experiential initiatives that will emerge and be developed within disciplines, within

Student Services, and within a new College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning.

As one of the signature interdisciplinary and pan-university supplemental learning initiatives at

the University, we believe that the Semester in Dialogue would be a perfect fit for our vision of

the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning. Defined as a "College Program" under the

structural elements framework of the University discussed below, the exceptional administrative

provisions required to enable the Semester in Dialogue program to function would have

institutionally sanctioned mechanisms that would resolve the cumbersome and somewhat

ineffective temporary structures under which the program has been operating. In this spirit of

administrative resolution, we also find considerable merit to the proposal to consolidate the

Semester in Dialogue program with the Centre for Dialogue in an effort to more effectively

coordinate programming, community outreach and oversight.

Division

Lifelon g

Learning

The Task Force also firmly believes that the University of the future must be actively engaged

within its communities and must take a leadership role in addressing the pressing issues

confronting society.

Continuing Studies at Simon Fraser University has functioned as the primary area of the

University responsible for outreach to diverse populations for non-credit programming. It has

also through its distance education arms, and collaborative ventures with academic areas across

the University, supported the discipline-based teaching and community outreach missions of the

University and currently offers numerous for-credit certificate programs.

Page 40 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• Continuing Studies will be a critically important vehicle for the University of the future. Shifting

demographics, changing educational needs of professionals and adult learners, engagement with

diverse communities internationally, all will draw upon the expertise and activities located

within our existing Continuing Studies umbrella.

We believe, however, that there needs to be some shift in the perception of this arm of the

University's activities. We believe it imperative that Continuing Studies offer, and be seen to

offer, services and courses of comparable academic quality to those offered within the disciplines

at Simon Fraser University. We believe that part of the solution lies in a more effective

integration of our outreach activities with our traditional programming activities. There should

be more articulated pathways between non-credit and credit-learning and our service to diverse

communities should be built upon the foundations of our research and teaching expertise. We

also believe that there is a need for more direct involvement in the teaching activities of

Continuing Studies by our faculty and for us to more effectively capitalize on the expertise of

highly trained professionals and practitioners. Further, we feel that both lifelong and experiential

learning represent unique pedagogical approaches to learning for both seasoned academics and

professionals alike. Bringing together the expertise of Program Directors in Continuing Studies

with faculty members in disciplines will create a vibrant and exciting new research Centre.

Ultimately, the Task Force concluded that there is a need for the University of the future to be

intimately connected with and serving of its communities, both locally and internationally. This

means for us that Simon Fraser University needs to develop a more integrated conceptualization

• of Continuing Studies within the University. While the positioning of much of Continuing

Studies initial programming occurred through our Harbour Centre campus, it is by no means

accidental that an increasing portion of our discipline-based programming has moved to

downtown Vancouver. Nor it is surprising to us that there is an exponentially growing demand

for Continuing Studies programming in our new city location of Surrey. The University of the

future is one embedded within its communities, offering a spectrum of programming from

Philosopher Café style events, outreach programs, non-credit programming, full credit degree

programming at the undergraduate, graduate, masters and post-doctorate level. It is the nexus for

intellectual engagement for all members of our community.

In conclusion, based on the three pillars of experiential learning, community engagement and

lifelong learning, the Task Force makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 9: That a College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning be

established.

9.1: That the College

Lifelong and

Experiential Learning be the locus and

home for

the encouragement, coordination, interconnection, and

development of

interdisciplinary, cross-Faculty experiential learning

programs.

9.1.a: That the Semester in Dialogue and the Centre for Dialogue be

consolidated and that they be classified as a College Program

within the College

of Lifelong and Experiential Learning.

Page 41 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

9.1.b: That the Vice President, Academic establish a Committee for

Experiential Learning (CEL), and that this Committee be

established with a mandate to develop a plan for introducing an

experiential credit for undergraduate students. We further

recommend that the CEL be mandated to submit its plan to

Senate by September 2009.

9.2: ?

That the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning house the

existing portfolio of Continuing Studies and Distance Education.

Institute for Advanced Scholarship

Working Group

recognized the significant impact that a major research institute could have for

the profiling of our research excellence and for stimulating research programs through the

connection of Simon Fraser University researchers with leading world experts. Modeled after

Institutes for Advanced Scholarship at Princeton, Harvard, and others, the goal of a Simon Fraser

Institute for Advanced Scholarship (SFU-IAS) would be the pursuit of research excellence at the

leading edge of pressing global issues. The SFU-IAS is envisioned as one of the pre-eminent

Institutes for the exploration of critical interdisciplinary research questions that would bring

together leading world scholars from the arts, humanities, applied, social and natural sciences

within and beyond Simon Fraser University around a thematic project for a two-year period.

With state-of-the-art facilities, an internationally acclaimed conference, and proceedings of the

highest quality, the SFU-IAS would bolster Simon Fraser University's place on the international

stage for research excellence. The Institute is also envisioned to have significant graduate

educational and community outreach components. This ambitious vision

has captured the

imagination of the Task Force and we believe it would prove an extremely important asset for

the future of the University, particularly in the context of our urgent priority to advance our

research intensity and excellence. To effectively realize the vision and stature envisioned, the

project will require substantial investment. And yet, the Task Force believes that it has such

potential that we recommend it be pursued through a targeted external fundraising campaign.

Recommendation 10: That the University establish a Simon Fraser University Institute

for Advanced Studies

the highest caliber, made possible through a targeted

fundraising campaign for this purpose. We further recommend that the University

strive to realize its dream for the creation

the

SFU—IAS

by the year 2012.

Refer to the Working Group 5 report for a more detailed vision of the Simon Fraser University Institute for

Advanced Scholarship.

Page 42 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Summary

Over the course of Volume II, we have recommended significant new structures for the future of

Simon Fraser University including three new Faculties, a College of Lifelong and Experiential

Learning, and a future Institute for Advanced Scholarship.

If we return to the four qualities, identified at the beginning of our report

,that we believe should

define Simon Fraser University by 2025, we can summarize our view as to how each of our

major structural recommendations speak to the qualities we wish to build upon and exemplify.

For faculty members, we believe that the profiling of three new areas within the University's

academic structure - environment and sustainability, engineering and computing, and

communication, contemporary arts and design, will provide for all faculty members working

directly or indirectly within these disciplines and interdisciplines a clear signal of commitment

by the University to their areas of research, and will heighten Simon Fraser University's

activities and strengths in these areas in national and international contexts. The design of the

Environment Faculty, in particular, with its vision for a broadly inclusive and participatory

structure of engagement by faculty from across the University we hope to become a model for

interdisciplinarity and collaboration, providing significant new opportunities for knowledge

discovery. The College of Experiential and Lifelong Learning is also a critically important

component of enhancing the University for faculty members. Those faculty members seeking to

innovate in the creation of new interdisciplinary programming will find a nourishing home that

• facilitates their ideas' incubation and development. Further, the expertise of our academic

complement will more seamlessly permeate our outreach and community engagement activities

thus ensuring the highest quality possible for all academic programming, credit and non-credit.

offered by Simon Fraser University. And finally, our vision for one of Canada's top Institutes

for Advanced Scholarship will become the focal point for world-leading research, attracting the

best scholars from Simon Fraser University and around the world to engage and collaborate.

Our recommendations have been designed as well to serve our vision for developing an

expanded range of outstanding programmatic options for graduate students, increasing the

diversity and opportunity for interdisciplinary courses of study, and being more actively engaged

in the research mission of the University. Prospective graduate students in Computing Science

and Engineering Science will see Simon Fraser University similar to other Canadian and US

Universities - with their disciplines clustered in a focused and visible configuration of a Faculty.

But unlike other institutions, they will have unique educational experiences given the foci of our

Engineering and Computing disciplines. For graduate students interested in issues of

Environment and Sustainability, an area of increasingly critical need of study and research within

the world, our graduate students will find a clear constellation of graduate programming

opportunities both within the new Environment Faculty as well as through the communication

portal that will exist to ensure that there are clear pathways of study known to students. Further,

the specific plan for the development of new integrative graduate programming within the

Faculty will provide our graduate students with exciting new interdisciplinary program

opportunities. The structures that are being designed to bridge faculty members from across the

University will also provide the strong networks of collaboration and interconnectedness that

will provide for importantly diverse thesis and dissertation supervisory committees. Future

graduate students from Simon Fraser University will also benefit tremendously from the

programming imagined through the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning. New

interdisciplinary programming and unique curriculum initiatives such as perhaps a graduate

dialogue semester, international experiences, etc., will enrich their discipline based learning.

And finally, the Institute for Advanced Scholarship, with a key component dedicated to the

participation and membership in the Institute by graduate students, will provide the structural

mechanism for more actively engaging graduate students in world leading research.

The recommendations we have made in this section, are also designed to develop Simon Fraser

University into one of the best educational institutions for undergraduate -students. Simon Fraser

University will be seen as

the

institution in Canada offering students a truly unique experience.

Our three pillar experience - disciplinary grounding, interdisciplinary understanding, and

experiential engagement with the world - will become internationally acclaimed and

recognizable. From a disciplinary perspective, the establishment of a Faculty of Contemporary

Arts, Communication and Design (name to be defined), will create an identifiable and highly

visible new Faculty in areas of high demand and interest by undergraduate students. New

interdisciplinary programming at the interstices of these disciplines and that of the Publishing

Program will provide exciting new areas of study for prospective students. The new

Environment Faculty is also a very important contribution to attaining our goals with regard to

undergraduate education. Providing coherence and clarity to the undergraduate program

offerings in the areas of environment and sustainability both within the new Faculty and external

to it, will help prospective students see the considerable breadth and strength in environmental

programming at Simon Fraser University. Further, the stabilization, independence and

revitalization of the Environmental Science Program imagined to occur within the new Faculty

will prove, we believe, extremely attractive to prospective students. Additionally, the blueprint

for new integrative programming will result in the development of unparalleled educational

opportunities for students both in the design of full degree programming but also, we expect, in

the development of environmental awareness and literacy programs, supplemental credit

initiatives, and environmental "value-added" components to non-environment specialist students.

We also see through initial conversations among prospective participants (both as units and as

collaborators) in the new Faculty, a significant desire to develop international study and

experiential program initiatives. In addition to the benefits of the new Faculties for

undergraduate students of the future, the Task Force recognizes that the College of Lifelong and

Experiential Learning will be one of the most significant contributors to the undergraduate

experience of the future.

The final quality we sought to design our recommendations to serve was the role we envision for

Simon Fraser University with respect to the local and international communities we serve. We

had aspired to have Simon Fraser University become a "place where we fulfill our social

responsibility to provide learning opportunities to all members of society through a

comprehensive collection of programming ... where we [would] actively pursue and contribute

to understanding and knowledge development in the large social and environmental problems of

the world; and where we [would] provide our students with opportunities to learn with

individuals, and participate in initiatives, in communities around the world". We have

recognized our social responsibility to engage in perhaps the world's most pressing area of issues

- environment and sustainability. We have appreciated the role of University's to foster,

Page 44 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU

• nourish, and showcase the arts, art-making and culture within society. We have understood the

continuing influence that technology is having in society. And we have chosen to coalesce our

strengths in each of these areas so as to provide "neighborhoods" within Simon Fraser University

dedicated to the study and knowledge development in each of these areas. The Task Force also

appreciates that Universities must become increasingly interconnected with the fabric of society

and must provide ways for all members of society to engage with us. In this spirit, we have

developed the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning upon four

critically important

foundations: interdisciplinarity, experiential learning, community engagement and lifelong

learning. The latter three of these, have particular import to our vital role in connecting with our

communities.

Page 45 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

"REMOVING BARRIERS: A DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE OF SFU"

VOLUME III - INTERDISCIPLINARITY

Presented to the University Community

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future ofSFU"

Page 46 of 97

VOLUME Ill -

INTERDISCIPLINARITY

The third area of the mandate for the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure is that of

interdisciplinarity. Specifically, Senate mandated the Task Force to:

Consider and evaluate the University's effectiveness in incubating, facilitating, and

supporting interdisciplinary research and programming and, following exploration and

consultation with the University community, recommend structural and/or policy changes that

will

enhance interdisciplinary innovation in the future.

As we delve into this area of our mandate, the Task Force wishes to reinforce that all of the

recommendations contained within this report are aimed to further Simon Fraser University in its

pursuit of excellence: excellence in research, excellence in teaching, and meaningful engagement

with, and contributions to, our community, both locally and globally.

Successful interdisciplinarity can, and will only, occur in the presence of strong, vibrant, and

dynamic disciplines. We value the research being undertaken within disciplines and understand

its importance to interdisciplinary research and we recognize that interdisciplinarity occurs both

within

disciplines as well as

outside

of disciplines. As such, the University's structures and

policies must be designed to support innovation, knowledge advancement and the pursuit of

opportunities in both disciplinary and interdisciplinary directions. We recognize that both

disciplinary and interdisciplinary advancement will occur at all scales and in all settings.

The Task Force believes that, as with other areas of the University, interdisciplinarity can, and

will, flourish if there is a vision for its future, a strategic plan to guide its development, the

leadership to champion it, and the resources to implement the vision.

Over the following section, we highlight those ways in which Simon Fraser University is

currently successful in supporting interdisciplinary research and teaching, identify areas that are

in need of review, support or redesign, and set out an overall multifaceted strategy for how we

believe interdisciplinarity at Simon Fraser University can emerge as one of our hallmark

qualities that deserves the ongoing core commitment of the University.

What is lnterdisciylinaritv?

While there is an expansive literature speaking to the definition, qualities, hierarchies, and

activities of interdisciplinarity' 4

, the Task Force finds that a straightforward operational

definition of interdisciplinarity is that offered by Professor Cathy N. Davidson, Vice-Provost for

Interdisciplinarity Studies, at Duke University:

"Interdisciplinarity is any productive research or teaching that occurs across. between,

and among two or more areas of knowledge that typically have dfferent histories,

While the Task Force did not conduct a thorough literature review of the theoretical classification and definition

of Interdisciplinarity, we did read a number of works that we understood to represent dominant thinking in the field.

The sources we consulted are identified in Appendix G - the Bibliographical references to our full report.

Page 47 of 97

methodologies, or objects of study. Inlerdisciplinarity can occur across schools or

it can

happen within a single department, it can involve collaborations of many researchers or

it can -he embodied in the work of a single researcher." ("Why Interdisciplinarity? ', in

interConnection, Volume 5. 1, Fall 2006, [Newsletter on Jnterdisciplinarity Studies at

Duke)).

Process Overview

The Task Force pursued its study of interdisciplinarity through two primary activities: a literature

web review and an Interdisciplinarity Charette Day. The latter was held as a full-day event on

March 23, 2007 and attracted more than 80 members of the University community. The Charette

Day was designed to accomplish six goals:

1. To

hear members of the University community speak of their experiences in pursuing

interdisciplinary research and teaching;

To understand the ways in which current structures, policies, frameworks, or supports,

enable successful interdisciplinary research and teaching to occur:

To learn about the impediments to the pursuit of interdisciplinary research and teaching:

To develop a view of what SFU 's goal(s) should be with regard to interdisciplinarity for

the future (we think of the future being at least the next 20 years);

To determine if there are any principles that should guide the incubation,

encouragement, facilitation, support, and/or evaluation, of interdisciplinary research and

teaching, and,

To imagine/invent/or model - structures, policies, frameworks and supports to enable

SFU to successfully facilitate interdisciplinary research and teaching.

To realize our goals, we designed the event in two parts: the first - "Learning from Experience"

- featured a series of presentations. Dr. Roberta Katz, Associate Vice-President of Strategic

Planning, at Stanford University, began the day with an enlightening discussion about the

multidisciplinary vision and activities at Stanford University. This was followed by eight

presentations from the following Simon Fraser University faculty members:

• Dr. Peter Borwein (Director of JR MA CS, Burnaby Mountain Chair in Mathematics)

• Dr. Jeff Pelletier (Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Science; Professor, Departments

of Philosophy and Linguistics)

• Dr. Bob Anderson (Professor, School of Communication)

• Dr. Ken Lerizman (Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management)

• Dr. Marilyn MacDonald (Professor, Department of Women's Studies)

• Dr. Rick Gruneau (Professor, School of Communication)

• Dr. Meg Holden (Assistant Professor, Departments of Urban Studies/Geography) and

Dr. Janet Moore (Assistant Professor, Urban Studies Program/Undergraduate Semester

in Dialogue)

• Dr. Jennifer Marchhank (Director of Explorations, Professor, Women Studies) and Dr.

Jane Fee (Director of TechOne and Special Advisor to the Dean ofApplied Sciences)

Page 48 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• The second part of the day - "Imagining a New Future" - consisted of small group design teams

led by experienced SFU facilitators. Proceedings from the Charette Day can be found on the

Task Force web site.

Evidence of Successful Interdisci

linaritv at SF1]

Simon Fraser University has from its earliest planning documents shown a clear institutional

commitment to interdisciplinarity. This commitment appears in nearly all vision statements.

university-level strategic plans, our statement of purpose, and our major-communications to the

external community. Testament to our commitment to interdisciplinarity is the strength of units

such as the Schools of Criminology, Communication, Contemporary Arts, Interactive Arts and

Technology, Resource & Environmental Management, and the Faculties of Business

Administration, Education, and Health Sciences. Equally evidentiary of our commitment are

new initiatives in research funding through the CTE Fund for large multidisciplinary projects, the

undergraduate student breadth requirement to encourage knowledge acquisition outside of

primary disciplines of study, first-year experience programs such as Explorations, TechOne and

Science One, and new interdisciplinary degree programs such as Global Health, Public Policy,

International Studies and Urban Studies. Others are in the development stage such as the

proposal by Dr. Rick Gruneau for the creation of a program in Sport, Commerce, Culture and

Community. Finally, we have seen internal leadership in promoting and advancing

interdisciplinary connection by such policy decisions as the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

which chose to use all of their Canada Research Chairs as vehicles for promoting and expanding

interdisciplinary work.

Clearly there are a number of other examples. We hope, however, that the brief list in the above

paragraph signals the success the University has achieved to date, and the actual realization of

our commitment to interdisciplinarity.

Issues Raised and Areas Identified for Review, Support or Redesi2n

Despite our successes, many faculty members at Simon Fraser University believe that, as an

institution, we could better incubate and support interdisciplinary research and teaching.

Through the Interdisciplinarity Charette Day, a survey of faculty with joint appointments, and a

variety of input provided during Working Group meetings and Task Force consultation

processes, we have learned of the following issues and areas where Simon Fraser University is

not as successful as we could be in facilitating strong interdisciplinary teaching and research.

At an institutional level, the University does not have a clearly articulated and focused vision or

strategy for how to support interdisciplinarity. This is viewed as one reason underpinning the

lack of a university-wide culture of understanding, support, or recognition of the merit of

interdisciplinary work. A number of faculty members believe that this permeates performance

review processes wherein they feel that there are difficulties in the measurement of the quality of

interdisciplinary scholarship, in the establishment of parameters for assessing excellence for

interdisciplinarity, and in the recognition of interdisciplinary scholarship being of potentially

Page 49 of 97

equal caliber and quality to disciplinary scholarship. It was further noted that one of the primary

structural mechanisms designed to promote interdisciplinarity - joint appointments - were not

being used effectively or to the degree used by some other institutions. The Task Force

attempted to compare our use of joint appointments with other institutions in the country but

have experienced difficulty in obtaining information from other institutions. Those who have

responded to our query for information, share our concern that joint appointments serve as

important mechanisms for interdisciplinarity but that these have not been- marshaled to most

institutions' advantage.

Barriers to effective interdisciplinarity have been noted for, and by, students in relation to our

teaching and program development, in our research activities, and in the way in which we have

deployed Centres and Institutes in the past.

In the area of students, we learned from professors and students alike, that students encounter the

following barriers to interdisciplinary study:

• they often experienced difficulty in taking cross-Faculty minors and double majors;

• they feel there is an over-prescription of prerequisites that make the design of

interdisciplinary programs difficult and opportunities for students to explore other

disciplines nearly impossible;

• they find having credits recognized towards overall degree credential from one discipline

to another can often be extremely difficult and students may be required if they switch

programs of study to ultimately take more than 120 credits for degree completion;

• they find the course approval process cumbersome and unwieldy for students seeking to

study across disciplines;

• they believe that structures of registration priority to disciplinary majors is restricting

exposure to other disciplines;

• they see a lack of choice in navigating a path of study at the graduate level and often non-

disciplinary learning is accomplished through "special arrangements" or directed

readings courses;

• they find that financial support structures, particularly for graduate students, come from

discipline-based channels and research funding which is typically directed at discipline-

based research and learning; and,

• they believe there is a significant lack of integrated, problem-centered courses available

to students.

Participants in the Interdisciplinarity Charette Day and the literature review confirmed that the

most frequent barriers to interdisciplinary learning for students derive from the difficulty of

faculty members to effectively engage in interdisciplinary course and program development and

teaching. The most frequently cited problems were the lack of encouragement and support for

this activity and the low recognition of interdisciplinary teaching in discipline-based

performance review processes. There is a view by many that interdisciplinary courses are

perceived as diluted in quality and substance. Further, generally there is little if any provision

for compensation or inclusion of interdisciplinary teaching outside of departments as part of

annual workload activities. In part this may be attributed to the legitimate need of departments

to ensure that their degree programming requirements can be sustained. However, such

Page 50 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• legitimate calls on faculty members' time are acting as a substantial barrier to the realization of

interdisciplinary programming objectives of the University. Finally, both the literature and

Simon Fraser University faculty members confirm that there is a lack of visibility for those

interdisciplinary teaching and programs that do exist and there is a lack of support and guidance

for faculty members who seek to develop interdisciplinary courses and programs.

In general, interdisciplinary research is more easily pursued and encounters fewer barriers than

does interdisciplinary teaching. A number of faculty members reported that if they are interested

in engaging in an interdisciplinary team, they can do so by simply gathering together a group of

diverse faculty members who may share interests in a project. This ability to marshal

multidisciplinary research teams was in evidence through the number and diversity of

applications that were submitted in short order to the newly created CTEF initiative two years

ago. However, despite these positive reports, faculty members at the Interdisciplinarity Charette

Day noted several critical barriers to effective and supported interdisciplinary research at Simon

Fraser University. These included poor communication of interdisciplinary research initiatives; a

lack of space for interdisciplinary teams to collaborate, meet, and exchange ideas; lack of

financial support (particularly for the incubation of smaller-scale interdisciplinary research

projects); a lack of opportunities that stimulate interaction among diverse disciplines; and a lack

of full-time personnel to support initiatives.

The Task Force learned of many perceived inadequacies with our Centre and Institutes policy,

one of Simon Fraser University's primary vehicles for interdisciplinary research. Our own initial

• review of Centres and Institutes had led us to conclude that there was considerably variability in

the degree to which Centres and Institutes were stimulating and nourishing interdisciplinarity,

and equally that there was great variety in the extent to which existing Centres and Institutes

appeared to be dynamic and active areas of research.

Participants at the Interdisciplinarity Charette Day alerted the Task Force to a number of

perceived deficiencies with our existing Centres and Institutes model including a lack of clarity

as to the differentiation between Centres and Institutes, a lack of operational funding and

administrative support, inadequate economics of scale for the support and facilitation of Centres

and Institutes, a lack of effective enabling mechanisms to encourage faculty member

participation and leadership in a meaningful way, the inability for graduate students to become

integrated members of Centres and Institutes, the lack of encouragement for the development of

courses and programming related to the Centre and Institutes' research activities, and the

inconsistent quality of existing Centres and Institutes which was in part attributed to ineffective

adjudication of new Centres/Institutes proposals, review processes and the lack of graceful phase

out mechanisms for Centres and Institutes which were no longer dynamic and contributing

research engines of the University.

Multifaceted Strate°y

In view of the barriers to interdisciplinarity that have been identified above, and in consideration

of the successes we have recorded, the Task Force recommends that a multifaceted strategy be

adopted to successfully stimulate and nourish interdisciplinary collaboration in teaching and

Page 51 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

research at Simon Fraser University. We note that in this area of our work in particular, our

solutions extend beyond structures of the University and focus on leadership, support. policy

revision and process review.

Support, Facilitation, Championship

The Task Force believes that to overcome the barriers to interdisciplinarity encountered, we will

require leadership, commitment and focused attention. We are conscious that additions to the

academic administration of the University must be carefully considered and thoroughly justified.

It is our view, backed by observations of the activities of leading Universities internationally, the

shifting intellectual context to questions of such grand scale that the only way to tackle them is

from integrated contributions from the humanities, arts, social, applied and natural sciences, and

the desire by students for interdisciplinary learning opportunities, that a renewed focus and

commitment to interdisciplinarity is essential. This requires support, facilitation and leadership.

We believe that an Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration should be established. The design,

mandate and responsibilities of the OIC are proposed as follows:

• The OIC would be led by a senior academic administrator appointed for a 3-year

renewable term, holding the position title of Director. The Director would report jointly

to the Vice-President, Research and the Vice-President, Academic.

• The Office would be responsible for:

• championing interdisciplinarity at senior decision-making tables, as well as within

and external to the University community

• developing a strategic plan for interdisciplinarity at SFU, creating an

implementation strategy, overseeing its execution, and preparing accountability

reporting on interdisciplinary activities at SFU

• working with the Advancement Office to develop a significant fundraising

campaign in relation to signature interdisciplinary initiatives

• facilitating interdisciplinary initiatives at SFU through advising, process

development, problem-solving activities between units and individuals, and

coordination

• developing communication structures for members within and beyond SFU

regarding SFU's interdisciplinary activities - to include development of

"connections" databases, coordinate speaker series, develop newsletters, host

events aimed at bringing researchers together from across disciplines

• managing the Centre/Institute Shared Support Centre which would be housed

within the OIC

• supporting the Vice-President, Research in the processes related to Centre and

Institute application, review and renewal

• developing structures to support the strategic integrated research directions of the

University (the SFU Health Network serves as an example)

Page 52 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• developing unified profiles for major areas of the University where diverse

research and teaching activities would benefit from a consolidated profile to the

external community (perhaps such as: Health, Environment, and other future

areas), and,

• administering funding envelopes related to the support and development of

interdisciplinary activities in collaboration with the Vice-President, Academic,

Vice-President, Research, and an elected interdisciplinary adjudicating committee

for proposal review.

Centres and Institutes Reform

The Task Force believes that a key element to a multifaceted strategy in support of

interdisciplinary is the reformation of the Centres and Institutes policy. Our proposed

reformation is designed to make Centres and Institutes better-suited to the support of research

generally and interdisciplinary research in particular.

Simon Fraser University's policy for Centres and Institutes R40.01 is an overarching framework

designed to:

"Facilitate collaborative research, especially multi-disciplinary research; to undertake

specific types of teaching or training programs; to facilitate multi-university initiatives,

such as centres of excellence; and to provide specific types of services to the

community ".

We generally support these overarching goals. However, we find that there is a lack of

definitional clarity regarding particular distinctions, objectives and capacities (such as what

"types of teaching or training programs" are intentioned) of Centres and Institutes; that

modifications to these structural vehicles can help them become a more powerful complement to

other academic structures; that clarifications and qualifications are required to ensure that these

structures do not become parallel academic universes or synonyms for Independent Programs,

Departments, Schools or Faculties; and that the requirements for application, review and

continuation are premised on a more substantial program of quality performance expectation and

accountability.

Our investigation into the ways in which Centres and Institutes are currently being used led the

Task Force to the view that there is considerable diversity in the extent of activity and substantial

differentiation in quality and the degree to which existing Centres and Institutes are dynamic in

nature and contribute to the overall research profile of the University.

Our review uncovered several examples of where credit courses (or even a certificate program in

one case) are being offered through a Centre. These include the Centre for Labour Studies, the

Centre for Education, Law and Society and the Centre for Sustainable Community Development.

We also became aware that there have been historical examples where Institutes were used to

host degree programming and/or academic appointment: Humanities, and the Institute for Health

Research and Education serve as examples. At least in the latter case, however, the proposal that

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

established IHRE explicitly defined the Institute as a concept and structure unique from those

envisioned and supported by the R40.01 policy. We are not certain whether the circumstances

surrounding the creation of Humanities were also unique.

The Task Force believes that several substantive revisions are required to the conceptualization

of Centres and Institutes at Simon Fraser University if they are to effectively advance the

research mission and research profile of the University, if they are to serve as an important

component of graduate student learning, and if they are to serve the University as devices to

nourish and develop interdisciplinarity. The areas of revision we propose are summarized as

follows: ?

• Re-conceptualization of the categories of Centres and Institutes

• Introduction of expanded and more rigorous review at the time of creation and renewal

• Introduction of

year renewable terms for Centres and Institutes

• Introduction of meaningful graduate student membership

• Establishment of temporally and numerically limited opportunities for faculty members

to more fully engage with Centres and Institutes through joint appointments and

secondments

• Empowerment of certain categories of Centres and Institutes to offer limited credit

programming in the form of interdisciplinary course(s) or certificate programs that is

supplemental to degree programming offered within disciplines

• Development over the longer term of a "Shared Centres and Institutes Support Office"

• Establishment over the longer term of limited financial support to enable faculty member

participation and start up for Centres and Institutes, subject to increased budget allocation

to the Vice-President, Academic Strategic Initiatives Fund and the Vice-President,

Research "Centre and Institutes Start-Up Support Fund".

We note that in the release of our discussion document in December 2007, we originally

proposed five categories of Centres and Institutes as follows: Departmental Research Centre,

Faculty Research Centre, Faculty Research and Teaching Centre, Research Institute, and,

Research and Teaching Institute. This categorization was intended to provide convenient clarity

of the roles and capacities of each different category of Centre or Institute. During the

consultation process we received some feedback that the categorization may be overly complex

and that this complexity had implications for administrative efficiency. In careful

reconsideration of these concerns, the Task Force recognized that Centres or Institutes that

originally established solely for the purpose of research might find subsequently that there is an

opportunity for unique supplementary interdisciplinary course development. While we wish to

reassure readers that all credit programming will continue to require appropriate Senate

consideration and approval, we did not wish to introduce an additional recategorization process

for the Centre or Institute simply because of an educational programming opportunity. In

consequence we have streamlined our conceptualization to a three-category system -

Departmental Research Centre, Faculty Centre, and Institute.

We recognize and remind readers that all recommendations relating to academic appointment

provisions for Centres and Institutes will be the subject of negotiations between the University

Page 54 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

and the Simon Fraser Faculty Association, and the ultimate shape of the parameters related to

these matters may be different than those recommended by the Task Force.

For the convenience of readers, Table I below provides a summary of the powers and

capabilities of each type of Centre and Institute that we propose. Full details of each are

provided in the full discussion of structural elements in Volume V of this report.

Table 1: Summary of Types of Centres and Institutes and their Defining Features

Category

Membership

Teaching

Appointments

Term

Reports to:

Department

Majority of

Credit teaching Normally up to

3 -

3 - 5

3 - 5

interdisciplinary or internal

As part of our multifaceted strategy on interdisciplinarity, the Task Force recommends that a

number of policies in the University be amended. It should be noted that a number of the

recommendations made will be a matter of negotiation between the University and the Simon

Fraser University Faculty Association and may result in different provisions than what we

imagine here. Nonetheless, we felt it important to indicate the issues that we feel need

addressing within the academic policy environment at Simon Fraser University. We further note

that while the amendments we recommend are designed as ways to enhance interdisciplinarity.

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

0f97

the proposed changes will, in many instances, serve disciplinary research and teaching equally

effectively.

Joint Appointments

The Task Force suggests that the Joint Appointment Policy be revised as follows:

• Limited timeframes for joint appointment provisions be introduced and that

these be extended to particular categories of Centres and Institutes (i.e. for

• Flexibility be introduced into the nature of joint appointment relationships (i.e.

year terms, renewable) ?

they may have differential teaching commitments, service expectations or

research locus between two or more units) and that these be articulated

o Strategies be developed to ensure appropriate and adequate review

mechanisms of interdisciplinary and multi-unit research and teaching

o Expectations for faculty who are appointed to multiple units to have their

workload activities in relation to each unit be clear and consistent with the

overall expectations of annual workload requirements for faculty members

the university who are solely in disciplines

The Task Force also believes that it is critical that incentives be developed to encourage

units to make joint appointments.

Secondments Policy

The Task Force believes that the University requires a new mechanism to encourage

faculty member participation in interdisciplinary teaching and research activities that are

developed through Centres and Institutes. Such a policy would need to address issues

performance review, possibility

renewal for multi-year secondments, process for

application, etc. The Task Force understands the tension between departmental teaching

requirements and planning on the one hand and support for faculty member engagement

in interdisciplinary initiatives on the other. As a consequence, we believe that while it is

critically important that Department Chairs/School and Program Directors have a direct

role in the approval of secondment applications, they have constraints placed upon them

in their power to delay or refuse a secondment application. In terms of a delay, we

believe that a Department must be able to effectively plan for the continued offering

degree program requirements and the financial functioning of the unit, and so the

Department should have the right to delay for these two reasons the timing of a

secondment. We believe that a Department should also have the right to deny a

secondment application where the past performance of a faculty member has been

assessed as unsatisfactory. Finally, a Department should have the right to ensure that a

faculty member's annual workload expectation is being fulfilled. If a faculty member

applies for secondment to an institute but this secondment does not fulfill the expected

teaching and service expectations of a faculty member, then the Department should be

empowered to place conditions on the secondment to ensure that these will be met. In

such cases we imagine that teaching and service commitments would be met through

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

activities within the department. Notwithstanding these rights of the Department, the

Task Force firmly believes that these matters should not be used to deter the approval of

secondment applications, and the Director of the Office for Interdisciplinary

Collaboration should be seen by both parties as a facilitator to aid in the success of

secondment applications.

. Team Teaching Policy

The Task Force understands from members of the University community that there is

considerable variety across the University in the extent to which team teaching is

recognized in annual workload calculations and is assessed within performance review

processes. It is our view that a fair and equitable process of application, review, and

recognition is not only a fundamental component of a positive culture, but also is

necessary if all areas of the University are to be participants in initiatives that would

integrate the strengths of disciplines across the University.

. Interdisciplinary Performance Review Mechanisms

A frequently cited obstacle to interdisciplinary participation and success at Simon Fraser

University, as with institutions elsewhere, is the lack of effective review processes for

interdisciplinary scholarship and teaching. In part this stems from a lack of defined

parameters for effective review of interdisciplinary work generally; in part it stems from

. the diverse nature of interdisciplinary work that often makes comparisons across faculty

members, and standards of assessment extremely difficult. It is an issue that most

Universities struggle with. We believe that Simon Fraser University has a reputation for

progressive academic policies that is often cited as a best practice example. The

customized nature of criteria and standards for promotion, tenure and salary review

should provide a vehicle under which interdisciplinary assessment criteria can be

effectively developed. While we recognize that changes to performance review of

academic members is a matter for negotiation between the University and the Simon

Fraser University Faculty Association, we believe that the Director of the Office for

Interdisciplinary Collaboration should provide an independent discussion paper on

interdisciplinary performance review. There is a significant literature on the topic and

this issue has emerged in many other institutional contexts, though we were unable to

locate in our limited research an exemplary model to offer the University and the Faculty

Association as part of this report. The Task Force believes though that the University

should consider the establishment of a framework for individual interdisciplinary review

committees, an expansion to the Faculty College to include interdisciplinary expertise,

and specific guidelines for disciplines on how to incorporate and evaluate

interdisciplinary expectations for renewal, tenure and promotion into departmental

criteria documents.

The final component of the multi-faceted strategy on interdisciplinarity recommended by the

Financial Support

Task Force deals with financial support. We believe that it will be essential for the University to

provide financial incentives and support to both individuals and units if we are to effectively and

significantly move the interdisciplinary objectives and commitment of the University forward.

In principle, we believe that the following financial vehicles would be effective for stimulating

interdisciplinarity at Simon Fraser University:

• Large Project Funding (CTEF) - VPR Responsibility - no changes recommended to

current process

• Small Interdisciplinary Project Funding (SIP) - OIC responsibility - competitive process

with interdisciplinary adjudicating committee proposal review

• Interdisciplinary Conference Funding (ICF) - OIC responsibility - this should be

considered as an extension of the existing Vice-President, Academic conference fund

• Interdisciplinary Teaching Development Fund (ITDF) - OIC responsibility - dedicated to

the support of teaching development

A financial commitment of perhaps $90,000 to $100,000 across the last three funding vehicles

would, we believe, serve as a reasonable starting investment in improving support for

interdisciplinary activity. During the consultation process of the Task Force report, we heard

that this investment was seen as too modest to significantly stimulate and nourish expanded

interdisciplinarity at Simon Fraser University. We understand and respect this concern and many

members of the Task Force share a concern about the initial level of funding being provided to

this critical area of our mandate. However, there are several important additional factors to

consider. First, the CTEF fund of approximately $500,000 established by the Vice President,

Research two years ago serves as a significant supporter of multidisciplinary research. Second,

the $90,000 to $100,000 figure quoted in this context is new funding directed solely to the last

three of the funding vehicles in the list above. While we would like to see this investment

increase, we do not think it reasonable to recommend a higher initial investment until the

University's fiscal context is improved and the Office of Interdisciplinary Collaboration is

established and able to determine if these are the best vehicles for interdisciplinary investment.

Third, we note that the personnel and facilities budget for the Office of Interdisciplinary

Collaboration are not included in this figure but presented in the implementation section of the

report. Fourth and finally, we have seen convincing evidence from Stanford University that

interdisciplinarity is a magnet for financial investment when there is a clear institutional vision

around interdisciplinary priorities and leadership (of the kind imagined by the Director of the

OIC) to spearhead a fundraising campaign. As a consequence of these four factors, we believe

that there is opportunity for the multidimensional interdisciplinary strategy we have envisioned

to have the potential to develop significantly by the year 2025 from the modest commitments we

recommend in this report.

To succeed in creating a supportive, facilitative, and nourishing environment for

interdisciplinarity at Simon Fraser University, we must create the space for this to occur. We

would suggest, therefore, that through an incremental financial and space strategy, perhaps as a

result of an external fundraising strategy, that the Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration be

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• developed over the long-term to have adequate physical facilities and infrastructure to support its

activities and the shared Centre/Institute Support Centre. At a minimum, we imagine that a

meeting room, teleconferencing facilities, reference library, and support personnel be provided to

the OIC.

The Task Force recognizes that the funding allocation formulae used by the University has been

devised as part of a complex consideration of enrolment activity and planned growth at the

University within academic disciplines. While this strategy ensures that "funding follows

scholars", we nonetheless feel that its current 100% disposition to Faculties reinforces discipline-

based competition and barriers which will continue to stifle programming initiatives of an

interdisciplinary nature.

Summar y

and Recommendations

We recognize that the multifaceted strategy we have identified in support of interdisciplinarity at

Simon Fraser University is an ambitious constellation of structures, supports, policy revisions

and developments, and financial strategies. Nonetheless, we feel this strategy is critical to

research and teaching excellence in the future.

The establishment of an Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration will support faculty members

seeking to pursue interdisciplinary knowledge discovery; it will be a centre for the interaction of

faculty members across the University, and will serve as a catalyst for incubation of

interdisciplinary research and teaching.

The reviews to be undertaken at both graduate and undergraduate levels, will ensure that students

are able to effectively and seamlessly engage in study beyond their disciplines, thus providing

them with an expanded perspective on the disciplinary areas they choose to explore.

The proposed revisions to the Centres and Institutes are envisioned to be a key component to our

success in defining Simon Fraser University as a place where the "research innovation [of

faculty] will find incubation, support and development" (p. 9) and where graduate students will

be able to be "intimately connected with the research agenda and activities of the University"

(p.10).

In the interdisciplinarity area of our mandate, we make the following recommendations:

Recommendation 11: That the University establish a new Office for Interdisciplinary

Collaboration (OIC) with the design, mandate and responsibilities outlined in this

report.

Recommendation 12: That the University's Academic Policies be revised as follows:

12.1

That the Joint Appointments Policy be revised in consideration

the ?

suggestions included in this report.

12.2 That the University develop a new policy which would allow for internal

secondment of post tenure research faculty and permanent teaching

faculty members for 2-5 year terms to Centres and Institutes.

12.3

That the University develop a new policy on Team Teaching.

12.4 That the University develop better provisions for the review of

interdisciplinary research and teaching in all academic performance

review processes.

12.5 ?

That the Centres and Institutes policy be revised as envisioned in this

Recommendation 13: That the Vice-President, Academic in collaboration with the

Deans and Vice-Presidents undertake the following:

13.1 Develop a series of incentive strategies and position funding

arrangements that would lead to a substantial increase in the number of

joint appointments at Simon Fraser University.

13.2 Review the current enrolment based funding allocation formula to

identify ways in which funding can effectively flow to support

supplementary interdisciplinary course credits offered through Centres

and Institutes and new strategic and interdisciplinary program

Page 60 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

"REMOVING BARRIERS: A DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE OF SFU"

FINAL REPORT ?

VOLUME IV - PROGRAMS, PROCESSES AND OTHER ACTIVITIES

Presented to the University Community?

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Page 61 of 97

VOLUME

In Volume

II of

- PROGRAMS,

our report, the

PROCESSES

Task Force recommended

AND OTHER

ACTIVITIES

academic organization of the University. This has included the creation of three new Faculties, a

new College, and a proposal for a new Institute for Advanced Scholarship.

This Volume examines four additional areas that came before the Task Force in the submissions

we received: specific academic programs, existing structures, process reviews, and infrastructure

support.

pecific Academic ProRram Areas

nitive Science Program

As a significant experiment in multidisciplinary collaboration spanning multiple Faculties, the

Cognitive Science Program is an exemplar of what can be imagined, and how facilitation of that

imagination is constrained. A series of pragmatic and logistical problems in the arrangements of

collaboration have resulted in frustrations by both faculty members and students alike. Yet, the

Task Force does not believe, at least upon initial investigation, that these problems require

structural solution. Rather, we recommend that the commitments made by collaborating units be

codified and formalized and that adequate commitment be given in terms of faculty teaching

contributions and program service to ensure that program quality can be returned and sustained.

We are aware that the Cognitive Science Program is scheduled for review under the Senate

External Review processes in April 2008. This will prove an important and timely review. The

Task Force believes that this review provides the opportunity for an objective expert assessment

of the issues identified by the Cognitive Science Program in its submission to the Task Force.

Recommendation 14: That there be formalization and adequate commitments given to

the Cognitive Science Program by participating units and that the Terms of Reference

for the External Review Team of the Cognitive Science Program (scheduled for early

2008) specifically solicit the advice of the review team on the issues identified in the

submission by Cognitive Science to the Task Force.

The issues raised by the Cognitive Science Program have led the Task Force to further consider

the processes by which new interdisciplinary programs present their proposals through the

Senate process and the extent to which the issues the Cognitive Science Program has

encountered may have been avoided had the original proposal included more formalized

understanding of the expectations surrounding collaboration and the ways in which faculty

members and students would be enabled and supported to participate. We suggest that Senate

develop a required template to guide the development of interdisciplinary program proposals

which would also provide Senate with a framework to ensure appropriate mechanisms for

collaboration are envisioned. As part of defining these commitments, we would suggest that the

following issues be addressed within that guiding framework:

Page 62 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

. plans for the provision and prioritization of student access;

• description of how faculty members who contribute will have their contributions

considered as part of annual workload expectations;

• overview as to how academic leadership for the program will be encouraged and

supported and what arrangements will be made for recognizing leadership roles;

• identification of what oversight structures will be in place of the program and what

accountability structures/processes will be in place to ensure the continued quality of the

program; and,

• identification of the composition and reporting structure of the steering committee for the

interdisciplinary program and what communication structures will be in place between

the steering committee and the collaborating units.

Recommendation 15: That Senate develop a submission template to ensure that sufficient

commitments are in place for the development of new interdisciplinary programs and that

such a template addresses the issues identified in this report.

IT/ICT Program

As one example of the potential for collaborative engagement with other units at the leading

edge of knowledge advancement, the School of Computing Science and the School of Interactive

Arts and Technology have developed a joint proposal for a new initiative in Information and

Communications Technology (IT/ICT). This program represents a significant turning point in

the interrelationship between the School of Computing Science and the School of Interactive

Arts and Technology. The proposal from Computing Science and Interactive Arts and

Technology calls for a program to be created at the convergence of information and

communications technology

15 .

In addition to being an important proposal for the future collaborative relationship between

Computing Science and Interactive Arts and Technology, the proposal also draws expertise from,

and extends partnership involvement to, Engineering Science, Business Administration, and

Cognitive Science. Others may also be interested in this initiative. We can imagine particular

interest being expressed from faculty members in Communication and Health. Students from all

of these programs would benefit from the expanded collaborative environment, and it is

envisioned that specialty streams could be developed within the undergraduate IT/ICT program

such that students could then further specialize at the graduate level within the partnership

disciplines or perhaps even in a graduate IT/ICT Program. Collaborative opportunities would

also be highly likely with industry and the program would be extremely compelling as an object

of external financial support, industrial collaboration, and co-op and career placement for

students, thus serving our external community and our students in a highly effective way.

"When combined, information and communications technology

based ?

ocuses on the development and use of computer-

sed information systems and communications systems to process, transmit, and store data and information."

(IC/ICT Joint proposal,

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

In recognition of this program's potential to position Simon Fraser University as a world leader

in this emerging field of knowledge (there are currently no other competing programs in Canada

and an initial review suggests no direct competition within North America), and in developing a

culture of effective collaboration among disciplines within the University, the Task Force

supports the development of an IT/ICT program.

Recommendation 16: That a new "Information and Communications Technology"

(IT/ICT) program be collaboratively pursued at Simon Fraser University as follows:

16.1 A Joint Program Development Committee -be established with

representatives from Computing Science, Engineering Science,

Interactive Arts and Technology, Business Administration, Cognitive

Science, and potentially others;

16.2 The IT/ICT Joint Program Development Committee develop a report for

consideration by Senate by September 2009 outlining the feasibility,

facuity gap analysis, resource requirements and draft curriculum

implementing an

IT/ICT

program at

SFU.

Publishing Programming Consolidation

The Working Group and the Task Force support the overall consolidation of publishing

programming under one umbrella, and thus the inclusion of the undergraduate publishing courses

from Communication and the Writing and Publishing Program from Continuing Studies as part

of the Publishing Program in the new Faculty. We understand that the School of Communication

and the Director of the Master of Publishing Program are supportive of our view and have agreed

to transfer the undergraduate credit publishing courses from Communication to the Publishing

Program. In contrast, we have learned that the Director of the Master of Publishing Program and

the Director of the Writing and Publishing program at Continuing Studies have agreed to

"continue to seek opportunities to complement each other's efforts and to coordinate offerings"

but not to consolidate the Continuing Studies programming into the Publishing Program. As a

consequence, the Task Force will not recommend the consolidation of the Writing and

Publishing program of Continuing Studies with the Master of Publishing Program programming

without a better understanding of the reasons for the decision of the program directors. We do,

however, believe that there are compelling arguments to consolidate cognate publishing

programs within a single unit and believe this should be reconsidered in the future.

Recommendation 17: That the undergraduate publishing courses now offered by the

School of Communication be consolidated with the Master

Publishing Program and

that Continuing Studies publishing programming be further explored for consolidation

with the Master

Publishing Program.

Page 64 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFLJ"

0 ?

TechOne Program

Simon Fraser-University's TechOne program is a model first year cohort experience, providing

entering students an introduction into the field of technology and future educational paths in

Computing, Engineering, Business Administration, Mechatronics, Interactive Arts and

Technology, and Communication. This unique program has been evolving since its inception at

the University and it has recently undergone a fairly extensive redesign: The TechOne program

which is comprised of six core courses, four interdisciplinary courses and two elective courses,

will, by the various recommendations of the Task Force, serve three distinct Faculties. This

program's history has been fraught with challenges in design, in interrelationships with various

disciplinary units, and with a series of administrative constraints. Until recently, limited term

teaching appointments were offered under the umbrella of the School of Interactive Arts and

Technology and seconded to the program. Permanent positions have now been authorized under

the appointment of other disciplines but again with the majority of duties seconded to the

program.

In our Discussion Document released to the University community on December 17, 2007, the

Task Force argued that the interdisciplinary, cross-Faculty nature of the TechOne program

makes it an ideal candidate for inclusion as an independent College Program within the College

of Lifelong and Experiential Learning. Headed by a discipline-based academic steering

committee, the program would find a nourishing and supportive home that would encourage

interdisciplinarity. The Steering Committee of the TechOne program had, however, requested

• that the Task Force instead provide the TechOne program with the opportunity to stabilize its

newly designed program and leave it in a familiar environment for a temporary two-year period.

On the basis of this request, the Task Force accepted the view of the Steering Committee.

Subsequent to the release of our report we have heard various views from the constituent

disciplines served by the TechOne Program regarding the effectiveness of the program in serving

their discipline's needs, their view as to where the program should ultimately be located, and the

resource implications of the location of the program. While we are committed to elements of our

original recommendation, we believe it will be essential for the University to develop a clear

view of what direction it wishes to pursue with the TechOne program, how best to serve the

needs of constituent disciplines, and the resource implications of these decisions. This needs to

be done as soon as possible. As such we recommend that a process of review be undertaken with

the oversight and engagement of the Vice President, Academic's office and constituent members

prior to a decision being made as to the permanent home of the TechOne Program.

Recommendation 18: That the Tech One Program temporarily be moved to the new

Faculty comprised

Contemporary Arts, Communication, Interactive Arts and

Technology and Publishing.

18.1. That the Vice President, Academic establish a review committee to

examine the design, future and resource allocation

the Tech One Program and to

develop a written report by December 2008 for how all constituent units will be

provided with a first-year cohort experience that effectively serves their disciplines.

Communication, Contemporary Arts, Interactive Arts and

18.2. That upon

receipt of

the report, the Director

the Tech One program

along with the Deans from the Faculty

Engineering and Computing, the new

Faculty comprised of

Technology and Publishing, the Faculty of

Business Administration, will propose to

the Vice-President, Academic the future permanent home for the program. Once the

location is agreed to

by the Vice-President, Academic,

a recommendation would then

be forwarded through Senate

for approval by

no later than March 2009.

Foreign Lan-uages Stud

Program

The Task Force believes that given the University's commitment to internationalization and

global participation and its geographical location at the edge of the Pacific Rim, Simon Fraser

University should be positioning itself as one of the nation's leaders in the study and training in

foreign languages and cultures. To date, this has not occurred. In particular, we have the

following observations to make with regard to the way in which foreign language training is

currently structured and offered at the University:

• First, foreign language learning at Simon Fraser University is viewed by students as

incoherent, poorly profiled, and a difficult area of programming to navigate.

• Second, in our view the Language Training Institute has not found a successful

partnership in its relationship with the Department of Linguistics.

• Third, there is poor integration between academic unit programming requiring foreign

language learning and the language offerings of the University.

• Fourth, there does not appear to be a clearly developed strategic plan for foreign language

study in relation to the University's key commitment and priority in internationalization

nor in the development of foreign language learning in support of the communities within

which we have situated our campuses (i.e. east Asian languages are not adequately

developed at the Surrey campus).

• Fifth, the internationalization of disciplines across the University and the increased

presence of international research teams and the study of issues globally speaks to the

need for language study in disciplines across the University.

• Sixth, in comparison to most other universities locally, nationally and internationally who

espouse a commitment to global engagement, Simon Fraser University does not have a

sufficiently strong or diverse foreign language learning program.

Despite our findings, the Task Force believes that foreign language study and training is an area

of critical import to future generations of students who will increasingly be needful of further

language acquisition, cultural understanding, and international engagement. There is already

evidence of foreign language learning becoming an integrated component of disciplinary

learning at the University. For example, Chinese language learning is required in association

with the dual undergraduate degree program in Computing Science, the new international

experiential programs in Business Administration and the School of International Studies within

the Faculty of Arts and Social has a requirement for language both have foreign language

requirements. The Task Force believes there will be an active expansion of such integrated

language requirements in the future.

Page 66 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

We also see significant opportunities for the expansion of language learning in connection with

our international agenda and potentially in terms of the creation of certificate programs to

accompany majors, particularly in areas of international business, development, health,

environment, and others. Further, there will in a need for the development of greater coherence

and articulation between non-credit programming, our translation programs, and for-credit

language learning. If structured in a coordinated and effective manner, we believe that

ultimately non-credit language learning could form a pathway into credit language and cultural

studies for those members of the community who, over time, seek to continue their exploration

and acquisition of foreign languages. ?

In the discussion document released in November 2007, the Task Force recommended that the

College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning assume leadership and responsibility for both

credit and non-credit foreign language instruction and development. During the consultation

process, however, we received a strong appeal by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,

especially the Dean's office, to provide them with the opportunity and mandate to execute the

vision for the study of foreign languages and cultures that is articulated below by the Task Force.

Through some web-based research, the Task Force has discerned three general models for the

structuring of foreign language learning at institutions that have active profiles in international

activities. These are: (a) area-based language learning (i.e. East Asian languages in an "Asian

Studies Department"), (b) non-area based credit language learning (eg. Languages taught for the

purpose of diversity but where the institution does not have a specific department dedicated to

• the area where the language is from), and (c) language resource centres. The location of

language resource centres depends on the desired positioning by the University. We have found

them located in Faculties of Arts, in Faculties of International Studies, in Continuing Studies

operations, or as completely independent units that seem to be service centres to the University

as a whole. We recognize that the predominant model is within the Faculty of Arts although we

would note that these are typically in the presence of significant area-based programming. the

type of which Simon Fraser University does not have many examples. The Task Force has

thought carefully about models for foreign language learning at other institutions, the problems

we see that challenge Simon Fraser University's language offerings, and the content of

conversations and insights offered to us by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.

What has emerged most clearly to us is that we have found in the Dean of Arts and Social

Sciences an advocate and a passionate leader for the vision we have defined. In consequence,

the Task Force has ultimately concluded that we should provide the Dean with the opportunity

and the mandate to redefine foreign language and culture studies at Simon Fraser University.

We continue, however, to believe that the program of foreign language study (possibly renamed

under a heading of "modern languages") that is pursued by the University should continue to be

established on the basis of the governing principles and plan of action we initially envisioned in

our discussion document and that it must be established as an independent unit from the

Department of Linguistics. The six governing principles we identify are as follows:

(1)

Be supplementary to area-based studies Departments and Schools;

(2)

Be a university-wide cross-latticing entity;

0 ?

Have a service mandate to area-based foreign language learning in disciplines;

Page 67 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

(4) Be responsive to academic programming that has an international character to it;

(5)

Be integrated with the University's internationalization strategy and our

commitment to responsiveness to the communities within which our campuses are

situated; and.

(6)

Be grounded in sound linguistic theory and pedagogy.

We note that our vision of foreign language learning is designed with a multifaceted purpose not

only to develop and offer credit programming and courses towards degree credit, but also as a

service and coordinating unit for the University. We further note that we have imagined a

rationalization and consolidation of both credit and non-credit foreign language study within the

program that is developed. As part of the consultation process we have heard, however, some

concern from the Dean of Continuing Studies as to the location of non-credit language offerings.

At this juncture, we wish to proceed with our recommendation for consolidation of credit and

non-credit activities but recognize that further study of this component of our report should be

collaboratively undertaken by the Deans of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and

Continuing Studies. The Task Force recommends that the mandate, responsibilities and features

of the Foreign Language Studies Program (name to be identified) should be established as

follows:

(a) Offer non-credit, certificates and credit programming not offered in area-based

studies departments although an area-based department wishing to have language

instruction done by the Language Studies Program can do so;

(b)

Provide a web directory of all language learning opportunities at Simon Fraser

University, showcasing area-based language learning as well as its independent

programming;

(c)

Develop certificate and credit programming around a model that combines language

and culture studies;

(d)

Work with SFU International to look for opportunities for studies abroad language

learning optional components wherever possible;

(e)

House technology-based language learning infrastructure for all foreign language

training at the University (including both area-based and non-area-based language

learning);

(f)

Provide professional development activities and teaching resource materials for

language instructors within the Foreign Language Studies Program and area-based

disciplines;

(-)Administer foreign language proficiency examinations for its programming and

programming in area-based departments if an area-based unit so desires;

(h)

Have a research mandate and consider housing a Centre for Language Teaching and

Learning for faculty members from across the University interested in language

acquisition, language learning, pedagogy, etc.;

(i)

Work with academic units across campus in developing language programs to suit

requirements they wish to have as part of their degrees (eg. with International

Studies, Business Administration, etc.);

(j)

Develop language certificate programs customized to external partners or in view of

interest of activities of organizations (eg. Asian languages certificate program for

Business Administration Students);

...

Page 68 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFV"

(k) House Continuing Studies programming related to translation; and.

(1) Have an advisory committee that will provide advice on strategic direction and

activities and would include strong representation from area-based language

disciplines.

The Task Force is optimistic that the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences will be

successful in realizing the vision identified in this report for foreign language learning and for

setting in place the framework for long-term leadership in this critical area of our

internationalization and global participation strategy for Simon Fraser University's future. This

area of activity is so critical to our view of success in preparing students effectively for the future

that the Task Force believes it appropriate to require significant and demonstrated action on this

important initiative within a fairly short timeframe. We are therefore recommending that a fully

detailed plan for a foreign language studies program be submitted by the Faculty of Arts and

Social Sciences to Senate by no later than April 2009. Should a plan not be forthcoming, the

Task Force recommends that the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning be requested to

assume the mandate, responsibility and development of a program in Foreign Language Studies

based on the vision outlined in this report.

Recommendation 19: That the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences present a detailed

plan to Senate by no later April 2009 for the establishment of an independent unit for

the study offoreign languages based on the vision identified in this report.

0 ?

ExistinR Structures and

Activities

In examining the various submissions to the Task Force as well as the recommendations made by

the Working Groups, there were four occasions where the Task Force concluded that the existing

structures, and activities underway were the most effective approach for realizing our goals for

2025.

First, the submission from the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences proposed the

"establishment of a Department of First Nations Studies, housed in FASS. This department

would take the lead in coordinating activities, programming, and research throughout the

University." The Task Force notes the historically strong contributions to First Nations

programming carried out by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, particularly that offered

through Simon Fraser University's Kamloops operations. We also note the two recent

programming initiatives before Senate that will lead to the expansion of the Faculty of Arts and

Social Sciences First Nations programming activities. We applaud this historical and recent

commitment to First Nations activities. The Task Force is, however, also aware that at the

beginning of this year a University-wide First Nations Strategic Plan was developed and

ultimately approved by Senate and the Board of Governors. This Strategic Plan provides a

coordinating, facilitation and development role for a First Nations office with a senior-level

Director position. The Task Force believes that this pan-University structure is the appropriate

vehicle for encouraging the development of First Nations programming and understanding in all

areas of the University.

Page 69 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Second, in its creation of the notion of a College for the University, Working Group 5 proposed

that the portfolio of the Associate Vice-President, Students and International be conceived as a

College. The- Task Force does not believe that these areas of activity require, or would benefit

from, the College structure.

Third, while some of the design of our multifaceted strategy to enhance interdisciplinarity at

Simon Fraser University has been premised on issues raised by Dr. Rick Gruneau's proposal to

the Task Force for the creation of a new program in Sport, Commerce, Culture and Community,

as well as Dr. Ellen Balka's proposal for a Technology Assessment Teaching and Research Unit,

we believe that our recommendations for changes to various policies and to the structural

elements, will provide these proposals with the appropriate mechanisms to be successful. For

new interdisciplinary initiatives that are non-degree granting and which seek to offer individual

interdisciplinary courses or programs of courses leading to certificates or credit components of

degrees, either a new College Program or the reformulated Centres and Institutes policy that

provides for either a Faculty Centre or Institute would facilitate the development of these

initiatives. While it remains true that new proposals using either of these routes - College

Program or Centre/Institute - will require sponsorship from existing disciplines or Faculties or

co-sponsorship from the College, we think it is important that there remain a requirement for

evidence of sufficiently broad support for new initiatives. The Task Force recognizes the efforts

and inventiveness of faculty members like Dr. Gruneau and Dr. Balka and we thank them for

drawing to our attention a variety of issues that currently constrain new interdisciplinary

initiatives from emerging at the University. It is our belief that with the changes proposed with

regard to the Centres and Institutes policy, the creation of a College and its subsidiary "College

Program", and the establishment of an Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration, we will have

developed the structures and policy environment that will enable outstanding interdisciplinary

initiatives to flourish in the future.

Fourth, while the Task Force makes a series of recommendations with regard to foreign language

learning, we are convinced by the "Report of the Language Instruction Committee" written in

2005 and chaired by Dr. Paul McFetridge, that the issues surrounding English language

instruction are significantly different from those of foreign language learning and that they need

to be dealt with separately. We have found the Report to provide a comprehensive and

compelling examination of the issues and possible paths forward. As a consequence, we do not

wish to retrace an area that has been effectively assessed previously. At the same time we

recognize that our recommendation to disaggregate English and foreign language learning

currently housed within the Language Training Institute in Linguistics and to relocate only the

foreign language component to the new College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning, leaves us

with an obligation to address the future of the English language training that is currently offered

through the Language Training Institute. It is our recommendation, therefore that the Report

authored by Dr. Paul McFetridge and his committee, be revisited by the Vice-President,

Academic with the goal of implementing a coherent, consolidated, and sustainable strategy for

English language learning at Simon Fraser University.

Page 70 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Recommendation 20: That the Report of the Language Instruction Committee (2005)

be revisited by the Vice-President, Academic with the goal of implementing a coherent,

consolidated, and sustainable strategy for English language learning at Simon Fraser

University.

Process Review

In some cases, we felt that revisions to the process or policy framework of Simon Fraser

University would prove more beneficial to the issue in need of resolution and to the overall cost

and administrative efficiency of the institution. Many of these are intimately connected with our

recommendations for a multifaceted strategy to enhance interdisciplinarity as described in the

previous volume.

Student Mobilit y

/ Course Access Review

As noted in the previous Volume in the discussion of barriers to interdisciplinarity, we heard of a

number of interrelated concerns with regard to the presence of obstacles for effective

interdisciplinary study by students. We do not have a sense, nor the expertise, of what the exact

scale of the problems reported are or the extent to which the problems noted intersect with other

areas of student learning. As a consequence, we believe that those who are expert in the

undergraduate student learning experience should engage in an evaluation of these issues.

Recommendation 21: That a Student Mobility and Course Access Review Committee be

established by the Vice-President, Academic to identify barriers to interdisciplinary

educational experiences of

students. We further recommend that a report

of findings,

recommendations for improvement, and a plan for implementation, be submitted to

Senate by April 2009.

- - -

Graduate Student interdisciplinary Program Review

In many areas of the Task Force report, we have noted the critical need by the University to

increase our profile and activity in graduate education. We applaud President Stevenson's

ambitious goal to have

25%

of Simon Fraser University's student population be comprised of

graduate enrolments. Achieving this goal is recognizably an important component of the overall

institutional objective to secure Simon Fraser University's reputation as an outstanding

comprehensive research institution. We have recommended elsewhere that graduate students

should have a direct and enhanced connection to the research activity of the University through

membership in Centres and Institutes. We have also recommended a number of structural

recommendations that we believe will set the seeds for an expansion of graduate education in

both disciplinary and interdisciplinary venues. We also believe that the changes to the Centres

and Institutes policy as well as other structural elements will more effectively enable graduate

certificate programs to be imagined and developed. Notwithstanding these important changes to

Page 71 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU'

the benefit of graduate education, the Task Force supports the submission by the Dean of

Graduate Studies to mandate him to research further the ways in which interdisciplinary

programming for graduate students might be fostered.

Recommendation

22:

That the Dean

Graduate Studies research and recommend a

strategy for supporting and stimulating the development of new interdisciplinary

graduate programming and providing financial support to graduate students who

undertake interdisciplinary projects. We further recommend that his report be

presented to Senate for consideration by September 2009.

Infrastructure Support

A final area of consideration by the Task Force with regard to academic structure, is the

examination of those structures of infrastructure support that are affected by the

recommendations we have made in other areas.

The only area we can identify of immediate impact is the role of the Network Support Group

currently housed within the Faculty of Applied Sciences. While there have been proposals

submitted to us to relocate the Network Support Group (NSG) to the new Faculty of Engineering

and Computing, we have also been made aware that the issues in supporting research networks

and computing at Simon Fraser University extend beyond the boundaries of the units within the

Faculty of Applied Sciences and that not all members of those being supported have been fully

satisfied with the current structure and arrangements. In the discussion document released on

December 17, 2007, the Task Force recommended that "a more systematic and institution-wide

review" be undertaken and that such a review be undertaken "under the auspices and direction of

the Chief Information Officer of the University". This recommendation has garnered

considerable response from some sectors of the University community. While in some instances

there has been an incorrect assumption that our intention was to relocate research computing into

the portfolio of academic computing services (which was never our intention), we believe

significant support has emerged for having the Network Support Group positioned within the

new Faculty of Engineering and Computing. The Task Force is prepared to proceed with this

recommendation on the condition that all areas of the University currently served by the Network

Support Group continue to be supported.

Recommendation 23: That the Network Support Group be relocated to the Faculty of

Engineering and Computing in April 2009 and that it continue to support all areas of

the University that it currently serves. Further, we recommend that in April 2010, the

Vice President, Academic follow up with areas served by the Network Support Group to

ensure that all areas continue to be effectively served.

Page 72 of 97

"REMOVING BARRIERS: A DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE OF SFU"

VOLUME V—ACADEMIC STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Presented to the University Community ?

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

VOLUME

General Overview

V - ACADEMIC STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

This fifth volume of the Task Force report examines issues related to the use of structural

elements at Simon Fraser University and identifies those changes and additions we believe

should be implemented.

Specifically, our mandate in this area was to:

Consider and evaluate the coherence, roles, responsibilities, functions, administrative

requirements, costs, and terminology of the structural building blocks employed at Simon

Fraser University (i.e. programs, schools, departments, centres, and institutes) and, following

exploration and consultation with the University community, recommend to Senate a strategy

that will provide definitional clarity, administrative effectiveness, and appropriate

differentiation among these structures.

The Phase I Task Force discussed in detail the way in which structural elements have beeriused

within Simon Fraser University and at institutions elsewhere. We do not wish to reiterate that

discussion here and instead refer interested readers to pages 9-13 of the Phase I discussion

document entitled

"Sommes Nous Frets?" (July, 2006).

We note, however, that Simon Fraser University's academic structure has, similar to most

institutions in Canada, been designed using a traditional academic structural model - Faculties,

Departments, Programs, Institutes, and Centres.

The Phase 1 Task Force provided, in our view, an excellent description of the purpose of

academic structures:

"Structure provides for disciplinary identity, for academic programming cohesion and

organization. It enables the channeling of resources, faculty, staff and students. Our

structure is inseparably linked to the constellation ofpolicies and procedures that enable

us to manage our activities and that reward and inhibit us. Our academic organization

communicates to our communities, both internally and externally, the priorities of the

University, what we value and the ways in which we define and differentiate ourselves.

Our structures create the framework for the flow of our communications, our

interactions, and our innovation. However, the structure does not dictate or determine

the totality of the activities and decisions that define our lives as members of a University

community. Structure alone does not create organizational success. Strategy, leadership,

recourses and people all play critical roles influencing and shaping an organization's

success. Different structures may facilitate and enhance the ways these factors play out

and create conditions that facilit ate and support success." (Sommes Nous Prêts?,

14)

Dr. Michael Howlett, in his submission to the Task Force,

Comment and Proposal

Concerning Consideration of Faculty/Divisional Structure at Simon Fraser University",

called

on the Task Force to be imaginative in our consideration of academic structure and not to have a

Page 74 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• limited perspective which results solely in the "slight or marginal modifications of the status

quo". Rather, he asked us to consider the bigger picture and larger options that exist, such as

"the territorial re-distribution of Faculties by campus, the combination and re-combination of

Faculties into non-territorially-based Colleges, and the merger and division of existing Faculties

into more equally representative units." We note its exceptional value in providing the Task

Force with a view of alternative conceptualizations for governance and structuring of academic

institutions. Ultimately, however, we do not believe that the University is ready for, or in need

of, radical transformation. We do, however, agree with Dr. Howlett's call for the Task Force to

consider the bigger picture and to be more imaginative than slight or marginal modifications of

the status quo. While we recognize that some of our recommendations will be seen to fall in this

latter category, we hope that there are elements that are indicative of our efforts to focus on the

future on the University, and to creatively imagine new ways in which we can excel.

The Task Force has considered the ways in which our academic structures enable flexibility and

responsiveness and yet provide enduring coherence and disciplinary identity. We have also

considered the ways in which terms are used synonymously within the structure, and the reasons

for an increase in the number of independent academic programs. We have chosen not to

provide a detailed definition of those structural elements (eg. Faculties) that we feel serve the

University effectively and require no change. We do, however, discuss several structural

elements that we believe deserved further consideration, required redesign, or needed to be

added to ensure that Simon Fraser University achieves the future we can imagine for it.

Department and School?

The Task Force considered deploying only the term Department within the academic structure

rather than having both the terms Department and School exist as synonyms within the structural

framework. Ultimately, however, we felt that there are particular areas of the University where

the term School has significant meaning within the larger international context of the discipline.

This can be seen in cases where there is a professional orientation of the discipline (eg.

Engineering), where there is a practice basis to the field (eg. Contemporary Arts), where there is

an applied focus (eg. Interactive Arts & Technology), or where there is a broad diversity or range

of programmatic streams within the discipline (eg. Criminology). As a consequence, we have

concluded that the terms Department and School both have important value to certain areas of

the University and, therefore, we do not recommend the arbitrary removal of the term School

from our structural vocabulary.

Independent Proj'rams

Typically, the term program is understood to refer to the framework for a coherent undergraduate

or graduate curriculum of study. In most cases, programs will exist embedded within

Departments, Schools or non-departmentalized Faculties.

The Task Force has noted an increase in the number of small academic programs that have been

created recently outside of departments within the University academic structure. It is

Page 75 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU'

recognized that these nascent programs with small academic complements depend heavily on

other academic units for course offerings, faculty expertise, and the fulfillment of administrative

processes such as appointment, tenure and promotion committees. etc. We also realize that the

collegial system of governance generally provides equal representative weight of these areas to

large departments within the Faculty structure. These issues question the long-term efficiency

and viability of a proliferation of small programs independent of disciplines within the Faculty

structure. However, the Task Force believes that issues of representation within a Faculty not

covered by academic policy, faculty collaboration arrangements, curriculum and workload

arrangements across disciplines, and budget provisioning for these new programs should be a

matter for decanal determination within the University's decentralized administrative system.

Notwithstanding these issues, the Task Force comprehends the important role that these

programs play both within and external to Faculty, Departmental and School structures as a

mechanism of change, experimentation, and new knowledge creation. They also serve as

important vehicles for interdisciplinary collaboration within the framework of a Faculty due to

their interconnection with other units and their dependence upon the contributions of faculty

members from other disciplines. This is particularly true at nascent stages of development.

We recommend, however, that in order to maintain economic efficiency while simultaneously

facilitating these important incubating structures, that models of shared support staff, advising,

and other types of collaborative administrative strategies be considered and implemented

wherever possible.

Throughout our report we have referred to this category of programs as "Independent Programs".

Collej'e of LifeIonj' and Experiential Learninj'

The Task Force believes that a new entity - a College - needs to be added to the academic

structure of the University. We do not propose this as part of the structural templates to be

deployed in other circumstances. Rather, we imagine the creation of a single College; the

College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning (herein after referred to as the College). The

detailed rationale for the creation of this College was presented in "Volume II - Academic

Structure Recommendations", but here we wish to highlight some of this unique structural

element's features.

The College will be headed by a Dean. Given the role of the Dean in oversight and adjudication

of student matters and in the performance review processes of academic staff, this position is

conceived as a senior academic position. The roles and responsibilities of the position will be

uniquely defined from Faculty Deans in consideration of the nature of the divisions embodied

within the College. The College will be comprised of two divisions. First, a division of

Experiential Learning that will house "College Programs" (see below), other forms of

experiential learning, and University-wide coordination activities related to experiential learning.

Second, a division of Lifelong Learning that will house the existing portfolio of Continuing

Studies, Distance Education, and future activities related to the University's activities in

promoting lifelong learning and engagement with our many communities.

Page 76 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU'

The College may house College Programs, and may offer credit courses, (as is the case now for

Continuing Studies) program components (ea. Semester in Dialogue), for-credit certificate

programs, and non-credit programming. All programming within the Experiential Division must

be of an experiential or interdisciplinary nature. The College will not be degree granting.

Programming is envisioned to occur at both graduate and undergraduate levels. We wish to be

clear that it is not our intention to create a parallel curriculum or synonym -for Faculty and we

further note that any credit program developed within the College would, as is true for discipline-

based programming, require Senate approval.

CoheRe ProRrams

A College Program is an academic program created with a primary focus of delivering

undergraduate or graduate programming that extends across more than one Faculty. Due to our

recommendation that College Programs not be given degree-granting powers, they are conceived

to provide supplementary or enhanced programming to that which occurs within Independent

Programs, Departments, Schools and non-Departmentalized Faculties (these areas hereinafter

referred to as disciplines).

The Director of a College Program would be an academic administrative appointment and report

directly to the Dean of the College. They would be governed by the provisions in A13.03 and

A13.04 as is true for all other academic administrators.

As College Programs have a credit-teaching mandate, we recommend they have the power of

academic appointment as follows:

• Teaching faculty appointments may have their entire academic position appointed to a

College Program or they may be cross appointed with disciplines. We believe that the

use of joint appointments would be a particularly effective device to retain the

interdependent nature of interdisciplinarity in relation to disciplinary programming.

• Tenure-track research faculty may also be appointed to a College Program, however, they

must hold a joint appointment with a discipline.

It is our view that the review process for teaching faculty appointed solely to a College Program

could be concluded within the College. The review process for joint appointed tenure-track

faculty appointments, however, would require research assessment by the non-College discipline

to which they are appointed. Additionally, appropriate interdisciplinary review mechanisms may

be required for some members and these should be identified at the time of appointment.

We remind readers that all matters involving academic appointments are the jurisdiction of

negotiation between the Simon Fraser University Faculty Association and the University. Our

recommendations, therefore, must be considered within this context and are therefore subject to

amendment by those parties. We hope, however, that our careful thou

ht on these matters will

be considered as important input into those negotiation processes.

Page 77 of 97

In Volume III of this report, the Task Force described the rationale and overarching qualities of a

Centres and Institutes

reformulation of the Centres and Institutes Policy R40.01 that we feel is needed to enhance both

interdisciplinary and disciplinary research at Simon Fraser University.

This section of our report will focus on a more detailed articulation of the defining characters of

the three types of Centres and Institutes that our reformulation envisions:

Departmental Centre

-' Faculty Centre

Institute

Please note that the term "temporally limited joint appointment" used throughout this section of

our report refers to a recommendation in the interdisciplinary section of our report (Volume II)

that the joint appointment policy be revised to enable joint appointments for short periods of time

(3-5

year terms) in connection with certain categories of Centres and Institutes.

Centre:

A Centre is defined as a structural mechanism established for the purpose of promoting

collaborative engagement among its members in the area of research that primarily falls within

the framework of a single Faculty. Such research activity must extend the disciplinary or

interdisciplinary research provided within the contexts of Independent Programs, Departments,

Schools or non-departmentalized Faculties. The majority of membership within a Centre will be

from within a single academic Faculty.

We propose two types of Centres:

Departmental Research Centre -

A Departmental Research Centre (DRC) may be

established when a group of cognate researchers from within a single Independent

Program, Department, School, or non-departmentalized Faculty wish to associate and

collaborate for the purposes of collectively representing themselves and their research

niche to the external community. Graduate students may be granted student membership

in a DRC. Such membership does not confer any qualifications or satisfaction of

requirements towards their degree designation. This category of Centre will report to the

Chair/Director of the Independent Program, Department, School or Dean of the non-

departmentalized Faculty in which the majority of members belong and will normally not

require any University resources. An Independent Program, Department, School, or non-

departmentalized Faculty may choose to provide resources at its discretion. Members of

DRCs will carry out their full obligations to their primary or joint academic units. With

the focus on research, a DRC will not be permitted to offer any credit instruction. It may,

however, be engaged in the offering of non-credit modes of instruction. Temporally

limited joint appointments or internal secondments are permitted in accordance with the

proposed revised policies on these appointments. Normally, no more than 2 SFU faculty

Page 78 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• members may be temporally appointed to a DRC at any one time. Should a DRC seek an

exemption to this limitation, they must apply at the time of establishment or renewal and

include in their application a clear plan for offsetting the impact of the extended

involvement of faculty members on the academic units from which faculty are drawn.

These Centres will be established for

A Faculty Centre (FC) will be established where-there is a group of

year renewable terms.

Faculty Centres -

researchers who wish to collaborate and associate in relation to a special research topic

that extends the research programs of more than one Independent Program, Department,

or School, especially those that are interdisciplinary in nature. To qualify as a FC, there

must be significant membership drawn from two or more disciplines within a Faculty.

Graduate students may be granted student membership in a FC. Such membership does

not confer any qualifications or satisfaction of requirements towards their degree

designation. While typically focused upon research, a PC may also engage in multi-, or

interdisciplinary programming of a supplemental (non-degree granting) nature to

programming within disciplines. It may, however, be engaged in the offering of non-

credit modes of instruction. Temporally limited joint appointments or internal

secondments are permitted in accordance with the proposed revised policies on these

appointments. Normally, no more than 2 SFU faculty members may be temporally

appointed to a FC at any one time. Should a FC seek an exemption to this limitation,

they must apply at the time of establishment or renewal and include in their application a

clear plan for offsetting the impact of the extended involvement of faculty members on

the academic units from which faculty are drawn. FCs are expected to be self-financing.

FCs will report to the Dean of a Faculty. They will have

An Institute is defined as a structural mechanism established for the purpose of promoting

year renewable terms.

Institutes:

collaborative engagement among its members in the areas of research or research and teaching

that crosses the boundaries of Faculties or which involve other Universities and/or Institutions.

Such research and teaching activity must extend the disciplinary or interdisciplinary research and

teaching provided within the contexts of Faculties. Significant membership must be drawn from

each of two or more Faculties, or involve a University or Institution outside of Simon Fraser

University. An Institute will be established where there is a group of researchers and educators

who wish to collaborate and associate in relation to a special research topic that extends the

research programs of more than one Faculty. They may also engage in multi-, or

interdisciplinary programming of a supplemental (non-degree granting) nature to programming

within Faculties. Graduate students may be granted "graduate student membership" in an

Institute. Such membership does not confer any qualifications or satisfaction of requirements

towards their degree designation. An Institute may offer credit and non-credit courses and

certificates that lead to degree credit but will not be degree-granting. Temporally limited joint

appointments or internal secondments are permitted in accordance with the policies on these

appointments. A limited number of SFU faculty members will be permitted within an Institute.

An application outlining the extent of faculty participation envisioned for a particular Institute

must be presented to Senate at the time Institute approval or renewal. Such application must

include a clear plan for offsetting the impact of the extended involvement for the academic units

Page 79 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

from which faculty are drawn. Faculty members who teach approved credit courses within an

Institute will have their instructional activity count towards their annual workload as provided by

the Faculty Workload Policy A30.03. These Institutes are expected to secure significant external

funding for their operations. Normally, they will have

year renewable terms unless the

agreement of an Institute dictates other conditions on the term of the Institute.

Faculty Participation in Centres and Institutes

As has been overviewed in the sub-sections above, the Task Force recommends temporally and

numerically limited appointment mechanisms for faculty members to engage with certain

categories of Centres and Institutes. Such provision requires identification of the ways in which

performance reviews will be conducted and workloads will be developed. With regard to

performance reviews, the Task Force recommends that the primary academic department of the

individual remain their discipline. As a consequence, as is true with current academic policy,

performance review is centered within the disciplinary unit. The Centre or Institute would be

required, as is the case for secondary appointments to disciplines, to provide an assessment to the

primary discipline of the accomplishments and contributions made by the faculty member to the

Centre/Institute, in accordance with the provisions and processes identified in the performance

review policies of faculty members.

In the matter of workload assignment, the Task Force believes that the workload of faculty

members who have joint appointments with Centres and Institutes will be as provided for in the

Faculty Workload Policy (A30.03). Particularly in the case of Centres/Institutes that seek to

have faculty members engage in credit teaching activities of the Centre/Institute, we envision

that the faculty member, the Director of the Centre/Institute, and the Chair/Director of the

disciplinary home will negotiate a workload arrangement that is consistent with University

policy and is satisfactory to all parties. Given the diverse nature of agreements that might be

imagined, we do not wish to make any recommendation that might constrain the productive

agreement of the parties.

Centre/Institute Qualit

Review

The Task Force believes that Centres and Institutes at Simon Fraser University must be viewed

as important vehicles for advancing research and enhancing the research profile and agenda of

the University. To ensure that we are successful in this regard, the Task Force believes that there

needs to be increased rigor introduced into the adjudication of the application of Centres and

Institutes and the renewal processes that will occur in the final year of the term of the Centre or

Institute. We also believe that those Centres and Institutes that do not meet the expected

standards of quality should not be renewed.

The Task Force has not had the opportunity to research what processes should be established to

achieve the goals we outline in the previous paragraph. We are aware that currently Centres and

Institutes are established through review and approval processes of the Senate Committee on

University Priorities and Senate, which we do not believe should be changed. We believe that,

Page 80 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU

• particularly at the time of renewal, additional evaluation processes (perhaps with external review

as in the case of CTEF applications) will need to be developed. We recommend that the Vice-

President, Research be mandated to develop the appropriate review processes to ensure the

overall quality and reputation of Centres and Institutes at Simoii Fraser University. We further

recommend, that the Vice-President, Academic participate in the development of appropriate

review processes for those Centres and Institutes that involve credit teaching.

Summar y

and Recommendations

As we think about the changes we have proposed over the course of this volume, we return our

thoughts back to the four qualities (see

9-10) that we are striving to have emblematic of Simon

Fraser University in the year 2025.

Independent Programs are important vehicles for change, experimentation and new knowledge

creation. The way in which they support interdisciplinarity through cross-disciplinary faculty

collaboration and collegial interconnection will enable Simon Fraser University to meet its goals

in creating a nourishing environment for faculty members, for providing new learning

opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students, and for responding to pressing societal

issues.

The College for Lifelong and Experiential Learning is one of the most significant initiatives

long-standing commitment to the educational experience of undergraduate and graduate students

and to the communities we serve. It will incubate, develop and nourish cross-Faculty.

interdisciplinary educational experiences for students that will enhance their disciplinary

degrees. It will be the locus for profiling the many and varied experiential learning opportunities

for students both newly developed within the College but also in academic areas throughout the

University.

The changes to the Centre and Institute policy are viewed by the Task Force as important to

ensure the increased stature of Simon Fraser University's research contribution and activity. The

increased mechanisms for faculty engagement and commitment, for graduate student

participation, and for the development of research driven interdisciplinary courses and

supplemental components to graduate programming are, we believe, important contributions to

the future of the University.

Recommendation 24: That the structural elements as described this report be adopted

as part of

the structuralframework for Simon Fraser University.

Recommendation 25: That the Vice-President, Research be mandated to develop a

systematic and rigorous process

evaluation for the establishment and renewal

Centres and Institutes.

Page 81 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

"REMOVING BARRIERS: A DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE OF SFU"

VOLUME VI— IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS FORWARD

Presented to the University Community

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

Page 82 of 97

VOLUME VI— IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS FORWARD

The recommendations contained throughout this report are recognizably both substantial and

ambitious. As a consequence, we have attempted to carefully think our way through at least

some of the issues that will arise with the implementation of the initiatives and structural changes

we have identified. Over the forthcoming sections we will discuss issues of impact on faculty,

staff and student complements, assess logistical issues related to our multi-campus geography,

provide our best assessment as to the potential cost implications of our recommendations, and

propose an implementation timeframe for their execution. We will also outline the next steps in

our process, identifying opportunities for consultation with the University community and the

imagined timelines for consideration by Senate and the Board of Governors.

Implementation Issues

Implementation Issues for Students. Faculty and Staff

The most important implementation issue arising from our recommendations is the potential

impact of our proposals on students, faculty, and staff. We assure all members of the University

community that the work of the Task Force over the past year has been carefully guided by the

Senate approved principles, and notably principle 8:

8. Any proposed change to the University 's academic structure should be based on carefully

considered analysis of the reasons and need for change, its impact on members of the

unit as well as other academic units affected by the proposed changes, its respectfulness

of members of the University community, its transparency, and its opportunity for

meaningful collegial engagement throughout.

Students

Throughout our process we have attempted to seek the input and engagement of students. There

has been notable engagement by student representatives from Communication, Contemporary

Arts, and various of the disciplines and programs in environmental areas, and the graduate

student caucus of the School of Computing Science. The engagement of these students has been

critical to our understanding and consideration of the potential impact of various proposals.

Generally, students have encouraged us to be forward thinking, to increase visibility and profile

in the areas that we have designated for new Faculty creation, and to provide more coherent and

easily navigable ways for the pursuit of their studies in both disciplinary and interdisciplinary

contexts. We have been buoyed by their enthusiasm and reminded of the critical mission of the

University to provide outstanding educational opportunities and experiences for students.

The most critical issues of implementation confronting the student body with regard to the

academic structure recommendations we believe are as follows:

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• That there will be seamlessness in the implementation of new Faculty alignments, unit

relocations, and new governance relationship and that these occur in a way that ensures

that educational programming remains stable and of the highest quality.

• That the degree credentials in which students are currently registered remain intact,

highly respected, and internationally recognized.

• That students registered in the Bachelor of General Studies, Applied Science, will be able

to complete their program of study despite the dissolution of-the -Faculty of Applied

Sciences.

We recommend that, should Senate approve the recommendations of this report, that the above

three issues be accepted as commitments that must be guaranteed to students.

As the recommendations of the Task Force also include the onset of significant new

opportunities for students in terms of experiential learning and new program opportunities, we

further recommend that Senate recognize the following principles for students:

• That the introduction of a system of experiential credit initiative be undertaken with

careful thought for undergraduate students in its relationship to the W, Q, B initiative,

and for both graduate and undergraduate students in the ways in which it will provide a

value-added component to the educational experience at Simon Fraser University without

leading to an overall increase in degree credit requirements.

• That the opportunities for students to pursue new educational programming that may

develop in each of the new Faculties, as elsewhere in the University, be designed with

appropriate structures of transference that recognize the existing educational

achievements and credit learning of students at Simon Fraser University.

• That appropriate "opportunity portals" be developed so that students have greater clarity

in terms of the educational opportunities that exist for them in the areas of studying

health, environmental issues, language training, and in the diverse array of experiential

opportunities that are available across the University.

Faculty Members

We believe that the various processes of engagement we have undertaken prior to making our

recommendations are the reason why the recommendations for new Faculties have been nearly

unanimously supported by faculty members in all of the directly affected units. We take this as a

very positive endorsement of the merit of our proposals and the view by the academic

complement that our proposals will ensure a productive, creative, and stimulating research and

teaching environment for faculty members' careers at Simon Fraser University.

Nonetheless, we also recognize that there will be a very few faculty members within directly

affected units who will not see the proposed Faculty location for them as being the opportune

environment for their intellectual research and teaching development and career. We believe it

imperative that the University work with these individuals to ensure that suitable academic

homes are found. While we recognize that there is an existing University process for relocation

from one academic unit to another, we would suggest that the University develop a streamlined

and expedited process for relocation. Further, we recommend that the Vice-President, Academic

Page 84 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

identify an appropriate bridge-to-the-future style financial strategy to facilitate a smooth

transition without negative consequence for the unit of departure or reception.

Staff Members

The dissolution of the Faculty of Applied Sciences is the one recommendation of the Task Force

that has a direct impact on administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff. This

undoubtedly has led, and will continue to lead, to a period of anxiety and uncertainty for staff

members in this area. We believe, therefore, that it is fundamentally important that if the

recommendations of this report are approved by Senate and the Board -

of Governors, that the

University establish, immediately upon approval, a process of engagement, opportunity

assessment, and review with all affected staff.

It is not in our power to guarantee positions to all affected staff. However, notwithstanding the

limitations of our power, the creation of three new Faculties, all requiring new administrative

infrastructure, should actually lead to a substantial number of additional position opportunities.

As a consequence, we are highly optimistic, that all staff affected by our recommendation to

dissolve the Faculty of Applied Sciences will find an opportunity for a continued employment

relationship with the University.

We have confirmed with the Vice-President, Legal Affairs, that the full extent of all staff related

employment policies and provincial labour regulations will be the foundation for decisions and

that the University will make considerable effort to find suitable employment opportunities for

all affected staff.

Implementation Issues for Administrative Areas. Systems and Infrastructure Support

The comprehensive nature of our recommendations will lead to significant transitional activities

in various areas of the University's administrative offices, processes, systems, and

infrastructures. Further, the interrelated and multifaceted nature of our recommendations will

require concerted leadership, management and timely execution. To effectively steer this

process forward, the Vice-President, Academic will establish a Senior Administrative

Implementation Steering Committee that will oversee the management and implementation of

the administrative changes. This Steering Committee will be comprised of the Vice-President,

Academic, Associate Vice-President, Academic, Vice-President, Legal Affairs, Vice-President,

Finance and Administration, Vice-President, Research, Associate Vice-President, Students and

International, Chief Information Officer, Director, University Secretariat, Registrar and Senior

Director, Student Enrollment, and Project Coordinator. A Working Group will also be

established with membership from Human Resources, Academic Relations, Budgeting,

Financing, Institutional Research and Planning, Graduate Studies, Student Services, and others

as required.

While we cannot identify all administrative and implementation issues that will be undertaken,

0 ?

we are aware of at least the following categories:

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• Academic leadership search processes for Faculty Deans, Dean of the College of

Lifelong and Experiential Learning, Director of Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration

• Staff searches for administrative offices of new Faculties

• Substantive changes to academic and research policies resulting from the direct

recommendations of our report

• Changes to Senate Committee and Subcommittee membership and elections processes

• Editorial changes to academic, administrative and personnel policies that reference

academic structural entities, bodies, or representatives

• Changes to registration systems, enrollment processes, calendar changes, advising,

recruitment materials

• Degree designation matters including potentially new degree designations, grandfathering

for Bachelor of General Studies, Applied Science and Applied Science degrees

• Financial systems changes and budget redistribution across new Faculties

• Personnel system changes and notifications for academic, professional and clerical staff

• Significant programming and reports changes by Institutional Research and Planning to

ensure ongoing meaningful institutional data records

• Re-categorization process for Centres/Institutes

• Various new information documentation, media announcements, and publicity to

prospective students, counselors, potential donors and the external community in general

• Eventual physical relocations of units to provide for clustering of Faculty activities

While the above represent the general implementation issues that will be required, we note two

specific implementation issues that arise directly from the creation of new Faculties. First, the

Deans' search policy will need to be examined in terms of faculty member representation for

Faculties with fewer than four units. Further, the anticipated asymmetrical configuration of the

new Environment Faculty will require a further amendment to the ratification procedure so that

each department and school has a meaningful voice in the selection of the Dean. Second, the

relocation of the Environmental Science Program from the Faculty of Science to the new

Environment Faculty as an independent program will require a 1-2 FTE faculty position

commitment to ensure leadership and stabilization of the program.

Multi-Campus Reality

Unlike some other multi-campus institutions, Simon Fraser University has retained a firm view

that we are a single, unified University with several campus locations. All Faculties have a core

presence at Burnaby Mountain. All Faculties are now offering programming at Surrey. And

most Faculties have at least limited programming in downtown Vancouver. This geographic

spread of our activities raises questions for the University. How do we retain a unified vision of

Simon Fraser University? How do faculty, staff and students retain a sense of connectivity to the

University as a whole, and to their colleagues and fellow students when separated by distance?

How do faculty and students participate in the programming and activities at all campuses?

These questions are not new for the University. Nonetheless, they are critically important

questions being asked by our colleagues, and the activities of the Task Force have provided a

venue for them to be revisited.

Page 86 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• While addressing University multi-campus identity and connectivity is not a direct area of our

mandate, we believe that the issues do interweave with some of our recommendations. If we

truly seek to effectively serve our diversely located communities and to retain the excellence and

importance of our core commitments to the liberal arts and sciences and to the opportunity for

students to have a rich, rewarding, experiential, and multi-disciplinary education, we must find

ways to better facilitate the movement of faculty and students between our campuses. In our

view this means we must explore ways to solve two critical issues: transportation and course

scheduling.

The Skytrain provides an effective transportation bridge between our-downtown Vancouver

campus and the Surrey campus, but transportation between either of these campuses and the

Burnaby Mountain campus must be improved. With the announcement on January 14, 2008 of

over $14 billion dollars being committed to improving transportation in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District over the next six years, Simon Fraser University must urgently and actively

lobby for improved access to our Burnaby campus and better interconnectivity between

campuses.

The second area of challenge for a multi-campus institution is to ensure that course scheduling

occurs in such a way as to enable faculty and students to move effectively between sites to

deliver or obtain programming. This is a complex process that will require the expertise of the

University's Registrar, the curriculum planning bodies of the University, and the Office of

Institutional Research and Planning. We recommend that the Vice President, Academic mandate

• the Registrar to undertake a review of course scheduling in consultation with the other areas

identified and to prepare a report of recommendations for consideration by the Vice President,

Academic.

In addition to these two critical areas of consideration, the vision of Simon Fraser University as a

single institution with multiple campus facilities carries with it a requirement that each campus

must be seen as embodying our core commitments and strategic priorities. As a consequence we

must ensure that in addition to the defining features of each of our campuses and the unique

populations they serve, that research and graduate level programming is a thriving and expanding

component of all of our facilities.

Finally, while we must strive not to duplicate activities and functions, we must be mindful that in

those Faculties with significant constituencies spread across campus sites, important segments of

administrative operations of the Faculties must effectively serve each of the sites and have

meaningful presence at them. This may require space planning to facilitate the presence of

certain key members of the administrative team at each campus on a rotational schedule.

Context for Costs

When the Vice-President, Academic initiated the work of the first Task Force in the Fall of 2005,

he did not do so in a context of financial crisis, crisis of reputation, or crisis of vision, that is

often typical of restructuring exercises at other academic institutions. He did so in view of

designing the best University for the future: a University that would be seen as a leader in the

Page 87 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

liberal arts and sciences, in areas of great societal concern such as environment, education, and

health, in recognition of the need for resuscitating the value and importance of arts and culture in

society and in universities, and in areas of professional and applied fields. The Task Force has

aimed to build upon our many and internationally renowned strengths and excellence. We have

strived to enhance the environment for research and graduate education. We have sought to

develop one of the most distinguished and exciting undergraduate student experiences in the

nation. We have aimed to strengthen the environment for faculty members providing them with

opportunities and support for discovery both within disciplines and in new interdisciplinary

collaborations and it is envisioned that this will afford Simon Fraser University with the

continued ability to attract and retain the world's leading scholars and educators. And, finally,

the Task Force has recognized that Simon Fraser. University in the future will engage with our

communities in unparalleled ways, revitalizing art and culture in society, opening our doors to

diverse communities locally and internationally and truly be an institution that, by its actions,

demonstrates it is "thinking of the world" and contributing to it.

At present, we are clearly feeling the forces of tight fiscal realities and the Task Force has been

critically concerned with the current reality and the recommendations that we are proposing. We

do not wish in any way to minimize the current budgetary context nor to downplay the fact that

our recommendations indeed have cost implications for the University. We understand that there

are competing views as to what the priorities for investment should be and we have heard the

concerns about the financial climate of the University raised during Open Forums discussions

and in other feedback to the Task Force. As this discussion has unfolded it has at times taken the

character of a competition between financial commitment to the core liberal arts and sciences

and commitment to new initiatives. We wish to comment briefly on this critically important

issue and perception. During the five-year period 2002/03 to 2006/07 the academic operating

budget of the Faculties has nearly doubled, growing from $88.5 million to $166.4 million; an

88%

growth. During this time, the budgeted CFL faculty complement grew 22% from 714.3

FTE to 874.4 FTE; annualized graduate and undergraduate FTE enrolment grew by a more

modest, but still sizeable amount, 14%. The growth in the academic operating budgets and CFL

faculty complements of the Faculties is, in the view of the Task Force, a clear demonstration of

the commitment by the University to support and develop our core areas of commitment. We

would not be prepared to make the recommendations we do in this report if we felt that in doing

so we would in any way compromise the core strength of the arts and sciences, applied and

professional programming of the University. Our reputation for excellence will continue to

depend on our strength in these areas.

The Vice President, Academic has for many years had a modest budget to direct to strategic new

directions of the University. For at least the past five years, this fund (aptly named the Strategic

Initiatives Fund), has had a continuing base budget of $600,000 to $650,000. This is only 0.7%

of the amount dedicated to the academic operating budgets of the Faculties in 2002/03. In

2008/09, the Strategic Initiatives Fund was increased to $950,000, but in comparison to the

significantly increased academic operating budgets of the Faculties, this investment has

proportionally declined in comparison, and represents approximately 0.6%. In the past, the

Strategic Initiatives Fund has been used to develop such initiatives as the Faculty of Health

Sciences, the University Curriculum Initiative (W-Q-B), and new program development.

Page 88 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• Ultimately, the Task Force believes that to stop investing in new initiatives chosen carefully in

consideration of maintaining excellence for the University's future would be a significant

detriment to the institution. Over the past twenty years, the University has met several occasions

of tight budgetary times with fierce resilience and pragmatic decision-making. Yet despite these

belt-tightening periods, we have always continued to move the University forward. The Task

Force believes we must continue this fundamental spirit of advancement.

We have noted that there will be costs associated with the recommendations we have proposed

over the course of this report. We believe it essential to be open and transparent in our

expectation of what the University may expect in terms of these costs.

The costs notably are

estimates based on our understanding of the scope of our recommendations and the current

average costs in the University. The costs we identify should be understood to be the "costs of

change" and do not represent long-term future development costs, just as our cost overview does

not include the long-term future development costs of the already established academic Faculties

and initiatives at the University.

We would also like to expressly note, that this cost summary is provided for information and

disclosure purposes only. The Task Force does not have the power to recommend financial

commitments of the University and thus this is not an element of our report for express

consideration or approval by the University community or Senate. Budgetary decision making

ultimately rests with the Board of Governors as part of the annual budget process. This will be

independent of our report and the Task Force's activities.

The Task Force also does not wish to leave an impression with the University community that it

is only the Task Force recommendations that have a cost. The University is constantly investing

in those areas of the University that are untouched by our recommendations, and in a variety of

ways that seek to constantly retain and improve the overall quality of teaching, research and

outreach at Simon Fraser University. Outside of the main budget provisioning to the Faculties, it

is noteworthy that over the past few years, the University has invested nearly $1.4 million

recurring dollars in the University Curriculum Initiative, nearly $400,000 base budget in the

Student Learning Commons, almost

million in retention awards to outstanding faculty

members, and significant other amounts in new faculty position creation, faculty start-up, and

specific project support. These are clearly not insignificant amounts.

The Strategic Initiatives Fund is suggested by the Task Force as the primary vehicle for

financing the recommendations of our report to ensure that our initiatives do not represent a

direct call on the existing Faculty budget lines. As is clear given the value of the SIT and the

cost of our recommendations, we are recommending a commitment against the SIF for several

years. A second source of funding that is critically important to the Vice-President, Academic's

ability to support new initiatives, focused around technology, has been the Double the

Opportunity (DTO) fund. This fund has not been fully expended in anticipation of potential

developments from the Task Force and it could serve as the financial source for the creation of

the Faculty of Engineering and Computing as well as the very nominal new positions expected in

support of developing a new IT/ICT program.

Page 89 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

In consideration of the work of the Task Force, the Vice-President, Academic has been

conservative in his deployment of the 2007/2008 SIF, and has some funds remaining for

dedication to the recommendations of the Task Force. This fund provides for both one-time non-

recurring funding, which will be important for the transitional administrative costs of

implementing our recommendations, as well as base recurring funding that would support the

creation of the positions and annual budget of the new Faculties, College, and Office for

Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

Specific Costs

The Task Force imagines that each new Faculty will cost an average of $750,000 new base

funding. Differences will exist between each of the three proposed Faculties based on the

number of constituent units, the amount of decentralized budgeting already in place to the

School/Department level, and the extent of administrative position start up cost requirements.

This provides an estimated total for the creation of three new Faculties of approximately

$2.25

million base funding. In addition to these administrative structure set up costs for the new

Faculties, the Task Force report also calls for the dedication of 6-8 new FTE positions for new

integrative programming in the Environment Faculty, which we predict will require an additional

$750,000 base funding to the overall budget. The total budgetary costs of the three new

Faculties, therefore is estimated to be $3.0 million.

The dissolution of the Faculty of Applied Sciences will provide $1.0 million toward this total.

The unspent Double the Opportunity Fund will be able to cover the cost of the new Faculty of

Engineering and Computing. This leaves a net base budget requirement of $1.25 million. The

Vice-President, Academic has this base commitment available from outstanding funds from the

2007/08 Strategic Initiatives Fund, the dedication of the 2008/09 SIF fund and some portion of

the future SIF fund for new position creation related to integrative programming in the

Environment Faculty.

The Task Force is aware that stipulating position growth of any

magnitude for the Environment Faculty is a controversial commitment given the current freeze

on faculty positions elsewhere in the University. We understand the concern of our colleagues in

this regard. ?

Nonetheless, we sincerely believe that there are several important reasons for

proceeding with our recommendation for the commitment of faculty positions to the new

Environment Faculty. First, the vision for the new Faculty is one that is intended to be inclusive

of, and enhancing to, the existing strengths of the University. The integrative programming that

is intended to emerge through the efforts of the Faculty Interdisciplinary Planning Committee is

mandated to identify a modest number of core positions that will fill gaps, augment strengths,

and enable new research and programming of an interdisciplinary character to flourish.

This

should have significant benefits to disciplines both within and external to the new Faculty.

Second, the environment is clearly one of the most pressing societal issues of the

21st

Century.

There is near consensus that while progress in understanding is being made, solutions to issues of

global climate change require new ways of thinking of environmental problems. The title of the

New York ?

Times article on December 25th

captures the direction that post-secondary

educational ?

institutions around the world are heading "Threat So Big, Academics Try

Collaboration".

Third, evidence from new initiatives across the continent demonstrates that

areas of environmental ?

research

and education are attracting external ?

financial

support.

Page 90 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

• Numerous examples can be pointed to, but locally there have been two important announcements

that demonstrate the potential within British Columbia. The University has just received a

donation for the establishment of the Libre-Ero Chair Coastal Studies. In addition, the Provincial

Government announced on January

25,

2008 that it will seek legislative approval for

$94.5

million to create the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). This Institute will bring

together top scientists, government and the private sector to develop innovative climate change

adaptation and mitigation solutions. Hosted by the University of Victoria, the collaboration

includes the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and the University of

Northern British Columbia. These examples are illustrative of the potential for attracting

significant external funding, a strategy which the Task Force believes can be actively pursued to

assist with the costs of the new Environment Faculty proposed for Simon Fraser University.

Third, we note that the commitment of new positions to the Environment Faculty is dependent

upon Senate approval of a blueprint for integrated programming that has a strong indication of

future student enrolment demand and will require Board approval of the overall University's

Faculty Recruitment Plan in each year where positions are recommended. Finally, we note that

this is a staged recommendation, with anticipated commitment of faculty positions occurring

over a three year period between 2009/2010 and 2011/2012 which therefore calls for a very

modest position commitment (approximately 2-3 positions) in anygiven fiscal year.

The creation of the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning has minimal establishment

costs, expected to be approximately $150,000 in total. It does, however, have more significant

longer term costs as the Experiential Learning Division, and the experiential credit initiative are

each implemented. It is anticipated that the total costs for the staged implementation of these

over the next

years would be approximately $500,000 to $750,000 in base funding.

The third substantive cost proposal of the Task Force is connected to the establishment of an

Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration (OIC), the activities it is mandated to undertake and

support, and the Centres and Institutes Support Centre within the OIC. It is anticipated that the

development of this shared infrastructure as well as staffing positions (Director, and support

staff) and interdisciplinary initiatives operating budget will be in the neighborhood of $500,000

base funding. In addition, the Task Force has called earlier in this report for a commitment of

approximately $90,000 to $100,000 base funding per year for the establishment of three new

funds to support interdisciplinarity (Small Interdisciplinary Project Funding, Interdisciplinary

Conference Funding, and Interdisciplinary Teaching Development Fund). We wish to make two

important clarifications with regard to the financial costs of the Office for Interdisciplinary

Collaboration. First, The OIC is intended to develop incrementally as strategic funding

envelopes of the University permit. In the implementation timeline that follows this section, we

recommend that the OIC be established in September 2010. Further, we believe that there are

significant external fundraising opportunities for interdisciplinarity that would enable the OIC to

develop modest shared facilities to support all research centres and institutes of the University.

Finally, the Task Force is of the view that even when fully developed, the staffing of the OIC

should be minimal in complement. We envision a senior level academic director and up to 2

support staff to assist researchers across the University with administrative activities related to

research collaborations, develop profiling networks of academic programming and research

activity in strategic interdisciplinary areas of the University, and to help reduce administrative

Page 91 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

burdens of faculty members related to interdisciplinary collaboration so that they can focus their

time and energy on research and the development of interdisciplinary programming.

Perhaps the most ambitious cost item of the Task Force's proposals, is the creation of a Simon

Fraser University Institute for Advanced Scholarship. Preliminary cost calculations for creating

the program of distinction imagined, its state-of-the-art facilities, distinguished visitor housing

and salary costs, institute personnel costs, international conference and proceedings activities, are

significant. We imagine that an annual base operating cost of approximately

$1.25

million is

required, with a capital facility cost of between $10 and

$15

million. The Task Force sees such

potential of this initiative as advancing the University's international research profile and

graduate education aspirations, that we have not shied away from our recommendation to

proceed despite the magnitude of our preliminary costs. However, we do not believe it possible

for the -University to bear these costs directly, and therefore we recommend that this entire

initiative be the focus of a major fundraising initiative of the University.

A final cost component of our recommendations is the costs for the transitional implementation

of the recommendations. In consideration of temporary staff requirements for implementation in

our student, financial and personnel systems, as well as project coordination during the

implementation phase, we predict non-recurring implementation costs of approximately

$450,000 spread over the next two years. Further, we anticipate that the Vice-President,

Academic may need to dedicate up to $500,000 in a bridge-to-the-future program for non-

relocating faculty members and program stabilization. We understand from the Vice-President,

Academic, that these amounts can be identified through outstanding non-recurring funds

remaining from 2007/08 as well as modest amounts from 2008/09 and 2009/10 calls on recurring

funds of the University.

Implementation and Prioritization of Recommendations

The following schedule provides a projected ideal timeline for the implementation of the

activities that are embedded within the recommendations of the Task Force over the course of

our report.

Cognitive Science Review

April 2008 - External Review of Cognitive Science

II. Committees. Polic

Changes. Academic Leadershi

Processes Begin

ii.

June 2008 - Establishment of Committee on Experiential Learning (Report due

August 2009)

iii.

June 2008 - Establishment of Student Mobility/Course Access Committee (Report

due August 2009)

iv.

June 2008 - Mandate given to VP Legal to negotiate with SFUFA revisions to

joint appointments policy along the principles of change identified, creation of new

internal secondments policy, team teaching policy, process for review of

Page 92 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

interdisciplinary work, and modifications to other academic policies affected by

the changes in academic structure

V. ?

-June 2008 - Mandate given to VP Research to make revisions to Policy R40.01

vi.

June 2008 - Mandate given to Dean of Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences to

develop a comprehensive plan for Foreign Language Studies unit

vii.

June 2008 - Establishment of Environment Faculty Interdisciplinary Program

Committee ?

viii. June 2008— Establishment of Mandate to Dean of Graduate Studies to review

interdisciplinary graduate programming and graduate financial support

ix.

June 2008 - Creation of Joint Planning Committee for IT/ICT Program

X. ?

June 2008 - Vice-President, Academic initiates process to appoint Acting Deans

for each new Faculty.

xi.

September 2008 - Vice-President, Academic to revisit Report on English

Language Learning

xii.

September 2008 - Process for Reclassification of Existing Centres/Institutes under

new policy begins

III. Faculty and Unit Alignment Chan

es Occur

xiii.

April 2009 - School of Kinesiology moves to Faculty of Science

xiv. April 2009 - Establishment of Faculty of Engineering and Computing

xv.

April 2009 - Network Support Group relocated to Faculty of Engineering and

Computing

April 2009— Establishment of Faculty of

Contemporary Arts, Communication & Design (working name)

x - 4xvi

April 2009 - Master of Publishing Program and

Contemporary Arts move from Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences to new Faculty

viii. ?

April 2009 - TechOne Program established in

permanent location

xix. ?

April 2009— Establishment of Environment Faculty

x4xx. ?

April 2009 - Department of Geography is realigned

from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences to the Environment Faculty

N-Xxi.. ?

April 2009 - School of Resource and Environmental

Managements is relocated from the Faculty of Applied Sciences to the

April 2009 - Environmental Science Program becomes

established as a new Department of Environmental Sciences within Environment

Faculty

x*i4xx111.

April 2009 - Centre for Sustainable Community

Development moves from Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences to Environment

Faculty

xxiv.

April 2009 - Graduate Certificate Program in

Development Studies is formally positioned within the Environment Faculty

xxv.

April 2009 - Establishment of College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning

xxvi. April 2009 - Consolidation of Centre for Dialogue and Semester in Dialogue into

Program in Dialogue within College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

xxviii.xxvii. ?

September 2011 - Dissolution of Faculty of Applied

Sciences (date to be finalized)

Page 94 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

IV. Assessment Reports are Due

'.xviii. ?

December 2008— Report on the future of TechOne

Program provided to Vice President, Academic

xxix. April 2009 - Report of Environment Planning Committee due

xxxi.xxx. ?

April 2009 - Report on Foreign Language Study unit

due from Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

xxx iLxxxi.

August 2009 —

Report from Committee on

Experiential Learning due to Senate

xxxiixxxii.

August 2009— Report from Student Mobility and

Course Access Committee due

xxxiii.

September 2009 - Report due from Joint Planning Committee for IT/ICT Program

xxxiv.

September 2009 - Report due from Dean of Graduate Studies regarding

interdisciplinary graduate programming

**i--xxxv. ?

September 2009 - Vice-President, Academic to have

developed and begun execution of plan for English Language Learning

V. New Programming Commences

xxxvi. September 2009 - New Integrative Programming in Environment Faculty launched

xxxvii.

September 2009 - Establishment of unit for Foreign

Language Studies in Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

xxxviii.

September 2010 - New IT/ICT Program launched

VI. Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration Established

xxix._April 2010 - Search begins for Director of Centre for Interdisciplinary

Collaboration

xxxix.xl. ?

September 2010 - Establishment of Office for, Interdisciplinary

Collaboration

4xIi. September 2010— Creation of SFU Health Network

VII. Development of Institute for Advanced Scholarship

4i-xtii. September 2010— Fundraising campaign begins for Simon Fraser University

Institute for Advanced Scholarship

x44xliii. ?

September 2012 - Establishment of Simon Fraser University Institute for

Advanced Scholarship

Aside from the sheer pragmatic constraints on implementing the broad scope of

recommendations contained in our report, we recognize that the University's current year

financial realities may require a more staggered implementation of the recommendations in this

report, than might be ideally desired. Should that be the case, we would recommend the

following priority implementation of our recommendations:

0 ?

1" Priority: ?

- creation of new Faculties and policy changes

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU"

95 of 97

2nd Priority: - creation of College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning

3rd Priority:

- establishment of Office for Interdisciplinary Collaboration

4th

Priority: ?

- development of Simon Fraser University Institute for Advanced Scholarship

Page 96 of 97

"Removing Barriers: A Design For the Future of SFU'

External Fundraisin°

We have noted the strong potential we believe the SFU Institute for Advanced Scholarship will

have for attracting external donations. Equally, or perhaps even more likely, we believe that the

new Environment Faculty that we have conceptualized will be highly attractive to external

fundraising activities as well, perhaps, to new dedicated programs by provincial and national

governments or organizations. We also feel that if the overall recommendations that we have

made, combined with the existing strengths at the University, were packaged together, there

could be a great opportunity for a campaign dedicated to the future of Simon Fraser University: a

vision of social responsibility, community engagement, experiential learning, graduate

education, research excellence, and leadership. We encourage the Vice-Presidents and

Advancement office to explore such a potential.

Senate Consideration

In November 2006, Senate gave the Task Force a threefold mandate to review the academic

structure of the university, evaluate the ways in which our academic structural elements are

being deployed, and to determine if Simon Fraser University is effectively supporting,

nourishing and developing interdisciplinarity. We have now, slightly more than a year later

completed our report and have offered in its pages 25 recommendations in consideration of our

mandate.

It is noteworthy as we draw our report to a close that our recommendations fall into three broad

categories: (1) those that aim to directly change the academic structure of the University through

the creation or dissolution of academic Faculties, a new College and the relocation of academic

units; (2) those that require process review, program proposal development, or administrative

action (such as a Foreign Language Studies program, an IT/ICT Program, a study and proposal

on Experiential Learning, etc.) the fruits of which will require full development and future

consideration by Senate; and

those suggestions to negotiated policies between the University

and the Simon Fraser University Faculty Association that are the purview of the negotiation

process.

We will leave it to the wisdom of the Senate Committee on University Priorities to whom we

submit this report, to determine how best to develop motions to deal with the first two areas of

our recommendations. We fully understand the need for the presentation of motions in

accordance with the University Act and the powers and responsibilities of Senate. We ask

though, that Senate and all of the readers of this report recognize that the vision the Task Force

has set out for 2025, and the success we believe that can be achieved for the institution by its

execution, is not a fragmented one. Our recommendations have been organized in sub-categories

consistent with the three areas of our mandate. But really, it is a single vision, a single future,

and we strongly believe that we have developed a carefully interwoven blueprint for Simon

Fraser University's overall success.

Page 97 of 97

Appendix A - Senate Principles to Guide the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic

APPENDICES

Structure

Appendix B - Procedural Framework to Guide Phase 2 Task Force

Appendix C - Phase I Task Force Vision for SFU in the Year2025

Appendix D - Summary of Submissions to the Phase 2 Task Force

Appendix E - Summary of Working Group Composition and Submission

Distribution ?

Appendix F - Summary of all Task Force Recommendations

Appendix G - Bibliographic References

Page I of 15

APPENDIX A - PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PHASE 2 TASK FORCE

ON ACADEMIC STRUCTURE

I. The University's academic structure should continue to enhance and support innovation,

excellence, integration, engagement and adaptability in teaching and research.

The University's academic structure should allow for responsiveness within a framework

of stability. It should reaffirm our commitment to the liberal arts and sciences, to

professional and applied programming, and to the fundamental value of discipline based

inquiry and to the opportunities afforded by interdisciplinarity.

The University's academic structure should enable us to be effectively positioned for the

opportunities and challenges that will be presented to us: it should position us to succeed

in a demand-driven student enrolment environment; it should be financially viable within

a diversified fiscal environment; it should advance our distinctiveness and strategic

strengths; it should support our engagement with, and response to, increasingly diverse

communities and student populations; and it should retain coherence in response to

changes that will occur within the intellectual, social, political and economic

environment.

The University's academic structure should attract outstanding graduate and

undergraduate students and facilitate excellence' in their learning experience.

The University's academic structure should consider our multi-campus presence and

accommodate the distinctiveness of each campus while simultaneously contributing to a

unified identity for Simon Fraser University as a whole.

The University's academic structure should incorporate the increasing number of

academic programs into structures that will ensure stability, provide the ability for the

units to advance themselves to the fullest extent, provide engagement for its members,

and minimize the risks of under-representation in priority setting and budgetary

discussions.

The University's academic structure should retain or enhance managerial and

administrative effectiveness and efficiency particularly as it facilitates and supports

effective planning, communication and decision-making, collegial governance, and

resource allocation.

Any proposed change to the University's academic structure should be based on carefully

considered analysis of the reasons and need for change, its impact on members of the unit

as well as other academic units affected by the proposed changes, its respectfulness of

members of the University community, its transparency, and its opportunity for

meaningful collegial engagement throughout.

For undergraduate students, the Faculty Structure Task Force believes that excellence should include the following

qualities: opportunities for students to explore different disciplines, to engage in interdisciplinary problem-based

learning environments, to be exposed to innovative pedagogical approaches and diversified learning opportunities

(such as cohort programs, semesters

study, capstone courses, supplemental learning in tutorials, open laboratories

and technological enhancements), to engage in experiential learning by means

cooperative education, research

participation, civic engagement and/or international study environments, and to have experiences in writing

intensive learning, quantitative understanding and knowledge breadth. For graduate students, the Faculty Structure

Task Force believes that excellence should include opportunities to explore both the frontiers

knowledge within

core disciplines as well as provide opportunities to understand the perspectives of, and intersections with, other

disciplines.

Page 2

of 15

APPENDIX B - PHASE 2 TASK FORCE ON ACADEMIC STRUCTURE

PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK

Senate has approved the following procedural framework to guide the Phase 2 Task Force on

Academic Structure:

The Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure will have the following composition: the

Vice President, Academic who will Chair the Task Force, seven faculty members (one

representative from each of the existing Faculties with the exception of Arts and Social

Sciences which will have two representatives), an undergraduate-student, and a graduate

student. The Vice President, Academic will appoint all members to the Phase 2 Task

Force on Academic Structure in consultation with the Senate Committee on University

Priorities. Clerical and/or professional personnel will be appointed as required by the

Vice President, Academic. The composition of the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic

Structure will attempt to ensure some continuity in membership between it and the

Faculty Structure Task Force.

The Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure will receive submissions from the

University community.

Following the receipt of submissions, the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure

will establish Working Group(s) to undertake comprehensive evaluation of the

• proposals. The composition of the Working Group(s) will be determined and appointed

by the Vice President, Academic in consideration of the submissions received. Students

will be represented on each Work Group established.

Evaluation by the Working Group(s) will include extensive opportunities for

engagement with members of the community affected by each submission.

The Working Group(s) will bring forward a detailed evaluation of submissions to the

Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure for consideration as a whole. The Phase 2

Task Force on Academic Structure will engage in extensive University wide

consultation on the potential models, strategies for change, and recommendations that it

is contemplating in each of the three areas of its mandate. The Phase 2 Task Force on

Academic Structure may choose to present options related to the areas of its mandate

either separately or in combination.

The Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure will endeavor to present its final

recommendations to Senate by November 2007.

APPENDIX C - PHASE I TASK FORCE SUMMARY' OF THE VISION FOR

SFU IN THE YEAR

2025 ?

SFU will be known for the value it places upon, and commitment it has to, innovation,

excellence, integration, engagement and adaptability,

SFU will be recognized as the best comprehensive research university in Canada. Its

academic strength and comprehensiveness will be demonstrated through its:

• Reaffirmation and continued commitment to its liberal arts and sciences core

• Ongoing development and innovation of applied and professional programming

• Significant presence and growth in Health Sciences prograinming

• Significant growth and development in strategic research areas including

Communication, Computation and Technology; Culture, Society and Human

Behavior; Economic Organization, Public Policy and Global Community;

Environment; and Health

• Evidence of differentiation from other universities

• Development of new academic programming within and beyond traditional

disciplines;

SFU will be known for its far-reaching international strategy:

o This will be in evidence through the many significant international educational

and research partnerships between individual faculty members and institutional

arrangements, faculty research teams and exchanges, student study abroad

programs and joint degree learning opportunities, the expanded

internationalization of the curriculum, and the increased opportunity for study and

research into global issues;

• SFU will be recognized for its expanded presence in providing outstanding graduate

education

• SFU will provide one of the best student experiences in Canada

• It will become a destination for graduate learning with unparalleled opportunities

to engage at the frontiers of knowledge and understand the potential intersections

with other disciplines

• It will offer a unique undergraduate educational experience characterized by the

following:

.T.

required experiences in writing intensive learning, quantitative

understanding, and knowledge breadth,

innovative pedagogical approaches and diversified learning opportunities

(cohort programs, semesters of study, capstone courses, supplemental

learning in tutorials, open laboratories, and technological enhancements)

.. experiential learning by means of cooperative education, research

participation, civic engagement and/or international study

• It will offer a rich spectrum and integrated network of academic and non

The key planning documents relied upon include: "SFU: Recreating Canada's Most Exciting University, The

President's Agenda

2005-2009";

"Three Year Academic Plan of the Vice President, Academic 2004-2007"; Three

Year Academic Plans of the Academic Faculties, Graduate Studies, Continuing Studies, and Student Services;

"Strategic Research Plan of Simon Fraser University 2005-20 10"; The Strategic Plans for the Vancouver Campus,

Surrey Campus and Great Northern Way Campus; and "SFU International Strategic Plan - July 2004 - June 2006.

"A Multi-year Enrolment Plan for Simon Fraser University (covering 2004/05 to 2010/2011)

Page 4 of 15

• ? academic student services, supports and experiences;

• SFU's will have a projected student, staff and faculty complement as follows:

• an undergraduate student complement of 25.000 - 30,000 FTE

• a graduate student complement of 6,500— 7,500 FTE

• an international graduate and undergraduate student complement of 3,000 - 3,500

FTE

• a faculty complement of 1,500— 1,800 FTE with more than 150 faculty

recognized as distinguished scholars and/or educators

• a staff complement of 2,000 FTE;

• SFU will have the most comprehensive network of life-long learning opportunities in

Canada

• SFU will have a comprehensive structure for seeding research and pedagogical

Innovation; and,

• SFU will continue its multi-campus strategy based on differentiated foci at each of its

four campuses while simultaneously ensuring effective intercampus connectivity and a

coherent and unified SFU identity

• SFU will have significantly expanded physical facilities in Surrey, in Vancouver,

and on Burnaby Mountain;

• SFU will have developed the best example of an integrated and engaged urban

campus in the country at its Vancouver campus. The campus is expected to have:

4 an undergraduate and graduate student complement of 3,000 credit FTEs

. significantly expanded non-credit programming

sYs significantly expanded use of the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue;

o SFU will have fully developed academic programs at the undergraduate and

graduate level in all Faculties at the Surrey campus and such programming will be

distinctive for its cohort learning style and intimate learning experiences;

• SFU will have a defined presence at the Great Northern Way campus.

Page 5 of 15

APPENDIX 0— SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS TO THE PHASE 2 TASK FORCE

1. School of Computing Science

School of Engineering Science

3. Cognitive Science Program

4. School of Kinesiology

5. Addendum to School of Kinesiology Submission by Dr. Andy Hoffer

Proposal for a Sport, Commerce, Culture and Community Program

7. Faculty of Health Sciences

Department of Geography

School of Resource and Environmental Management

10. Environmental Science Program

11.

Joint proposal from Urban Studies Program and the Centre for Sustainable Community

Development

12.

Graduate Certificate in Development Studies

13.

Submission for a new Faculty in the area of Media, new media, communications,

information, performance, and dialogue by Dean Brian Lewis

14.

School of Communication

15.

Submission for a new Department of Media, Culture and Public Policy submitted by Drs.

Alison Beale, Zoe Druick, Bob Hackett, Steve Kline, Kirsten McAllister, Catherine Murray

and Yuezhi Zhao

16.

Proposal for a Program in Technology and Society submitted by Dr. Ellen Balka

17. School for the Contemporary Arts

18.

School of Interactive Arts and Technology

19.

Master of Publishing Program and the Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing

20. Centre for Dialogue

21.

Continuing Studies

22.

Department of Philosophy Proposal for Two Centres: Ethics and Political Economy

23. Language Training Institute

24.

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

25.

Proposal from Dr. Michael Howlett

Page 6 o 15

APPENDIX E - SUMMARY OF WORKING GROUP COMPOSITION AND

SUBMISSION DISTRIBUTION

Working Group I

MEMBERS: Charmaine Dean (Chair), Van Truong, Blaize Reich, Richard Lockhart,

Nadine Schuurman, Sue Roppel ?

- ?

PROPOSALS FOR EVALUATION: Computing Science; Engineering Science

Working Group

MEMBERS: Frank Gobas (Chair), Jonathan Chu, Mark Winston, Richard Lockhart,

Sue Roppel

PROPOSALS FOR EVALUATION: Health Science; Kinesiology; Cognitive Science;

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences - Item

Working Group 3

MEMBERS: Craig Janes (Chair), Jane Friesen, Van Truong, Tim Takaro, Steven

Thompson, Sue Roppel

PROPOSALS FOR EVALUATION: Geography; Resource & Environmental

Management; Urban Studies Program and Centre for Sustainable Community

Development; Environmental Science Program; Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences -

Items 2 and 4.

Working Group 4

MEMBERS: Jack Martin (Chair), Bob Krider, Van Truong, Kitty Corbett, Cheryl

Amundsen, Sue Roppel

PROPOSALS FOR EVALUATION: Media, New Media, Communications, Information,

Performance, and Dialogue; Contemporary Arts; Interactive Arts & Technology; Faculty

of Arts and Social Sciences - Item

Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing

Working Group

MEMBERS: Paul Budra (Chair). Jonathan Chu, Catherine Murray, Rob Woodbury,

Sue Roppel

PROPOSALS FOR EVALUATION: Continuing Studies; Philosophy; Centre for

Dialogue - Public Scholarship; Language Training Institute; Arts and Social Sciences -

Item ?

Page 7 of 15

APPENDIX F - SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: That a Faculty of Engineering and Computing be established.

Recommendation 2: That a new Faculty (name to be determined) comprised of the School of

Communication, the School for the Contemporary Arts, the School of Interactive Arts and

Technology and the Master of Publishing Program be established. ?

That an Environment Faculty (name to be determined) be established with

the following founding units and programs: ?

- Environmental Science Program as a new Department of Environmental

Sciences

- Department of Geography

- School of Resource and Environmental Management

- Centre for Sustainable Community Development

- Graduate Certificate Program in Development Studies

Recommendation 4: That a Faculty Interdisciplinary Programming Committee (FIPC) be

established with the membership, principles, and blueprint development requirements as outlined

in this report and further that this blueprint be presented to Senate for approval by April 2009.

That the School of Kinesiology be relocated to the Faculty of Science.

Recommendation 6: That units 'active in health research and programming pursue the

development of new collaborative initiatives.

Recommendation 7: That a "SFU Health Network" be established.

Recommendation 8: That the Faculty of Applied Science be disbanded.

Recommendation 9: That a College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning be established.

9.1: That the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning be the locus and home for the

encouragement, coordination, interconnection, and development of interdisciplinary,

cross-Faculty experiential learning programs.

9.1. a: That the Semester in Dialogue and the Centre for Dialogue be consolidated

and that they be classified as a College Program within the College of

Lifelong and Experiential Learning.

9.1.b: That the Vice-President, Academic establish a Committee for Experiential

Learning (GEL), and that this Committee be established with a mandate to

develop a plan for introducing an experiential credit for undergraduate

students. We further recommend that the GEL be mandated to submit its

plan to Senate by September 2009.

Here and elsewhere in this report we will make recommendations that particular processes be considered by

Senate. We use the term "Senate" to represent the full process of review and consideration that leads to Senate

approval. In no way do we wish to convey any alteration to the standard processes of consideration of approval that

exist within the University.

Page 8 of 15

09.2: That the College of Lifelong and Experiential Learning house the existing portfolio

of Continuing Studies and Distance Education.

Recommendation 10: That the University establish a Simon Fraser University Institute for

Advanced Studies of the highest caliber, made possible through a targeted fundraising campaign

for this purpose. We further recommend that the University strive to realize its dream for the

creation of the SFU—IAS by the year 2012. ?

Recommendation 11: That the University establish a new Office for Interdisciplinary

Collaboration (OIC) with the design, mandate and responsibilities outlined in this report.

Recommendation 12: That the University's Academic Policies be revised as follows:

12.1: That the Joint Appointments Policy be revised in consideration of the suggestions

included in this report.

12.2: That the University develop a new policy which would allow for internal

secondment of post tenure research faculty and permanent teaching faculty

members for

2-5

year terms to Centres and Institutes.

12.3: That the University develop a new policy on Team Teaching.

12.4: That the University develop better provisions for the review of interdisciplinary

research and teaching in all academic performance review processes.

12.5:

That the Centres and Institutes policy be revised as envisioned in this report.

Recommendation 13: That the Vice-President, Academic in collaboration with the Deans and

Vice-Presidents undertake the following:

13.1: Develop a series of incentive strategies and position funding arrangements that

would lead to a substantial increase in the number of joint appointments at Simon

Fraser University.

13.2: Review the current enrolment based funding allocation formula to identify ways in

which funding can effectively flow to support supplementary interdisciplinary

course credits offered through Centres and Institutes and new strategic and

interdiscip1inaiy program development.

Recommendation 14: That there be formalization and adequate commitments given to the

Cognitive Science Program by participating units and that the Terms of Reference for the

External Review Team of the Cognitive Science Program (scheduled for early 2008) specifically

solicit the advice of the review team on the issues identified in the submission by Cognitive

Science to the Task Force.

That Senate develop a submission template to ensure that sufficient

15:

commitments are in place for the development of new interdisciplinary programs and that such a

template addresses the issues identified in this report.

Recommendation 16: That a new "Information and Communications Technology" (IT/ICT)

program be collaboratively pursued at Simon Fraser University as follows:

Page 9 of 15

16.1: A Joint Program Development Committee be established with representatives from

• Computing Science, Engineering Science, Interactive Arts and Technology,

-Business Administration, Cognitive Science, and potentially others;

16.2: The IT/ICT Joint Program Development Committee develop a report for

consideration by Senate by September 2009 outlining the feasibility, faculty gap

analysis, resource requirements and draft curriculum of implementing an IT/ICT

program at SFU.

Recommendation 17: That the undergraduate publishing courses now offered by the School of

Communication be consolidated with the Master of Publishing Program and that Continuing

Studies publishing programming be further explored for consolidation with the Master of

Publishing Program.

Recommendation 18: That the TechOne Program temporarily be moved to the new Faculty

comprised of Contemporary Arts, Communication, Interactive Arts and Technology and

Publishing.

18.1: That the Vice President, Academic establish a review committee to examine the

design, future and resource allocation of the TechOne Program and to develop a

written report by December 2008 for how all constituent units will be provided

with a first-year cohort experience that effectively serves their disciplines.

18.2: That upon receipt of the report, the Director of the TechOne program along with

the Deans from the Faculty of Engineering and Computing, the new Faculty

comprised of Communication, Contemporary Arts, Interactive Arts and

Technology and Publishing, the Faculty of Business Administration, will propose

to the Vice-President, Academic the future permanent home for the program.

Once the location is agreed to by the Vice-President, Academic, a

recommendation would then be forwarded through Senate for approval by no later

than March 2009.

Recommendation 19: That the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences present a detailed plan to

Senate by no later April 2009 for the establishment of an independent unit for the study of

foreign languages based on the vision identified in this report.

Recommendation 20: That the Report of the Language Instruction Committee (2005) be revisited

by the Vice-President, Academic with the goal of implementing a coherent, consolidated, and

sustainable strategy for English language learning at Simon Fraser University.

Recommendation 21: That a Student Mobility and Course Access Review Committee he

established by the Vice-President, Academic to identify barriers to interdisciplinary educational

experiences of students. We further recommend that a report of findings, recommendations for

improvement, and a plan for implementation, be submitted to Senate by April 2009.

Recommendation 22: That the Dean of Graduate Studies research and recommend a strategy for

supporting and stimulating the development of new interdisciplinary graduate programming and

providing financial support to graduate students who undertake interdisciplinary projects. We

further recommend that his report be presented to Senate for consideration by September 2009.

Page 10of 15

Recommendation 23: That the Network Support Group be relocated to the Faculty of

Engineering and Computing in April 2009 and that it continue to support all areas of the

University that it currently serves. Further, we recommend that in April 2010, the Vice President,

Academic follow up with areas served by the Network Support Group to ensure that all areas

continue to be effectively served.

Recommendation 24: That the structural elements as described this report be adopted as part of

the structural framework for Simon Fraser University.

That the Vice-President, Research be mandated to develop a systematic

25:

and rigorous process of evaluation for the establishment and renewal of Centres and Institutes.

Page II of 15

(Note we have not identified those bibliographic materials that were used only by the Working

APPENDIX G - REFERENCES CONSULTED

Groups).

Books:

Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and

University Faculty, Lisa R. Lattuca, Vanderbilt University Press, 2001.

Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge. Disciplinarities. and Interdisciplinarities, Julie Thompson

Klein, University Press of Virginia, 1996.

Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academies (of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine) - Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research Committee, National Academy Press, 2005.

Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modem Universities, Burton R. Clark,

University of California Press, 1995.

Practising Interdisciplinarity, Edited by Peter Weingart and Nico Stehr, 2000, University of

Toronto Press.

Reinventing Ourselves: Interdisciplinary Education. Collaborative Learning, and

Experimentation in Higher Education, Editors Barbara Leigh Smith and John McCann, Anker

Publishing Company, Inc., 2001.

Articles

Papers

Proposals:

"A Guide to Educational Programs in Environment and Sustainable Development at Columbia

University", Office of Educational Programs, The Earth Institute at Columbia University,

August, 2006.

"Campus 2020 / Thinking Ahead: The Report. Access and Excellence, The Campus 2020 Plan

for British Columbia's Post-Secondary Education System",

April 2007, Jeff Plant, QC, and

Special Advisor to the British Columbia Provincial Government,

"Computing Curricula 2005",

a report produced by the Association for Computing Machinery

(ACM), the Association of Information Systems (AIS), and the Computer Society of the Institute

of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE-CS), an Information Technology, 2005.

Education for a Sustainable Future",

Science, VOL. 317,

p.323-324.

July 20, 2007.

Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences,

Committee on Grand Challenges in

Environmental Sciences, Oversight Commission for the Committee on Grand Challenges in

Environmental Sciences, 2001.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9975.htmi

Page 12of15

InterConnection, Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University, Volume

Issue 1, Fall 2006.

InterConnection, Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University, Volume 2, Issue 3, April/May

2004.

"Inlerdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities-

Centre for

Educational Research and Innovation, 1972.

"One University in Many Places: Transitional Design to Twenty-First Century Excellence",

The

President's Response to the University Provost's Recommendations Regarding the University

Design Team Report, Arizona State University, April 2004

"Proposal to Create the University of Toronto Centre for Environment", Proposal Submitted to

the Deans of the Faculty of Arts and Science, and School of Graduate Studies, April 30, 2004,

jointly by the Institute for Environmental Studies, the Division of the Environment and Innis

College Environmental Studies program.

"Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for Americas Research Universities ",

The

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University,

1995.

Rising to the Challenge: Integrating Social Science into NSF Environmental Observatories.

S ?

Shalini Vajjhala, Alan Krupnick, Eleanor McCormick, Morgan Grove, Patricia McDowell,

Charles Redman, Leonard Shabman, and Mitchell Small. Resources for the Future. September

2007.

"Risks and Rewards of an Interdisciplinary Research Path ",

by Diana Rhoten and Andrew

Parker, in "Science", 17 December 2004, Volume 306.

"Resources for Interdisciplinary Studies ",

Julie Thompson Klein, Change, March/April, 2006,

p.52-58.

Websites:

University of Alberta, Office of Interdisciplinary Studies,

http://wwwuofaweh.ualberta.calarts/ois.cfm

"Companion Paper #3 - Enabling Interdisciplinary Teaching and Research", "Stepping Up:

2004-2010". University of Toronto, http://www.utoronto.ca

University of British Columbia, College of Interdisciplinary Studies,

http://www.cfis.uhc.caIiiidex.html

Wayne State University, Interdisciplinary Research and Education, Office of the Vice President

Research, http://www.research.wavne.edu/idrc

Page 13 of 15

University of Tennessee, University Studies Program, http://notes.utk.edu/bio/unistudv.nsf

"Interdisciplinary Project in the Humanities", University of Washington in St. Louis,

http://www.artsei.wusti.edu/ `/`7Eiph

"President's Opening Address

Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University, July 1, 2007.

Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies, Harvard University.

'Centres and Institutes: Policy on Establishment, Operation, Review, and Discontinuance

University of Toronto, November

30, 2005.

Stanford University Multidisciplinary Initiatives website,

http://www.multi.stanford.edu/initiatives

Arizona State University website, http://rnvnew.asu.edu

Memo to Faculty Colleagues,

Dr. B. Bruce Bare, Dean, College of Forest Resources, University

of Washington, September 21, 2007.

Environmental Council Strategic Plan,

The Environmental Council. University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign. April 7, 2006. ?

Simon Fraser University Documents:

"A Vision for Environmental Programming at Simon Fraser University ",

Jock Munro,

November

2007.

"Sommes Nous Prêts? Discussion Paper of the Faculty Structure Task Force",

July 2006, Simon

Fraser University.

"Final Report of the Faculty Structure Task Force",

November 2006, Simon Fraser University.

President's Agenda,

Dr. Michael Stevenson, Simon Fraser University. August 22, 2007.

Liber Ero

Chair in Coastal Studies, Terms of Reference, Simon Fraser University.

Strategic Research Plan, Simon Fraser University

Centres and Institutes Annual Report, 2007

University Policies:

• GP

38,

Sustainability Draft Policy, Simon Fraser University, November 2007.

• R40.01 - Centres and Institutes Policy

Page 14of 15

• A30.03 -Faculty Workload Policy

o Al 1.07 - Joint Appointments

-Search Committees for Deans

A13.05