Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26

S.06-91

• ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

FROM:

RE: Department of Archaeology

DATE: August 29, 2006

External Review (SCUP 06-18)

At its May 10, 2006 meeting, SCUP reviewed the External Review Report of the

Department of Archaeology, the response from the Department, and the

response from the Dean of Arts and Social Sciences.

At the request of the Department Chair, Dr. D. Burley, this document was held

until such time as he was available to attend Senate.

. ?

Motion

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of Archaeology and the Dean

of Arts and Social Sciences be advised to pursue the following as priority items:

Undergraduate Program

• The department should conduct a review of its undergraduate

curriculum in view of the changes in faculty specializations.

• The department should consider the balance between lectures and

tutorials in lower division courses, and continue to ensure sufficient

expertise in quantitative methods.

Recruitment of First Nations students should continue to be a priority.

Graduate Program

• More Teaching Assistantships are recommended to support graduate

study in the department and to give teaching experience to graduate

students.

• Recruitment of First Nations students at the graduate level should

continue to be a priority.

Facult

Complement

• Discussions should take place between the Department and the

Dean's office regarding the faculty complement, the balance between

faculty and sessional instructors, and how best to back-fill for the

assignment of tenured faculty to administrative positions.

The research and teaching strengths in NW Coast archaeology should

40'

be enhanced through future hiring and possibly expanding the roles of

adjunct professors.

Staffing

• Consideration should be given to adding additional staff positions in

both laboratory and administrative areas. The Dean's office has

committed to reviewing and prioritizing these needs.

Museum

• The museum is a University resource which has an important

educational and outreach role. The Department and the Dean's office

should consider ways in which the Museum could have an expanded

role within the department, seek additional funding as appropriate, and

continue to raise the profile of the Museum overall.

• Pursue further development of relationships with First Nations and the

Museum.

The collections from excavations on the Northwest Coast are

recognized as internationally significant; these should be completely

accessioned and made accessible for research.

c. D. Burley

J. Pierce

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ?

Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

MEMORANDUM

To: ?

Bill Krane ?

From: ?

John T. Pierce

Associate VP, Academic ? Dean, FASS

RECEIVED

Subject:

I consider this an extremely positive external review report with respect to the

'Four Assurances' as required by the Terms of Reference. Notably, the teaching

and research programs are of a very high quality; the department is

internationally recognized as innovative and research intensive; the department

is one of the leading units within FASS in the receipt of SSHRC grants; the Chair

has been highly effective at improving governance structures, morale and

moving new initiatives forward such as First Nations programming and forensic

science; and the department's museum is playing an important role in the

dissemination of knowledge to schools and the general public.

That said, Archaeology is faced with a number of challenges and choices as a

result of upcoming retirements; the move to a new building; the loss of expertise

in quantitative methods; new programming demands for cultural resource

management; and the development of a new Centre for Forensic Research. I

believe with proper planning and the judicious allocation of additional resources

that these challenges can be overcome expeditiously.

A number of, and arguably the most substantive, recommendations for change

and improvement will require the injection of additional resources if in the

words of the report," it is to sustain its international reputation as one of the top

Archaeology research and teaching programs in-the world." The timing and

exact scale of these additional resources will have to be negotiated and will be

heavily dependent upon the availability of funds within FASS and other

priorities within the Faculty. I do not intend to comment upon each

recommendation but instead, in parallel with Dr. Burley's comments, group

these resource dependent recommendations into four operational categories. I

might add that that while the report recommends additional resources, these are

not clearly prioritized by the reviewers nor by the response from the Chair.

Museum:

The NW Coast archaeology collection is the responsibility of the

museum. This facility is seriously underfunded. The underfunding has

implications for the proper care of the collection, our legal responsibilities as "the

designated repository for finds", and our ability to make the collection accessible

P. 2 Archaeology External Review

to researchers and the wider public. I would argue that this is a University

resource part of the University commons and should be funded as such. The

Chair makes the point that it should be eligible for IDC monies. I would support

this. Regardless however of the source, this is an area that should receive

immediate attention. Were it not for the incredible efforts of Barbara Winter, the

Museum Director, the situation would be far worse and far more embarrassing.

Centre for Forensic Research:

This initiative is very timely and will provide

for a much needed focusing and concentration of expertise across departments

and faculties. Once we receive approval for our Tier

CRC and the completion

of the physical lab and the various containment facilities, we will be in a position

to undertake cutting edge research and to become known as one of the leading

centres in North America for forensic research. Funding for the labs will come

from a combination of sources but primarily CFI. The exact costs have yet to be

decided. It is clear that given the demands and complexities of the facility the

current staff complement will not do. My office will endeavour to find base

money for at least one lab technician. Beyond that source we will have to be

more imaginative and proactive through contracts and research monies to raise

additional funds for any other positions.

Staffing:

The argument has been made that with the increase in research

intensity within the department, an additional administrative position is

required. We will consider this request in relation to other staffing requests

within the FASS.

4) Workload:

The Chair makes the argument that the Dean has responsibility for

ensuring equity in workload across the faculty. If the department implements

teaching credit for graduate supervision a request will be made for "additional

resources for implementation". To date, this office has not provided additional

resources to units to compensate for declines in undergraduate teaching with the

implementation of teaching credit system. These systems are normally

administered and costed internally. I am prepared to consider Archaeology's

request but would need more compelling arguments for treating them as a

special case.

There are a number of other issues identified that are not resource dependent but

organizational and pedagogical. Briefly, I would strongly urge that the

department conduct a review of its undergraduate curriculum in view of the

changes in faculty specializations. In particular, I think it essential that the

research and teaching strengths in NW Coast archaeology be strengthened and

that attention be paid to improving expertise in quantitative methods. As to the

graduate program, I would support the Chair that the PhD program functions

upon a research intensive 'apprenticeship' model and that additional courses are

P. 3 Archaeology External Review

not required and indeed would negatively impact the undergraduate program.

With the addition of the cultural resource management stream and the joint

major in First Nations studies, the Department is well positioned to attract more

First Nations students. Lastly, I would agree that the museum has an important

educational and outreach role for the department and indeed the University and

every effort needs to be made to raise its profile and of course to increase its

funding.

JTP/rt

Cc: D. Burley, Chair, Dept. of Archaeology

-I

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY RESPONSE TO THE EXTERNAL

REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT OF

APRIL 2005

Submitted by David Burley, Department Chair, 6 September 2005

The following submission provides a response to recommendations and comments

resulting from an external review of the Department of Archaeology undertaken through

a three-day visit to the university from February 23 to

25,

2005. The external review

committee included Professors J. Scott Raymond (University of Calgary), Madonna Moss

(University of Oregon) and Simon Hilson (University College London) with Professor

Robert Gordon (Criminology) serving as the university representative. While David

Burley, Archaeology Chair, prepared this response it is based on discussions emanating

from a Department meeting held in mid-April specifically to review the report and its

various issues. Undergraduate and graduate student representatives as well as faculty and

staff were present and provided input.

In general, faculty, staff and students are pleased with the external review results and the

stated recognition of the Department as one enjoying "an international reputation as one

of the top archaeological research and teaching programs in the world" (pg 1) with some

members of faculty "recognized internationally as leaders in their fields of study" (pa 8).

We similarly are pleased that the review committee was able to provide highly positive

responses to the "Four Assurances" required by the terms of reference for the review.

These included critical assessments of the Department's teaching programs, its research

programs and collaborations, its administration and organization, and its environment for

research and teaching. Finally, we fully appreciate the efforts, insights and

recommendations provided by the review committee to help us refine our academic unit

and programs in ways that will sustain and enhance our existing reputation.

As a principal body of text

(pp

2-12), the Review Committee Report incorporates an

assessment and commentary upon different components of the Department's research and

teaching programs as well as associated infrastructure and resources, including the

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, and the library. Based upon this text, the report

concludes with a specific series of 14 recommendations. These recommendations are

wide-ranging including several that the Department has or potentially can implement

through immediate action or planning. Other of the recommendations, nevertheless,

require university resources for implementation. We concur that these are essential, but

they are beyond the Department's ability to execute within its existing faculty/staff

complement and its operational budget.

Prior to responding to specific recommendations and comments, it is necessary to

highlight four underlying considerations that have influenced either the recommendations

or alternatively the department response to recommendations as provided here:

1) a CRC position in Forensic Archaeology was awarded to Archaeology as a basis upon

which to develop and co-ordinate existing Forensic science research interests within the

0 ?

department and elsewhere on campus as well as through the creation of a Centre for

Forensic Research in collaboration with the School for Criminology. University

administration consequently planned and is in the process of constructing state of the art

laboratory facilities in the ASSC 1 Complex. The Review Committee recognized this

initiative as having the potential to make SFU one of the "premier institutions for

forensics in the world" (pg 3);

while housed within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, much of the

Department's teaching and research is science-based with all of the implications for

laboratory space and technical support found in Science and Applied Science faculties.

Again university administration has recognized this and is in the process of constructing a

series of new, state of the art research and teaching laboratories within ASSC 1.

Combined with existing laboratories, this initiative will provide SFU with one of the most

comprehensive archaeological facilities in the world;

the two previous external reviews (1991 and 1998) highlighted significant under-

funding and under-staffing of the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology despite its

potential out-reach role for the university, its significance in teaching and research for the

Department, and its legal responsibilities for reposited research and other collections.

The Archaeology Chair and Museum Director have appealed unsuccessfully on a number

of occasions to different levels of university administration for additional museum

support; the problems remain unresolved and again are emphasized in the 2005 External

Review;

by Simon Fraser University standard, Archaeology is a small academic unit with nine

full time tenure track faculty, four halftime or jointly appointed tenure track faculty and,

ultimately, two Tier II CRC appointments (one joint) with reduced teaching and

administrative load. Of the nine full time appointments, one is a full time secondment as

Dean of Graduate Studies and two others (Chair and Chair of Graduate Studies) receive

reduced teaching loads in compensation for administrative responsibilities. Faculty also

have been highly successful in receiving RTS funds from SSHRC which, when combined

with the normal course of study leave approvals, results in a very small core of regular

faculty for undergraduate and graduate program delivery as well as administration.

RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, the 14 recommendations can be divided equally into those the department may

be able to respond to without significant new resources and those where financial or

staffing resources are most definitely required. In the case of the latter, they are beyond

the department's capability to' implement.

Recommendations without significant resource implications (#s 1,4,5,6,8, 10, 14)

1) Review the Undergraduate Program -as has been highlighted throughout the review,

with past retirements, the addition of CRCs and the death of one faculty member, the

Archaeology faculty complement has been in a state of transition. This has meant

reconfiguring teaching patterns, the addition of new courses, the deletion of courses that

no longer can be serviced and changing emphasis in teaching practices. This was

addressed in part in the department retreat leading up to the external review and we are

I ?

planning a second retreat in the fall semester of 2005 to specifically examine

•

undergraduate program course offerings, program structure and faculty teaching cycles.

The Undergraduate Program Chair historically has not been given a course release for

administrative service nor has this been an identified issue in past reviews or from

individuals holding the position. Defined in Faculty Workload PolicyA30.03, it is the

Dean's responsibility "to ensure fairness across departments". Provided the Dean has

approved this as common practice in other departments within the Faculty of Arts and

Social Science, the Archaeology Undergraduate Program Chair will be offered a one-

course reduction beginning in the fall semester of 2006.

Graduate Program Structure and Courses - graduate program issues related to

structure and course offerings are discussed at length in the main text of the review (pps 9

& 10). The dominant concern as expressed in Recommendation 4 concerns the

perception that "only minimal distinction [existsj between the Master's and Ph.D.

programs". While M.A. and Ph.D. students are required to take the same core course in

fall (Theory) and spring (Research Design) semesters, the remainder of their programs

are substantially different both in work and expectations. Ph.D. students are required to

prepare for and write candidacy exams as well as provide a public colloquium on their

dissertation research; MA students do neither. The real distinction, however, lays with

the scope of research and contribution to knowledge that is expected of the Ph.D.

dissertation as opposed to the M.A. thesis. We do not believe that adding additional

courses exclusive to either the M.A. or Ph.D. will alter the quality of education our

students receive nor the reputation that our programs currently have (as defined by the

number and quality of applications received annually). We also cannot implement a

recommendation for additional courses without a reduction in our undergraduate program

or without additional university resources. And finally, additional coursework will no

doubt add to graduate student completion time, a situation that is contrary to existing

pressures from the Graduate Dean. The Graduate Program Committee will meet in fall

2005 with the Graduate Student caucus to address other of the issues raised with respect

to the graduate seminar and graduate program handbook.

Retention of Historical Strength in Northwest Coast Archaeology - the Department

fully concurs with this recommendation and has identified the hiring of a second

Northwest Coast archaeologist as its first priority for retirement replacement. It is

noteworthy, however, that we also prioritized such an individual in our last department

appointment but were unsuccessful in finding a high quality applicant.

Role and Potential Role of the Museum - we fully concur with the recommendation

that the Museum has an important role to play in both the Department and wider

university community. Contrary to the statement that "it does not appear that the

Department or the university have recently reviewed the mission of the museum" (pg 6),

this was done following the 1998 external review and updated in both the 2000-2003 and

2004-2006 three year plans. With limited funding, the role of the museum largely has

been moving toward the building of virtual (web-based) galleries for public outreach and

education while attempting to meet its historical and legal responsibilities as a collections

. ?

repository. As to external funding, the Museum Director has been successful in gaining

an external contract to develop virtual exhibits and this has alleviated short-term

problems of aging computer equipment and temporary staff-hirings. We believe that

expanded planning for the Museum can be done only in co-ordination with university

administration, and we welcome the opportunity to participate on, or to strike such a

committee.

8) Recruitment of First Nations Students at Undergraduate and Graduate Levels - the

Department fully concurs with this recommendation and will continue to actively recruit

First Nations students and to offer outreach to First Nations communities. The

Department recently (2005) developed a joint major in First Nations Studies and

Archaeology, we continue to actively teach archaeology courses, including a field school,

in the Kamloops program, we have secured a joint appointment CRC in First Nations

Environmental and Cultural Resource Management, and the Directorship of the First

Nations Studies Program currently is filled by the Archaeology Department Chair.

Notably we have the only First Nations faculty member in Archaeology in Canada, and

our graduate program includes three Ph.D. and two M.A. students of First Nations

descent. The Review Report statement that "we understand that the number of First

Nations students in Archaeology is at a considerably lower proportion than their overall

proportion at the University" cannot be evaluated. This is the case because there is no

current way to track undergraduate students of First Nations descent in undergraduate

courses. Based on discussions with First Nations student society members, we suspect

Archaeology enrolment numbers are equal to or better than most departments in the

university with the exception of Education, First Nations Studies and Criminology.

10) Graduate Dean Secondment and loss of a Full Time Lecturer Position - the loss of

Dr. Driver has been a significant one to the Department for teaching, administration,

research, and as a mentor to our junior faculty. We note, however, that his administrative

secondment is factored into our TI Budget submission and we receive sessional stipends

as a consequence. The full-time lecturer position referred to in the report was not a loss

but a transfer to the Kamloops program. This allowed for the movement of Associate

Professor George Nicholas to the Burnaby campus. We have lost teaching capacity (4

courses per year) in the Burnaby department, but significantly gain in administrative and

research potential.

14) Review of teaching related to quantitative techniques and data analysis - this

recommendation and its implications will be reviewed in the fall 2005 department retreat

(see response to #1). Quantitative techniques is one of the highest priorities for future

hirings and will be advertised in tandem with a specialization in Northwest Coast

archaeology.

Recommendations where additional resources are required (#s

2, 3, 7,

9, 11, 12, 13)

2)Tutorials must be reinstated in the lower division archaeology courses - the

department concurs fully with this recommendation (also made in 1998) but cannot

implement without an increase in TA budget support

3) More teaching assistant are required to support graduate study - we again concur fully

but cannot implement without additional TA budget support

. ?

7) The Department's Northwest Coast archaeology collections must be properly

accessioned and curated - this is a responsibility of the Museum, as a repository, but

cannot be implemented with existing funding and staff levels. In this we note that the

Museum does not receive money from the federal transfer of Indirect Costs of Research,

and at least some of the collections in question were acquired through SSHRC funded

programs.

9) Workload policy review and implementation of a point-based reward system for

graduate student supervision - in the words of one Associate Dean, the Department of

Archaeology's graduate program is probably the "cheapest" on campus in so far as it

costs the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences the equivalent of two semester long courses.

Faculty accept, supervise and often fund graduate students voluntarily, and they offer

directed studies or reading courses to their students without expectation of teaching

credit. This has been the case since the origins of the department in 1971. Relative to

Tenure Track Faculty Workload Policy (A30.03), teaching credit

"may be given"

for

"graduate courses; graduate reading and directed studies courses; graduate supervision".

Notably it does not stipulate that teaching credit

must be given.

Again, it is the Dean's

responsibility to ensure equity in faculty workload across departments. If, however,

teaching credit is to be provided as recommended, this would require additional resources

for implementation, or it will result in a significant impact on the delivery of our

undergraduate program.

11)

The Centre for Forensic Research requires several additional laboratory staff with

salaries built into the operating budget for the Centre - the department concurs in the

strongest possible way and re-emphasizes the fact that the Centre has the potential to be a

world leader in Forensic Science research. Without technical support of the ilk provided

within the Science and Applied Science faculties, it will fail.

12)

An additional administrative staff position is required - we concur, especially in light

of the volume of research dollars being administered within archaeology and the growing

pressures of undergraduate and graduate student advising.

13)

An additional laboratory staff member position is required - we again concur and add

that our existing staff work far beyond their job descriptions and hours of employment.

These pressures will worsen with the completion of the new laboratory facilities in ASSC

I for both Archaeology and the Centre for Forensics Research. Again, without additional

technical support the department's recognition and reputation for teaching and research

may be significantly jeopardized.

OTHER COMMENTS

Most of the report commentary justifies or relates to the preceding series of

recommendations. There are, however, three additional issues raised that deserve

clarification or response.

as stated in the Review Committee commentary on undergraduate studies, "the

program appears to be designed to train all Archaeology majors for careers in

archaeology. While this is laudable, we wonder if 1) all majors go on to professional

positions, and 2) if the Department might attract more majors with a more flexible

program" (pg 9). The Department does appreciate the possibilities of having a less

professional and rigorous major for students who seek broad, liberal arts training. We do

not believe, however, that we currently have the resources to offer alternative programs

to our majors without impacting upon the quality of education our undergraduate students

now receive.

the review committee report was concerned with the capability of existing faculty to

supervise graduate students in the area of Northwest Coast archaeology. It consequently

states "one obvious supervisor who is being overlooked on the basis of a technicality is

Alan McMillan, an Adjunct faculty member who has been teaching in the Department

and serving on graduate committees for decades"(pg 10). The technicality in question is

Graduate Regulation 1.6.3 which requires senior supervisors to be Assistant Professors or

above. Dr. McMillan can and is currently serving as a co-supervisor for one graduate

committee as allowed under Graduate Regulation

1.6.5.

relative to "safety and security" the Review Committee Report states "we understand

that the safety office offers courses 3 times a year for new staff and students; the

Department should consider making these courses mandatory for its staff and students,

especially for those for whom bio-safety is a concern" (pg Ii). This recommendation is

in fact current practice as required by the SFU Occupational Health and Safety Office and

Department of Archaeology Laboratory policy for all faculty, staff and students working

in laboratory environments. The Department keeps on record a full list of individuals

who have taken these courses.

Report of the External Review Committee

Department of Archaeology?

Simon Fraser University?

7 April 2005

Preface

This report was written by the external Committee members, J. Scott Raymond (Chair),

Madonna Moss, and Simon Hilison, but we wish to acknowledge the invaluable

assistance of Robert Gordon, who served on the Committee as a representative of the

University administration. Dr. Gordon guided us through the bureaucracy of the

institution, interpreting the meaning of unfamiliar terms, clarifying the governance, and

answering our many questions about funding, teaching, research, workload, space, and

facilities. We are also indebted to David Burley, chair of Archaeology, and his staff, as

well as Glynn Nicholls, Director of Academic Planning and Budgeting, and his staff for

providing excellent information packets and for planning an efficient itinerary that

allowed us to learn a great deal about the University and the Department of Archaeology

in the space of our three-day on-site visit (February

23-25,

2005).

In preparing our report, we have endeavored to make it as error free as possible, checking

and double-checking our information, but we recognize that we inevitably have

misunderstood some of the practices, procedures and possibilities, and that we may be

• ?

mistaken about some details. The terms of reference requested that our recommendations

be made "with reference to the resources available to the Department," which we have

tried to do, but some of our recommendations, if implemented, will require that additional

resources flow to the Department, even beyond those that will be allocated to the Centre

for Forensic Research. We have made these recommendations in the belief that they are

important to the Department if it is to sustain its international reputation as one of the top

archaeological research and teaching programs in the world.

Introduction

At the outset we wish to state that before carrying out our review, we were aware that the

Department of Archaeology at Simon Fraser University enjoyed a reputation of

excellence internationally, especially for the integration of laboratory science in its

research and teaching programs. Our visit to the Department and interviews of the

faculty, staff and students did not contradict our high expectations. We did, however,

identify some concerns with respect to the sustainability of its current programs and with

its future development as the Centre for Forensic Research becomes a reality. As well,

we will suggest that changes to some programs be considered in order to make them

more effective and to address problems identified by members of the Department.

Our report begins by directly, but briefly, addressing the four "assurances" requested by

the Terms of Reference. It then discusses the issues identified as of particular interest to

• ?

the University and/or the Department and follows with a discussion of additional issues

that emerged during the on-site visit. Our specific recommendations are found at end of

the report.

Four Requested Assurances

The quality of teaching programs in the Department is very high. There are sound

and effective measures in place to ensure their evaluation and revision.

The quality of faculty research is high, and faculty collaboration and interactions

provide a stimulating academic environment. Partly because of the nature of

archaeological research and partly because of the research pursuits of members of

the Department, there are strong academic links and synergies with other units at

the University.

Dr. David Burley, the current Chair of the Department, provides strong leadership

and involves almost all Department members in the administration of the unit. As

with any department, some members are more effective participants than others.

Everyone in the department takes an active role in the dissemination of

knowledge. The museum potentially has a unique and important role to play in

the dissemination of knowledge (see below).

The Department provides a very good environment for promoting excellence in

research and teaching.

Issues of Particular Interest to University and/or Department

1. Recent Changes in Faculty and Facilities: Effects on Research and Teaching

Significant recent changes and future changes to the Department include faculty

replacements following retirements, reduction of full-time faculty to half-time, the death

of a full-time member of faculty, the addition of new staff positions (including two

prestigious Canada Research Chairs), the construction of additional facilities which will

significantly increase research and laboratory space, and participation with the School of

Criminology in the development of a Centre for Forensic Research. These changes

mostly present numerous possibilities of expanding and strengthening the existing

teaching and research, but at the same time raise some concerns that need to be

addressed.

The addition of the position in the field of Ancient DNA and the recent

appointment in Forensic Anthropology build on the previous strengths in

biological anthropology, archaeometry, and radiometric studies. The DNA

position has already attracted graduate students.

The appointment of an historical archaeologist a few years ago expanded the

research and course offerings of the Department into an area that is under-

represented in Canadian universities. The position has already attracted masters

and doctoral students. Simon Fraser is now the place to study Latin American

historical archaeology and one of the leaders in North America.

The death of Dr. Jack Nance last year left the Department short of a faculty

member with a specialization in the critical area of quantitative methods and data

analysis. The most significant impact has been felt in the lack of someone to

teach the upper division undergraduate course on data analysis and in advising

. ?

graduate students on this critical aspect of their research. We suggest a possible

partial solution below to the undergraduate course concern.

Predicting the timing of retirements promises to become more problematic if

mandatory retirement is abandoned, as we were told probably will occur at SFU

in the next year or so. There are now

senior faculty who may decide to retire in

the next few years. At their faculty retreat (dated 2/17/04 in Appendix 18 to

Self-

Study) the Department laid out a rank order of future faculty appointments,

assuming retention of positions as retirements occur. We concur with their

prioritization of a position for someone with expertise in quantitative methods and

on the archaeology of the Northwest Coast. The first is urgent because of the core

importance of quantitative methods and data analysis to the Department's

curriculum. The second is important to sustain SFU's pre-eminence in the

regional archaeology of Northwestern North America.

• The appointment of Dr. Welch as a CRC with a joint appointment in the School

for Resource and Environmental Management will enable the Department to

develop a diploma stream in cultural resource management, which will no doubt

attract additional students to the Department. As the collaborative relationship

with the School for Resource and Environmental Management matures, it may be

possible to establish a joint MA in cultural and environmental management, a

wish expressed by the Department in its last three-year plan.

• The creation of the Centre for Forensic Research in collaboration with the School

of Criminology presents a number of exciting opportunities. As what will be one

• ?

of the premier institutions for forensics in the world, it will without doubt attract

top graduate students. Bioanthropology (physical anthropology) students will

benefit from this new facility. Since the Department anticipates developing

another diploma stream in forensic studies and, initially, a Masters degree, these

will require an expansion of course offerings. Unless the founding of the Centre

is adequately staffed with technicians, it will put a further strain on the already

over-worked support staff in the Department (see below). We are also concerned

that the prominence of the Centre for Forensic Research will overshadow the

important role of the Museum and draw resources away from it.

2. Library, Centre for Forensic Research, Museum, First Nations Studies, Kamloops

Program

The library

The library has not had many years to accumulate resources, but it nevertheless appears

to do a good job of providing Archaeology students with material for their coursework.

The External Review Committee was impressed with the liaison between the Department

and the librarians, and there was a good level of awareness about the main issues of

student and coursework requirements. As at many other universities, the arrival of

electronic journals has clearly helped subjects like archaeology, which draw on serials

from many different disciplines. Electronic journals are purchased as packages from

different publishing groups, which often include a variety of titles and maintain

continuity in areas that might not otherwise be maintained. The main difficulty

mentioned by students was availability of books which are in heavy demand for

coursework. They have, however, been able to make use of the University of British

Columbia Library and the excellent SFU inter-library loan provision. It is unusual in a

university for inter-library loans to be available free of charge. It was also apparent that

there were adequate funds available for books, which could be recommended by faculty

for particular courses. In view of the students' comments, it would make sense for

faculty to review the provision of books to support courses along with other aspects of

undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, as suggested elsewhere in this report. It was

difficult to assess the library as a resource for Ph.D. students and faculty research, but the

interlibrary loan system must be an important source in providing material for research

and, providing the exact citations are known, it is a relatively convenient way to assemble

material for a bibliography.

The Centre for Forensic Research

The Centre is a not a completely new direction for the Department, because one member

of faculty has been active in forensic work for some years. It does, however, represent a

major new initiative, involving extensive collaboration with Criminology, and will

inevitably have a large impact on the way in which the Department is run. The new CRC

position, most of the research activity of the existing forensic-active Archaeology faculty

members, and part of the research activity of another Archaeology faculty member will

all be committed to work in the Centre, which will be an inter-departmental centre, run

jointly with the School of Criminology. There are plans to run forensic courses. The

effect of this will be to reduce the faculty available for teaching archaeology courses as

they currently stand, although the forensic courses will make available a range of new

options which archaeology students could presumably opt-for if they wished. The major

suite of new forensic laboratories will be running at a very staff intensive health, safety

and security level. This will require more laboratory staff because the current staff,

although they are clearly excellent and dedicated, already have far too much work (as is

made clear elsewhere in this report). If the new Centre is successful in funding the

planned large items of equipment, the Review Committee cannot see how its new

laboratories could be run with fewer than 2 dedicated laboratory technicians. It is very

unlikely that either research grants or contract work would provide the continuity of

funds required for this, so this would have implications for additional funding within

SFU.

The Review Committee considers the Centre an exciting new direction for the

department's research. When fully established, it will be amongst the forefront of

research provision in forensic archaeology on a world scale, and has tremendous

potential. It also involves a tremendous commitment, and inevitably a changing balance

in the Archaeology Department's work. The priority of the new Centre is clearly

research and the growth in volume of publications and grants must be rapid during the

first years of its work, if it is to make its mark. If this effort is to succeed, the Department

of Archaeology and School of Criminology will need to support the centre with

faculty/staff time and resources. This will quite possibly require a re-distribution of time

-4---

• ?

and resources from the longer established areas of activity in the Department. It became

apparent to the External Review Committee that not all Department members share the

view that forensic archaeology is a good direction for SFU to go in, which suggests that

care will be needed in sharing resources. Other interests in Archaeology will need to be

kept aware of the additional facilities which have become possible with the building of

the Centre, for example the new non-forensic laboratories and extra space. In addition, as

teaching and its associated administrative load in Archaeology are currently carried by a

relatively small group of faculty members, it will be important to ensure that they are not

overlooked in the excitement of this new initiative. They too need to be given research

opportunities and to feel valued. The Centre for Forensic Research already has a

substantial complement of fully or partly committed faculty in Archaeology, Criminology

and Biology. In future years, when new faculty are appointed to replace retiring

archaeologists, the Review Committee therefore feels there is a strong argument for

ensuring that their job descriptions are defined in ways that maintain the other strengths

of the Department of Archaeology.

The museum

The Museum is a long standing part of the Archaeology Department. It has a small

display area which is open every weekday to members of the university and the public.

Also, the review committee understood that the Department has a legal requirement as

the designated repository for finds from its excavations in British Columbia and the

• ?

Museum is charged with that responsibility. This is being augmented by large collections

of photographic slides from the research of faculty recently retired or nearing retirement.

The museum supplies collections ofartefacts to be used during practicals for some

Department courses. More recently, the museum has been presenting itself as a website,

aimed at schools and general public interest. In addition, courses on museum studies

have been offered, particularly aimed at First Nations people, amongst whom there is a

strong demand for the skills required for setting up their own museums and visitor

centres. This is all done on the initiative of a single member of department staff— no

member of the established faculty seems to be involved on a day to day basis. The

Review Committee could see clearly that the Museum Curator does not have sufficient

time to balance all these different activities, particularly if the museum is to be kept open

every day. We understood that several unsuccessful cases had been made by the

Department for a further member of staff to support the museum. The Review

Committee felt that one aspect to this question might be that the Curator is seen simply as

a member of the Departments staff, assisting in the research and teaching of the

department by maintaining laboratories and collections. For many departments, the

present complement of staff might seem adequate for the task, but this ignores the fact

that running a museum is a completely different activity to the normal run of university

department activity. The modem concept of a museum is a facility that reaches out into

the surrounding community, making available its resources not only as displays of

objects, but through classes and talks, and there has been a particularly strong trend

recently to provide internet resources. This is what the Museum Curator is currently

. ?

trying to do. We feel that it is potentially a very important role, which would provide a

valuable public relations resource for SFU, particularly in links with First Nations, and

could be an essential component to disseminating the knowledge accumulated through

faculty research. Many universities are recognizing the importance of their collections

and senior academics are appointed to direct them - for example at the University of

British Columbia, or further afield at University College London. With this in mind, the

Review Committee was surprised to find that the Museum Curator was not a member of

faculty. In any case, there is a clear role for teaching in museology and heritage

resources.

The impression given is that the museum is to a large extent taken for granted. The

Curator has carved out a niche, in spite of the tiny resources allocated, building on a

small scale the activities of a modern museum. It does not appear that the either

Department or the University have recently reviewed the mission of the museum and

there are many questions that could be asked. What is it there for? Is it mainly a

repository for the finds of Department excavations? If so, when will they be fully

catalogued and accessioned? Should it mainly act in support of Department teaching, or

does it have a wider public role? Does it need to be open all day, every weekday? In

what other ways could its resources be used? Would the University benefit from a

growth in the museum's activities; particularly an expansion of its internet resource? A

lot of the collection could be made available that way, and could be a valuable research

resource that would attract interest from many archaeologists worldwide. At the same

time photographs, plans, commentary could be made available and it would be an

effective way in which the university could disseminate its research activities. Should the

museum be involved in the growth of First Nations Studies at SFU? If so, is it most

appropriately called a museum, or would another title be better? What use should be

made of the additional rooms which will become available for it when the new building is

completed? How best might it be integrated into the new atrium, which could make a

really impressive display space, and link well with the First Nations Studies teaching

rooms? What role might external fund-raising play in financing the museum? The

Review Committee feels that the museum is potentially an important resource for SFU,

and merits a thorough review of its role, activities and the staffing and funding required

to fulfill them. As it stands, there seems little scope for development but, with

encouragement at a senior level, imagination and some more funding we are convinced

that a great deal could be achieved.

First Nations Studies, Kamloops Program

Both First Nations Studies (FNS) on the Burnaby campus and the Kamloops Program are

at critical junctures in their development. With regard to FNS at Burnaby, Eldon

Yellowhom has a joint appointment in FNS and Archaeology. The other FNS faculty

member, Annie Ross, is an artist with a joint appointment in Contemporary Arts.

Unfortunately, we were unable to meet with Dr. Ross during our visit. We understand

that SFU intends to fill 2 additional positions in FNS in coming years, and we heard

interest in someone who could teach ethnography, history, and/or ethnohistory. We see

this as an excellent way to expand the breadth of courses that would be of interest to

students majoring in Archaeology, but also those who choose a joint major in FNS. We

strongly encourage the Department to recruit strong faculty to help solidify FNS at SFU.

In our discussions with the Undergraduate Committee, we heard concerns about the lack

of First Nations students in the SFU field schools (with the exception of Kamloops) and

as Archaeology majors. We understand that the number of First Nations students in

Archaeology is at a considerably lower proportion than their overall proportion at the

University. We would like to encourage more outreach to First Nations and active

recruitment of First Nations students. We did hear from the Museum Director that there

was significant interest among First Nations in gaining skills in museology and heritage

resource management. This is a special niche SFU could fill in future years.

We are pleased to note that the 2004 external review of the Kamloops program praised

the Archaeology program and the Summer Field School as "excellent" and "world-

renowned". Most students in this program are members of First Nations. The Kamloops

field schools have provided both First Nations and non-First Nations students with an

excellent opportunity to work together in mutually rewarding ways.

We were concerned to hear about recent problems in Kamloops, particularly the

substandard physical facilities that seem to have contributed to George Nicholas's

departure. The external review of the Kamloops program (p.

15)

recommended that

"immediate attention" be given to the technical infrastructure, especially to the working

computers with memory sufficient to run complex statistical programs. We do not know

whether the committee's recommendation has been acted on, but we endorse it and also

• ?

recommend that immediate attention be given to repairing and upgrading the facilities.

Barbara Winter's efforts to teach in Kamloops have been very successful, and we

understand that interest in museology and collections management is high in Kamloops.

We concur with the recommendation of the external review (p.15) that Museum Studies

at SFU be coordinated with the Kamloops program. To do so effectively, Museum

Studies will require additional resources and staff (see above).

We believe the Kamloops program represents a rare opportunity for SFU to directly

address the needs of a First Nation community. We are glad to hear that SFU is still

committed to the Kamloops Program and hope it will be supported accordingly.

With Dr. Nicholas's move to Burnaby and his experience running a First Nations

program, he is in an excellent position to help Archaeology recruit more First Nations

students. With Dr. Welch in Resource Management, Dr. Winter of the Museum, along

with long-time Archaeology faculty members who actively work with First Nations (eg.,

Dana Lepofsky, Alan McMillan, Phil Hobler, Roy Carlson, etc.), and strong leadership

from Dr. Burley, we see a critical mass of individuals committed to the synergistic

development of First Nations Studies. As stated elsewhere in this report, we believe the

Museum can become a key resource center for First Nations as well. With such a strong

focus in indigenous issues forming on the Burnaby campus, we expect the Department

will attract more undergraduate majors as well as top graduate applicants.

3. Technical and Administrative Support Staff

Both the technical and the administrative support staff received high praise from

the students and faculty alike. They were described as dedicated, hard-working,

knowledgeable, skilled, capable, conscientious, supportive, well-organized, courteous,

cheerful, and friendly. Indeed, we were able to observe many of these qualities during

our brief visit and concluded that Department was very fortunate to have such a capable

and dedicated staff. At the same time, it was clear that the staff is over-worked, and that

with the addition of the Centre for Forensic Research and associated programs, the

workload will exceed their capacity.

Administrative

Office Staff. The increased number of faculty, the planning for

the new Centre, and the adoption of the People Soft systems have put a strain on

the administrative staff. The strain will be worsened when the Centre is up and

running. Currently the Departmental Assistant manages the budget and financial

affairs of the department and also acts as undergraduate advisor. These are two

nearly full-time jobs. With the large number of grants won by the faculty,

financial management is particularly onerous. The Chair's secretary is also the

graduate secretary. Additional support staff is required. We recommend at least

an additional half-time position and would prefer a full-time position. The

responsibilities of all positions should be reorganized so that the new person takes

on the duties of the undergraduate advisor and graduate secretary, relieving the

burden on the Departmental Assistant and the Chair's secretary.

• Technical Staff. The Department has a Labs Manager and a Technical Assistant.

As mentioned above both are very capable. The Labs Manager has many years of

experience as well as a graduate degree in archaeology. Technical staff positions

have not increased to meet the needs of the faculty positions added over the past

few years. As a result, technical staff are not able to meet all of their

responsibilities. We strongly recommend that a technical staff position be added,

exclusive of the anticipated staffing needs of the laboratories of the new Centre

for Forensic Research.

• Technical Staff for the Centre for Forensic Research. As noted above, we have

concluded that the Centre will require at least two dedicated laboratory staff

positions to meet its research, health, safety, and security requirements.

4. Faculty Research.

The Department of Archaeology can be proud of its research record. It is one of

the three leading departments in the Arts Faculty as measured by per capita research

grants. All members of the faculty are actively engaged in research, and all have strong

publication records. Some of the faculty are recognized internationally as leaders in their

fields of study. Faculty research supports graduate research. The current broad

geographical distribution of faculty research projects enables graduate students to pursue

their dissertation research in Africa, Oceania, Asia and South America, in addition to

Northwestern North America, which has been the historical focus of research in the

Department. The geographical expansion of faculty research, we believe, has

strengthened the graduate program and has enhanced the international reputation of the

Department, but we do agree that the regional focus on the archaeology of Northwestern

L-1

•

North America should not be sacrificed as the Department expands its program. We,

therefore, concur with the Department's decision that priority be given to Northwest

Coast archaeology as well as quantitative methods when the next faculty position

becomes available.

5. Undergraduate Program

The Undergraduate Program is tightly structured, with four courses prescribed as lower

division requirements and seven courses distributed across four groups of courses for

upper division requirements. From the outside, it appears that the bulk of faculty

teaching effort is being directed at undergraduates (not graduate students). Although the

External Review Committee applauds the Department for devoting so much energy to

undergraduate teaching, the program appears to be designed to train all Archaeology

majors for careers in archaeology. While this is laudable, we wonder if 1) all majors go

on to professional positions, and 2) if the Department might attract more majors with a

more flexible program. We heard about problems with two courses on several occasions:

human osteology and quantitative methods. Undergraduate students complained that

human osteology was not necessary for all students and that it wasn't taught frequently

enough. Students and faculty complained that quantitative methods was not taught

frequently enough. As both courses are part of the 'Group 1 - Core Program," the

relative unavailability of either course affects the demand for the other. Options to

• ?

consider regarding quantitative methods include current faculty developing a distance

education course and/or hiring a new faculty member prepared to teach it. We also found

that while the Department's offerings in laboratory courses were especially strong,

regional and topical course offerings were fewer, and had not been adjusted in a way to

reflect the research and teaching interests of new faculty. We recommend that the

Department consider reducing the number of required courses and adjusting its regional

and topical course offerings to reflect the current interests of faculty. Overall, we would

like to see the Department reduce some of its emphasis on undergraduate teaching and re-

direct it to graduate teaching. To accomplish this, we recommend that the Undergraduate

Program Executive Committee undertake a review of the undergraduate program. Every

year, the Chair of this committee should receive a course release, consistent with what we

understand to be the practice of other departments at Simon Fraser University.

6. Graduate Program

In contrast to the Undergraduate Program, the External Review Committee found that the

Graduate Program is more loosely structured, with only minimal distinction between the

Master's and Ph.D. programs. For each only three courses are required: 1) Graduate

Seminar, 2) Archaeological Theory, and 3) Research Design. The Interim Review in

September, however, does provide an opportunity for the supervising committee to

advise each student. We heard that this is when graduate students are directed to take

undergraduate courses to fill-in gaps in their background and training.

The graduate student representatives we met with stated that overall they were very

them to different types of archaeological research, including that of their fellow students,

they didn't seem to feel the resulting interaction with faculty was sufficient to meet their

academic needs. It appears that there is no formal opportunity for students to learn about

and interact with all faculty. Further, the students did not feel they knew about all

departmental facilities and equipment. The students requested a "Departmental Manual"

as they seem to feel that the

Guide to the Archaeology Graduate Programme

did not fully

meet their needs. Moss discussed the proseminar in her department at the University of

Oregon as a possible way to address both complaints. Each student takes this course

during the fall term of their first year. It introduces students to departmental structure and

program requirements, research and teaching of faculty, teaching opportunities and

expectations, university resources, and external funding sources. Throughout the term,

students read one paper by each faculty member and discuss it with them. A similar

course, we understand, is offered in some departments at SFU, e.g., in the School of

Criminology.

A major concern of both graduate students and faculty was the scarcity of TAs and GFs.

Students felt that lack of financial support was the cause of students pushing the time

limit for earning their degrees. Faculty and students agreed that the experience of both

undergraduates and graduates had suffered in the absence of tutorials— these provide

discussion opportunities for undergrads in the large lower division courses, and valuable

teaching experience and financial support for graduate students. We strongly urge the

university to provide financial support to the Department to reinstate these tutorials. We

emphasize that in making this recommendation, we are reiterating one of the

recommendations of the 1998 external review.

The Department's self-study reports that graduate supervision is not given any credit

toward faculty workload. We believe this contradicts the University's "Tenure-track

Faculty Workload Policy" and suggest that the Department consider instituting a

"Frequent Teaching Credits" Policy, along the lines of the one employed by the School of

Criminology, so that faculty workloads are more equitable.

We heard from the Graduate Program Executive Committee -that many applicants to the

Department are interested in Northwest Coast archaeology. Those interested in the

Northwest Coast are being referred to Dana Lepofsky as a potential advisor. While we

are most impressed with Professor Lepofsky' s efforts, if the Department is to retain its

historical strength in Northwest Coast, other faculty should be willing to supervise

students working in this important world region. One obvious supervisor who is being

overlooked on the basis of a technicality is Alan McMillan, an Adjunct faculty member

who has been teaching in the Department and serving on graduate committees for

decades. Considering his active field program, we strongly encourage the University to

allow Professor McMillan to supervise graduate students.

0 ?

Additional Issues

Safety and Security

During the on-site visit, we were asked by the administration to review the extent to

which the faculty, staff, and students were cognizant of safety issues relating to

laboratory and field research. During our relatively brief time in the Department, it

wasn't possible to verify first-hand whether proper safety procedures were being

followed. We did raise the issue with the Dr. Burley, with some of the faculty, and with

the technical staff, and feel satisfied that they do follow safety procedures and are aware

that it is important to take advantage of available training. Dr. Burley and the technical

staff are also well aware of the increased hazards and risks associated with the soon-to-

be-built forensic laboratories and are formulating plans to address the safety issues. We

encourage them to work with the office of the Vice-President Research in assessing the

required training in safety procedures and to take advantage of existing training programs

as much as possible. We understand that the safety office offers courses 3 times a year

for new staff and students; the Department should consider making these courses

mandatory for its staff and students, especially for those for whom bio-safety is a

concern.

The new forensic facilities will also require a heightened level of security, especially with

respect to the "level three" laboratory. We are satisfied that the Department, together

with the School of Criminology, is cognizant of these security needs and is taking

measures to ensure that they are put in place.

Synergies with Other Programs

It is in the nature of archaeological research to draw on the knowledge and expertise of a

large number of disciplines. Archaeologists rely on the support and collaboration of a

broad range of professionals to help further their research. Historians, linguists,

ethnographers, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, human biologists, geologists,

geophysicists, geographers, chemists, computer scientists and experts from many more

disciplines and sub-disciplines are required to successfully carry out the various aspects

of archaeological investigation, not to mention the many supportive technical fields such

as remote sensing, digital imaging, photography, etc. We found that the Department of

Archaeology at SFU encourages and facilitates these links between the faculty of the

Department and other professionals. Dr. Yang, for example, in pursuing his research on

ancient DNA consults regularly with members of the Biology department who pursue

related research. Dr. Rolf Matthewes, a Biology professor, holds an adjunct position in

Archaeology, as does Dr. David Huntley from Physics.

The association with First Nations Studies constitutes a growing synergistic relationship

for Archaeology, which enhances both teaching and research within the Department.

One member of the Department, Dr. Eldon Yellowhom, has ajoint appointment with

•

FNS. The cross appointment of Dr. Welch with the School of Resource and

Environmental Management has established another cross-disciplinary connection

promising research synergies and the possibilities of developing certificate and degree

programs in Heritage Resource Management. With the addition of Dr. Nicholas, the

work of Dr. Winter, and the commitment of other Archaeology faculty members to work

with First Nations Communities, we see great potential for exciting synergistic

developments in archaeology, heritage resources management, and museology that will

distinguish SFU among Canadian universities, and among research institutions world-

wide.

As described at length elsewhere in this report, the Centre for Forensic Research firmly

links Archaeology with the School of Criminology, and there are plans for the

development of new graduate degrees together with a significant expansion of research

facilities.

The Department has also established teaching, supervisory, and collaborative

relationships with faculty from Douglas College, enriching their undergraduate program.

We would like to see an expansion of the supervisory capacity of 'the adjunct faculty who

are archaeologists.

We believe these cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary relationships, both departmental

and individual, strengthen all aspects of the Department's teaching and research

programs, and we encourage the Department to aggressively pursue whatever extra-

department links they regard as potentially beneficial.

9^^

0 ?

RECOMMENDATIONS

Review the Undergraduate Program. We believe there may be too many

required courses. The Undergraduate Program Chair must be given a

course release, consistent with what we understand to be the practice in other

departments at SFU. The Undergraduate Program Review, should be

conducted by the Undergraduate Executive Committee.

Tutorials must be reinstated in the lower division courses in Archaeology.

The quality of undergraduate education has suffered since these were

removed, particularly in view of the hands-on character of archaeology.

More Teaching Assistantships are required to support graduate study in the

department and to give valuable teaching experience to graduate students.

Using graduate students solely as markers is insufficient training.

The Graduate program may benefit from more structure and possibly more

courses, especially at the M.A. level. The Department may want to re-

consider the format of the Graduate Seminar (ARCH 872/873) to include

orientation and interactive discussion of faculty research.

• ?

5. We encourage the Department to retain its historical strength in Northwest

Coast Archaeology. This should be considered with respect to future hirings,

enhancing the roles of adjunct professors (i.e., to allow them to serve as

graduate student supervisors), and further development of relationships with

First Nations and the Museum.

The important role and potential role of the museum with respect to

Departmental goals and the wider goals of the University need to be

recognized. We recommend that a committee be struck to consider an

expanded role for the Museum within the Department and the University

and to seek external funding. In particular we see great potential for

increasing the profile of the University in First Nations' issues.

The Department's collections from excavations on the Northwest Coast

represent a resource of international significance. These collections must be

completely accessioned and made accessible for research. Emeritus faculty

will have a key role to play in making this a success.

The Department should continue to consider new ways to recruit First

Nations students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Outreach

to First Nations should be a priority for the Department and the Museum.

. ?

9. Review department practices in light of the Tenure-Track Faculty Workload

Policy with respect to equity in workload within the department. Consider

adopting features of a point-based reward system such as those used in other

departments. ?

10.

We are concerned that with the continued secondment of one faculty

member as Graduate Dean and the loss of a full-time lecturer position that

the department will be short staffed with respect to meeting its teaching load.

Sessional positions may be required to fill the void.

11.

The Centre for Forensic Research will require several additional laboratory

staff dedicated to the maintenance, use, safety, and security of the facility.

Salaries for these positions should be built into the operating budget for the

Centre.

12.

An additional staff position needs to be added to the administrative staff.

Currently the Department Assistant is managing the budget and acting as

Undergraduate Advisor. That is not sustainable in light of the new Centre

and the anticipated expansion of programs.

13.

An additional laboratory staff position is required. The current staff are

extraordinarily effective but are clearly over committed and do not have the

time to complete important projects. They describe their jobs as mainly

crisis management, but clearly enjoy the work environment.

14.

The Department should review the way in which quantitative techniques and

data analysis are taught at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, now

and in relation to future faculty appointments.

J-4

0 ?

Appendix

Summary of Visit of the External Review Committee.

The external review committee met with the following individuals and committees during

their visit to the SFU campus.

•

Senior Administrators: We met with the senior administrators collectively at the

outset of the visit and again at the conclusion of the visit. This included Dr. B.

Krane, Associate VP Academic; Dr. J. Driver, Dean of Graduate Studies; Dr. M.

Pinto, VP Research; Dr. J. Pierce, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences; and

Dr. G. Nicholls, Director Academic Planning. We also met individually with Dr.

Driver, Dr. Pinto and Dr. Pierce.

•

Dr. D. Burley, in his capacity as Chair of the Department of Archaeology.

•

Dr. E Yellowhom, Dr. D. Lepofsky and A. Sullivan (Dept. Assistant) as executive

members of the Undergraduate Curricula Committee

•

D. Burley in his capacity as

defacto

Director of First Nations Studies. Dr. A.

Ross, who holds a cross appointment between FNST and the School for

Contemporary Arts, was unable to meet with us.

•

Undergraduate students who are members of the undergraduate student caucus in

the Department of Archaeology.

•

Department Administrative Staff, including A. Sullivan, Dept. Assistant; R.

Bannerjee, Graduate Secretary and Chair's Secretary; and I. Gregson,

Receptionist.

•

Dr. C. D'Andrea, Dr. R. Jamieson, and R. Bannerjee (Graduate Secretary) as

executive members of the Graduate Committee.

•

The Associate Professors collectively: Dr. C. D'Andrea, Dr. G. Nicholas, Dr. D.

Lepofsky, Dr. J. Welch. Dr. L. Bell was unable was away at conference and

unable to attend the meeting.

•

The Full Professors collectively: Dr. D. Burley, Dr. E. Nelson, Dr. B. Hayden, Dr.

K. Fladmark. Dr. M. Skinner was away and unable to attend the meeting.

•

Untenured faculty collectively: Dr. R. Muir, Dr. E. Yellowhorn, Dr. D Yang, Dr.

R. Jamieson.

•

Emeritus, Associate and Adjunct Professors collectively: Dr. R. Carlson, Dr. P.

Hobler, Dr. D. Huntley, Dr. R. Matthewes, Dr. A. McMillan, Dr. M. Wilson.

Unfortunately, Dr. Shutler (Emeritus Professor) was unable to meet with us.

•

Forensic Group. Dr. Ii Yang, and Dr. R. Matthewes were present for the meeting.

Dr. L. Bell, Dr. M. Skinner and Dr. G. Anderson were away from campus, but we

were able to speak with each of them by telephone.

•

The Library Group, including Dr. Ross Jamieson, G. Bird (Head Collections

Management) and C. Graebner (Archaeology Liaison Librarian).

• Dr. George Nicholas regarding the Kamloops Program.

• A. Barton (Laboratory Manager) and S. Wood (Technician).

• Dr. B. Winter, Museum Curator.