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

S.06-133

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

RE:

Faculty Structure Task Force

Final Report (SCUP 06- 52)

FROM: ?

At its October 25, 2006 meeting SCUP reviewed and approved the Final Report of the

Faculty Structure Task Force.

SCUP endorsed the report and recommends approval of the following motions to

Senate:

Motion

That Senate approve a second phase to the faculty structure initiative and create a

"Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure".

Motion l:

That Senate approve the following mandate for the Phase 2 Task Force on

Academic Structure:

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 configuration 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.

•

Motion Ill:

That Senate approve 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

ask Force on Academic Structure and will attempt to ensure some continuity in

W't Ctf'I

membership between the Phase 2 Task Force and the Faculty Structure Task Force.

Clerical and/or professional personnel will be appointed as required by the Vice

President, Academic.

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. ''

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 endeavour to present its final

recommendations to Senate by November 2007.

Motion IV:

That Senate approve that the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure be guided by

the eight principles of assessment outlined in this final report.

end.

LA)OVtsr, ,yOUp

&*tI

;c.tMe 54v.ekt4 rep(e3et ho

P,.

Final Report of the Faculty Structure Task Force

October 19, 2006

Page 1

Introduction:

Most university restructuring initiatives internationally have been precipitated by a context of

crisis: whether fiscal crisis, crisis of reputation, or crisis of vision. None of these were in play at

Simon Fraser University when the Vice President, Academic, Dr. John Waterhouse, established

the Faculty Structure Task Force in October 2005. Rather, the mandate of the Task Force is to

assess the opportunities of the future, to review Simon Fraser University's academic structure and

its strategic vision for the future and to answer the following 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?

After nearly a year of deliberations and community consultations, the Faculty Structure Task

Force has concluded that there are opportunities for the University to advance its strategic goals

more effectively and visibly. To do so will require some structural change. We do not believe,

however, that changes in Faculty organization are necessary in all areas of the University.

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. With these 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; to 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. The Faculty Structure Task Force recommends that Senate approve the creation of a

Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure. The Faculty Structure Task Force also recommends

eight principles and a procedural framework that we believe should guide the deliberations and

activities of the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure. These recommendations are

specifically outlined at the conclusion of this report.

This Final Report of the Faculty Structure Task Force is not intended to reiterate the detail

provided in our earlier discussion document

"Sommes Nous Préts?" .

That document, taken to

the University community as part of a broad-based consultation process, outlined our

understanding of structural elements, examined the inherent tensions of the University, and

provided a comprehensive profile of the changing internal and external social, political,

demographic, fiscal and intellectual contexts. We examined academic structures and studied

restructuring initiatives at other institutions. We articulated a vision for Simon Fraser University in

the year 2025 drawn from strategic planning documents, President's Agenda, and statements of

our values and principles. Our discussion document came to no conclusions and made no

recommendations.

I ?

The discussion document and executive summary can be found at

http://www.sfu.ca/vT)academic/Committees

TaskForces/Ad Hoc Committees/FacultY Structure Task Force/index.html

Page 2

By contrast, this Final Report, informed by the views of the nearly 100 members of the University

community who attended the open forums or wrote to the Faculty Structure Task Force, highlights

only a few aspects of our investigation. In this Final Report we identify key issues in our internal

and external environment that, taken together with the goals, vision and aspirations for Simon

Fraser University in the future, have persuaded the members of the Faculty Structure Task Force

that the University should consider and thoroughly examine the potential of alternative academic

configurations, structures and/or systems of support.

Wh y

the Task Force Recommends a Second Phase:

Simon Fraser University remains fundamentally committed to our values of innovation,

excellence, integration, community outreach and engagement, and flexibility and responsiveness.

As a community we continuously reaffirm our commitment to core liberal arts and science

programming and research and our dedication to developing innovative professional and applied

programming and approaches to inquiry. Simon Fraser University, however, is a remarkably

different institution from when it first opened its doors in

1965.

It is different in terms of size,

profile, breadth of programming, diversity of research, and engagement with its community. The

Faculty Structure Task Force believes that the internal landscape at Simon Fraser University has

changed significantly in at least five ways.

First, since 1965 Simon Fraser University has witnessed a tenfold increase in its student

population. Growth, however, has not occurred uniformly across the academic disciplines in the

• University. In the last decade alone, between 1994/95 and 2004/05 when all Faculties excluding

Health Sciences were in existence, student enrolment has increased overall by

31%.

There have

been remarkable differences in growth by Faculty as depicted in Table 1 below.

I able I: Student Enrolment Urowth Com

p arison 1994/95 to 2004/2005 b

2004/2005 FTE Enrolment

Arts & Social Sciences

7,353.20

8,723.28

18.6%

Business Administration

The unprecedented scale of growth in the Faculty of Applied Sciences can be attributed primarily

to the "Double the Opportunity" program of the Provincial Government and to the creation of the

School of Interactive Arts and Technology at the Surrey campus. The differential growth of units

within the Faculty of Applied Sciences and by the Faculty of Applied Sciences in contrast to other

Faculties across the University has led to increasing calls by these units to reconsider their

configuration within the University's academic structure.

Second, Simon Fraser University now has five campuses in four different cities - Burnaby,

Vancouver. Surrey and Kamloops. Each campus has a unique role and mandate that maximizes its

Includes the Great Northern Way Campus.

Page 3

strengths in meeting the needs of the different communities within which it is situated. This

however, Simon Fraser University must retain an identity as a single institution and we must

ensure that the members of the University community and our academic programming and

research, regardless of campus location, are integrated and connected in meaningful ways. We

must ensure that while our academic structure provides an integrating framework for Simon Fraser

University as a whole, it also has an embedded flexibility that will enable our five campuses to

develop in accordance with their unique mandates and distinct communities. The significant

campus development in Surrey and Vancouver in recent years lends itself to a reflective process

that would determine whether the current academic structure can sustain our plans in the

broadening multi-campus environment.

Third, there has been, particularly in recent years, a significant expansion of the number and types

of academic units at Simon Fraser University. Included in this expansion is the emergence of a

growing number of small, academic programs that are independent from departments or schools.

These new programs are predominantly in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences although there

have also been some new programs developed in the Faculty of Applied Sciences and the Faculty

of Science'. The increasing number of programs demonstrates the remarkable way in which Simon

Fraser University is able to diversify its programmatic offerings in response to contemporary

society and as new fields of inquiry emerge. This genre of independent program is characterized

by a small number of faculty and student enrolments, and yet it shares many of the structural and

administrative features of significantly more complex and larger departments and schools. From a

structural and administrative point of view, the Faculty Structure Task Force questions the

efficacy of the predominantly uniform administrative model that currently governs academic units

at Simon Fraser University.

Fourth, new areas of strategic research and programming strength have emerged at Simon Fraser

University since the last review of Faculty structure in 1983/1984. We have witnessed

"supplemental" areas of strength develop such as the new Faculty of Health Sciences. This new

Faculty, created in 2004, was provided with the opportunity to develop its own programmatic and

research streams before considering alignments with existing individuals and/or units within the

institution. We heard in the community consultation process that there are questions of the

intersection, strategic direction and affiliation for faculty members and units working in health

areas around the University that need clarification and resolution.

We have also witnessed the emergence of other areas of strategic strength that have yet to be

"clustered". These areas evolve over time when independent initiatives in dispersed departments

achieve a level of critical mass and activity such that their combined activity presents new

opportunities for the University. A "clustering" approach to their configuration might lead to

synergies among the units and lead ultimately to new programs and research initiatives at the

Some examples include the Asia Canada Program, Cognitive Science Program, Explorations Program, First

Nations Studies Program, Graduate Liberal Studies Program, International Leadership Program, Urban Studies

Program, the Master of Publishing Program, and the Masters of Public Policy Program. There are also small

academic programs in other Faculties such as the Tech One Program in the Faculty of Applied Sciences or the

Environmental Science Program in the Faculty of Science.

Page 4

intersections of the units. Such clustering can also lead to increased visibility, increased ability to

attract resources, increased attraction of outstanding undergraduate and graduate students, and an

increased opportunity to work with faculty members who share a common vision. The Faculty

Structure Task Force is aware that there are members of the University community who believe

that several areas of strength have emerged and could benefit from consideration of a new

structural arrangement. The Faculty Structure Task Force has not received, nor did it provide

opportunity to receive, submission from areas of the University that see opportunities before them

for supplemental or clustering strategies to rearrange their activities. We believe that an

opportunity should be presented to the University community to forward submissions for

evaluation against the principles contained within this report.

Finally, the Faculty Structure Task Force has heard that the current academic structure puts

unnecessary pressure on curricular innovations. For example, cohort based undergraduate

programs, while providing innovative learning environments, face many challenges from the

current academic structure. Notwithstanding these challenges, some significant experiments in our

curriculum and major new initiatives have been launched. The experimental Undergraduate

Semester in Dialogue has been successful. Its cohort approach to thematic study focuses on

teamwork, service learning and lateral thinking and has become an exemplar of curricular

innovation. Other cohort-based learning programs are also progressing - Explorations and Tech

One programs at Surrey, and a new Science One program is under development. It is anticipated

that these various curricular structures could be used as "book ends" to the undergraduate

experience combining broad-based introductions to thematic study and preparation for advanced

• learning, as well as a capstone strategy to develop a final integration of the undergraduate learning

experience. While these curricular innovations are going forward, the current academic structure

poses real challenges in areas such as resource allocation strategy, inadequate representation and

advocacy at decision-making tables, and unanticipated policy and governance provisions that raise

issues for participation in these initiatives by faculty and students alike.

The Faculty Structure Task Force envisions that there will be calls on Simon Fraser University to

further diversify its approaches to learning. The pace of intellectual and technological change will

require new areas and modes of lifelong learning, new certificate programs, and a level of

responsiveness to new fields that as yet may be unimagined. There are also sweeping changes in

areas of international relationships, national and international safety and security, international

health issues, to name a few, that will likely create new areas of inquiry and produce demands for

programming in areas that are only now emerging. We must ensure that our academic structure is

well-positioned to support us in this view of the future.

Simon Fraser University, though an autonomous institution, must engage within contemporary

society in local, regional, national and international contexts. It is essential that our academic

structure enables us to successfully engage with the institution's external environment, for the

changing and contemporary world in which we exist will make demands both for curricular

change and research related innovation. While responding to the external context, the University

must remain grounded in the raison d'être of universities and the traditions of disciplinary inquiry

and discovery, and in the pursuit of knowledge that have historical traction and that help to

maintain institutional stability. We must preserve the fundamental independence of the University.

We must also embrace the critical importance of having the capacity to respond to the emerging

Page 5

frontiers of knowledge development both inside and outside of traditional disciplines. The Faculty

Structure Task Force has considered a wide range of factors that are changing the social, political,

demographic, fiscal and intellectual context within which the University is situated. In our view,

three such changes have the greatest potential to intersect with issues of academic structure.

First, historically enrolment at Simon Fraser University, as elsewhere in Canada, has operated

primarily within an environment where demand for university spaces exceeded supply. This is

dramatically changing. Within the next decade, the age 18-21 population of British Columbia (one

of our primary enrolment populations) will decline by 3.6%. Further, the BC Grade XII Enrolment

Projections produced by the BC Ministry of Education, present a flat lining of projected

enrolments over the period 2004 to 2014. The flat-lining and decline are, however, not expected to

be uniform across the lower mainland. In some areas, such as Surrey, there are actually predictions

of growth. As Simon Fraser University has typically attracted many of its students from within the

local area, these projections suggest differential demand for our campuses. At the same time of

general declining 18-21 population projections, the age

25-29

population of British Columbia will

grow by 21.2%. This trend presents significant opportunities for increased demand for graduate

education. In the context of these population projections and flat-lined secondary education

enrolments, the provincial government has committed to fund an additional 25,000 FTE

enrolments throughout the province by 2010/2011; 3,000 FTE of which will, by current Ministry

calculations, be directed to Simon Fraser University.

The combination of these population projections, trends and enrolment forecasts will shift us from

the current supply-driven enrolment environment to an increasingly competitive demand-driven

enrolment context. It is possible that by 2025 we will need to attract an additional 5,000 to 10,000

FTE students. While growth is indeed expected, equally critical to the demand environment is the

desire by Simon Fraser University to attract the highest quality of students. Being successful in an

increasingly competitive post-secondary education environment will require Simon Fraser

University to be clearly recognizable for its strengths, its unique attributes and core commitments,

and the quality of its teaching and research. The academic structure plays an important role in

supporting all of these attributes.

To meet our growth goals and to respond to a significant shift toward a demand-driven enrolment

market, the University must ensure that our research and program strengths are highly visible to

prospective students and that we are meeting the increasing needs for graduate educational

opportunities. It is the view of the Faculty Structure Task Force that we should examine in detail

our academic structure to ensure we are well positioned in both of these areas.

Second, in addition to changes in demand for our programming, the University has been

confronted with a substantial proportional reduction of operating funding from the Provincial

Government over the short five-year period between 2000/01 and 2004/05: 69.2% to 53.9%,

respectively. To continue to sustain high quality educational programming and excellent research

facilities, the University has had to increasingly diversify its fundin

strategy. There is every

indication that such diversification will become increasingly important in the future. We must

therefore ensure that the University's reputation for excellence is strengthened, and that we are

highly visible to prospective contributors to the University. We must ensure that students

recognize our distinctive programming opportunities and attest to their high quality. We must

Pa g

e 6

expand our international reputation to assist us in our financial diversification strategies. We must

engage in research that will attract support from provincial and federal research investment

programs and other contributors. In securing the financial viability to remain one of the best

comprehensive research institutions in the country 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'être of

a University to engage in knowledge conceived within a framework of inquiry, explanation, and

discovery of phenomena.

Third and finally, within the external context, there have been several general transformations in

the intellectual environment over the University's forty-year history. First, the conception of the

University as a place of inquiry, discovery and broad-based learning where knowledge is pursued

as an independent good, and where citizens of the world are created, has been expanded. With an

increasing emphasis on the application of knowledge to issues of public interest and to the

participation of universities in the commercialization of knowledge, there has been significant

redirection, particularly among research funding agencies, of support for applied research. Also,

the growing conviction that multidimensional, multi-perspective, and multidisciplinary approaches

to research questions provide added value has led to increased research funding in support of

interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and collaborative research initiatives. Undoubtedly these

changes in the intellectual environment have had and will continue to have a direct impact on

research and education and ultimately in the birth of new programs and disciplines.

Such notable changes in the direction of research granting funding strategies, however, must be

viewed critically. We should not let this contemporary focus of priority be equated with a

diminishment in the value of basic research and discipline-based inquiry. Simon Fraser University

to date has managed to effectively balance its response to the opportunities afforded by the

changes in the intellectual environment while simultaneously preserving its core commitments to

traditional knowledge generation, discovery and innovation. Going forward, we must ensure that,

while we maintain the ability to provide the mechanisms of adaptability and support necessary to

successfully participate in new arrangements for creating knowledge and ensuring that society

benefits fully from that knowledge, we also ensure that we preserve and reaffirm our commitments

to basic research and disciplinary excellence. Any structural reform at Simon Fraser University

must bear in mind these fundamental commitments.

Taken together, the many changes witnessed and anticipated in the internal and external contexts

within which the university is situated represent to the Faculty Structure Task Force a convincing

array of arguments for further examination of the academic structure of Simon Fraser University.

The Future of Simon Fraser University - a Profile in the Year 2025:

In the previous section we have surveyed changes in the internal and external environment that

persuade us that a review of the academic structure at Simon Fraser University at this juncture is

warranted. However, we do not wish to portray the University as a malleable institution governed

by the winds of change. In contrast, the Task Force is struck by the degree to which our core

values and commitments have stabilized and shaped Simon Fraser University over its history. This

core is the anchor upon which we secure an ambitious vision of Simon Fraser University for the

Page 7

future. The Faculty Structure Task Force's understanding of the vision for Simon Fraser

University in the future reaffirms our view that it is necessary to ensure that our academic

structure best reflects our qualities and strengths and is a structure that will effectively and visibly

advance our ability to realize the future that is imagined. We further believe that for an academic

structure to serve the University effectively, it must be able to provide a solid framework that can

withstand more temporal changes. We draw below our interpolation of the vision for Simon Fraser

University in the year 2025.

In 2025, Simon Fraser University will continue to be known for the value it places upon, and the

commitment it has to, innovation, excellence, integration, engagement and adaptability. Our

commitment to a liberal education in the arts and sciences will remain the core of the University.

We will also continue our development and innovation in applied and professional programming,

and will see significant growth and development in the strategic research areas recently adopted by

Senate: (i) Communication, Computation and Technology; (ii) Culture, Society and Human

Behavior; (iii) Economic Organization, Public Policy and Global Community; (iv) Environment;

and, (v) Health. Simon Fraser University will have an effective and comprehensive structure for

incubating, promoting and supporting interdisciplinary research and programming innovation.

Our far-reaching international strategy will be in evidence through the many significant

international educational and research partnerships that exist between individual faculty members

and institutional arrangements, through the presence of faculty research teams and exchanges,

through opportunities for students to avail themselves of study abroad programs and joint degree

learning opportunities, through the expanded internationalization of the curriculum, and through

increased opportunities for study and research into global issues.

Simon Fraser University in 2025 will have a significantly greater presence in Canada in graduate

education, with expansion projections to between

25-30%

of the student population. We will

become a destination for graduate learning in both the core disciplines and in interdisciplinary

problem-based research. Our graduate students will thus be provided unparalleled opportunities to

engage at the frontiers of knowledge within core disciplines and to obtain a full understanding of

the intersections with other disciplines. We will offer an increasingly diverse array of graduate

programs responding to an increasingly more mature population seeking graduate educational

opportunities.

Our undergraduate students will be afforded one of the best student experiences in Canada. We

will offer a unique undergraduate education characterized by 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);

and experiential learning by means of cooperative education, research participation, civic

engagement and/or international study. We will have a more diversified undergraduate student

complement with increased participation by First Nations students. We will supplement these

educational experiences with a rich spectrum and integrated network of academic and non-

It was not the mandate of the Task Force to create a vision for Simon Fraser University's future. Rather, it was our

role to review the strategic planning documents of Simon Fraser University and understand the future that has been

articulated by the President, strategic planning bodies and bottom-up academic planning processes.

Page 8

academic student services and support.

Simon Fraser University in 2025 will continue its legacy for having the most comprehensive

network of life-long learning opportunities and outreach programs in Canada. To this end we will

embrace the opportunities afforded by our Vancouver and Surrey campuses and the Morris J.

Wosk Centre for Dialogue.

Inspired by this vision of Simon Fraser University in 2025, the Faculty Structure Task Force

believes we must ensure we are able to realize this ambitious portrait of our future. To do so will

require that our structures and governance framework are flexible, supportive, facilitative, and

stimulating of innovation and imagination. It is the view of the Faculty Structure Task Force that

the academic structure of the University should be more extensively examined to ensure it is

capable of supporting our future.

Feedback from the University Community:

Over the past year, the Faculty Structure Task Force has consulted the University community on

five separate occasions. The first consultation, held on February 27, 2006, provided the Task

Force with an opportunity to report to the University community our planned activities and to hear

direction from the community as to what some of the areas of investigation should be for us. On

July 10, 2006 the Faculty Structure Task Force presented its discussion document,

Sommes Nous

• ?

Frets?, to the University community for consideration and feedback at four Open Forums.

We have examined the tensions inherent in a university and the values and commitments that have

defined Simon Fraser University and which continue to frame our understanding of what we will

be in the future. We have thought about the contextual forces that are shaping our world and which

present opportunities and challenges for the University in contemporary society. We have

reviewed the way in which other universities have sought to define themselves through their

academic structure and the reasons why some have engaged in restructuring exercises. We have

traced the history of the academic structure at Simon Fraser University and examined where our

strate g

ic plans are directing us. As we engaged in our investigation we identified four issues that

we felt required further discussion with the University community, and which became the focal

point for engagement with the community at the Open Forums:

(i)

Some curricular initiatives seem to be inadequately supported by the current academic

structure.

(ii)

A variety of models of interdisciplinarity and approaches to the development of

strategic strength are deployed at Simon Fraser University. Some academic areas might

further advance the strategic goals, values and profile of the University if they were

considered for further development under these frameworks, or if they adopted a

different framework.

. ?

The four forums were held on July 17, September 12, September 15 and September 19, 2006. The first two forums

were held at Simon Fraser University's Burnaby Campus, the third at the Vancouver Campus and the fourth at the

Surrey campus.

Page 9

(iii)

There has been a tripling of the number of academic units since the University opened

in 1965 and there is an increasing number of very small academic programs. There is

reason to explore whether the current administrative structure is effectively

differentiated and supportive for academic, collegial, administrative, financial and

managerial purposes across the various types of academic units.

(iv)

There is an opportunity to explore the creation of an incubator for combining

interdisciplinary research programs with the creation of innovative academic

programming.

In total, nearly 100 members of the University community responded to our invitation and joined

the members of the Faculty Structure Task Force in a discussion about our document. The Faculty

Structure Task Force also received several written comments. The issues raised, advice provided,

insights revealed, and views heard from this community consultation process may not be shared

equally by all members of the University community or indeed by all of the members of the

University community who participated in the consultation opportunities. As such we do not

intend to portray the following summary of issues raised in the consultations as carrying the

endorsement of the entire community. The feedback received by the University community has

been critically important to the Faculty Structure Task Force's understanding of the current

environment, and so has shaped the recommendations contained within this Final Report.

We present here a brief sketch of what we learned from the community consultation process:

(a)

The Faculty Structure Task Force heard that our discussion document was viewed as a

carefully constructed and non-threatening, but perhaps overly conservative report. In some

quarters, the discussion document was seen as disappointing for its lack of boldness, its

absence of specifics particularly about the extent to which restructuring might be required,

and its omission of specific recommendations or articulated process for a second phase.

(b)

We were advised that the University should place greater priority on the student learning

experience and that this priority be more clearly represented in our principles to guide

Phase 2. In particular it was noted that two areas of the undergraduate experience should be

better supported by the academic structure: opportunities for academic exploration and

timely degree completion. At the graduate level, the Task Force heard that there would

likely be an increased demand for highly interdisciplinary problem-based learning in some

areas. Such increased demand by graduate students at the intersections of disciplines,

however, was not viewed as supplanting the ongoing desire and need for graduate students

to have identifiable disciplinary training from established disciplines. It was suggested that

Simon Fraser University needs to find a way to support both types of graduate experience

and that the academic structure of the University of the future should be characterized by

its flexibility to allow for pedagogical innovation, breadth of experience, diversity of

learning goals and, a combination of interdisciplinary and core disciplinary training.

(c)

The Faculty Structure Task Force was encouraged by representatives from the Faculty of

Arts and Social Sciences to appreciate the lack of desire for structural change within their

Faculty, to realize that changes that occurred as part of the 1984 restructuring were

damaging and traumatizing for some members and some units and that any process that

moves academic reconfiguration forward must not repeat the 1984 experience. The Task

Page 10

Force was also cautioned not to assume that silence is support, nor equally that silence is

dissent. It was noted that a Phase 2 would need to find ways of soliciting engagement to

the highest degree possible by the silent majority. The underlying message received by the

Task Force from those members of the community who participated in the consultation

process from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences was that we must be certain to retain

configurations and structures that are serving areas of the University well. We must also be

mindful of the anticipated impact that reconfiguration may have on other areas.

(d) We were urged by various representatives from the Faculty of Applied Sciences to move

forward to Phase 2 so that specific options for structural change could be evaluated. The

Task Force heard arguments related to the growth of Computing Science and Engineering

Science at Simon Fraser University over the past decade, to the existence of independent

Engineering Faculties at 22 of 30 Canadian Universities, and to the view that some

members within the Faculty of Applied Sciences do not feel connected to the vision of the

Faculty for the future. The Task Force also heard representatives from Kinesiology voice a

need for clarification and articulation of the relationship between Kinesiology and the

Faculty of Health Sciences. ?

We also listened to a member of the School of

Communication who urged us to be bold, to embrace change and respond proactively to

the changing contemporary society, and to seek new ways to promote and support

interdisciplinarity at Simon Fraser University.

(e) The Faculty Structure Task Force listened to a number of members of the university

community outline interdisciplinary initiatives that were seen to be inadequately supported

by the current academic structure. In fact, comments went so far as to suggest that the

•

academic structure and the governance framework were directly impeding innovation at

Simon Fraser University. While our structural configuration was seen to be constraining or

inhibiting by some, others viewed the lack of support for interdisciplinary initiatives to be

the result of a lack of facilitating mechanisms and policies, rather than the byproduct of

inadequate structural configurations. There was considerable support by the University

community for this area to be more fully explored in a second phase of the faculty

structure initiative.

(f) We listened as several ideas for new structures or reconfigurations and for potential

strategies that would better facilitate and support interdisiplinarity were presented. It is

noteworthy that the Faculty Structure Task Force did not evaluate any of these proposals

nor was there sufficient argumentation provided that addressed how such initiatives met

the principles for assessment and the goals and aspirations of the University in the future.

Nonetheless, the Faculty Structure Task Force did take such submissions and imaginations

as an indication of a strong interest by some members of the University community to

proceed to a second phase where such proposals could be more fully developed and their

viability carefully considered.

(g) We were advised to consider the important pragmatic issues that would need to be

evaluated - most notably issues of fiscal resources, power structures, governance issues,

responsibility and lines of authority - and be aware that the difficulties embedded within

each of these areas would need to be addressed and overcome if any restructuring in the

future was to be successful. The Faculty Structure Task Force was cautioned that achieving

success would require decision-making on the basis of irrefutably sound argument,

political astuteness, and clarity of vision.

Page I

(h) The Faculty Structure Task Force listened repeatedly to concerns that the discussion

document did not specifically outline a process

a Phase 2 of the academic structure

initiative proceeded. It was not clear to members of the University community how areas

that view themselves as well supported by the current academic structure would be

preserved and supported if change were to occur elsewhere. Nor was it clear to the

University community whether the process that unfolded in phase 2 would be respectful of

Simon Fraser University's tradition of broad-based consultation, collegial decision-making

and bottom-up planning. Calls were made to ensure that evidence and sound criteria would

be employed to evaluate how alternative unit configurations would satisfy the principles

presented in the discussion document, or how resource reallocation would occur. There

was also an issue raised as to how the concerns of individual faculty members would be

assessed if they felt that a new unit alignment was incompatible with their personal

research, pedagogy, or public profile.

The Faculty Structure Task Force has been importantly influenced by each of the views outlined

above.

It is clear to the members of the Faculty Structure Task Force that there is strong support in some

areas of the University for changing the current configuration of academic units. Such change

however must be carefully evaluated and considered and it must be remembered that there are

areas of the University that are well served by the current academic structure and whose

contributions to the core values, commitments and future of the University must be preserved.

Structural change, if any, must also be implemented through a process that respects the long-

standing tradition at Simon Fraser University for collegial governance, community engagement

and evidence-based decision-making.

It is also clear to the Faculty Structure Task Force that the area of interdisciplinarity needs to be

more fully investigated. At the time of presenting our discussion document, the Faculty Structure

Task Force was of the view that the University might wish to consider the creation of a

supplemental structure such as a Centre or Institute aimed at combining interdisciplinary research

programs with the creation of new interdisciplinary academic programming. The issue of

interdisciplinarity was one of the most commonly raised issues at the Open Forums. What became

apparent to the Task Force is the degree of interest and concern about the way in which

interdisciplinarity is incubated and facilitated, encouraged and supported both within and outside

of the disciplines. We were advised that if some areas of Simon Fraser University are to be

competitive in the future (both for the success of their research aspirations and also their ability to

recruit excellent undergraduate and graduate students) it will be imperative for them to move to

more problem-based, interdisciplinary educational opportunities. This will further require the

University to develop a better strategy for supporting interdisciplinary innovation in research and

teaching. However, the challenges faced and opportunities imagined will likely extend beyond the

limits of structural solutions. Nonetheless, it is the Faculty Structure Task Force's view that, as

innovation in both the disciplines and at the intersections of disciplines is one of the fundamental

commitments of Simon Fraser University, the impediments to achieving interdisciplinary

innovation at Simon Fraser University must be examined regardless of whether those barriers have

structural or policy roots.

Page 12

Finally, it is clear to the Faculty Structure Task Force that the principles we articulated as

guidelines for a second phase of the restructuring initiative needed to speak more centrally to the

ways in which academic structure and both graduate and undergraduate education intersect. We

have listened.

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Task Force:

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 of policies 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 facilitate and support success.

There is no one right answer to the question of structure, and the Faculty Structure Task Force has

not engaged in the type of careful reflection, analysis, and imagining of whether there are

alternative configurations in some areas of the University that might lead to better recognition and

actualization of the values, strategic priorities and vision of the University for the future. On the

basis of our own investigations and the feedback received through the consultations held with

members of the University community, the Faculty Structure Task Force strongly believes we

should proceed to a second phase of the faculty structure initiative so that such detailed analysis

can occur.

In compliance with our mandate, the Faculty Structure Task Force has identified eight principles

of assessment that we believe should guide the next stage of academic structural review.

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

Page 13

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.

The Faculty Structure Task Force concludes its work by recommending the following four

motions to Senate:

Motion I:

That Senate approve a second phase to the faculty structure initiative and create a "Phase 2

Task Force on Academic Structure ".

Motion II:

That Senate approve the following mandate for the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic

Structure:

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

configuration 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,

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 of study, capstone courses, supplemental learning in tutorials, open laboratories

and technological enhancements), to engage in experiential learning by means of 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 of knowledge within core

disciplines as well as provide opportunities to understand the perspectives of, and intersections with, other disciplines.

Page 14

•

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,

3. 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.

The Faculty Structure Task Force believes it imperative to respond to the feedback received from

the University community regarding process. We recommend that the following process be

employed to guide the activities of the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure.

Motion III:

That Senate approve 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. 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.

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.

Finally, as required by the mandate given to the Faculty Structure Task Force,

Page 15

Motion

IV:

That Senate approve that the Phase 2 Task Force on Academic Structure be guided by the

eight (8) principles of assessment outlined in this final report.

In summary, the Faculty Structure Task Force recognizes the important ways in which we are

successful at Simon Fraser University, the ways in which we are positioned to achieve our future

aspirations, and the ways in which, in many areas of the University, the current academic structure

of the university reflects our qualities and strengths and has enabled us to evolve successfully over

the past 40 years. The Faculty Structure Task Force holds the view though that there are

opportunities for strengthening and better positioning the University for the future. We have heard

from a number of Schools in the Faculty of Applied Sciences that the academic structure is not

serving them as well as might be imagined. We have heard the struggles of innovative

programming such as TechOne and the Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue recalled at open

forums. We have heard the call for Simon Fraser University to find new ways of incubating and

supporting innovation and new programming particularly those of an interdisciplinary nature. We

have listened to some of our colleagues paint pictures of imaginative new programs, Faculties, and

interdisciplinary structures. We have also heard the clear ring of voices in units that feel well

served by the current structure and see their disciplines flourishing and their future strong.

The Faculty Structure Task Force wants to ensure that all areas of the University feel equally well

served by the academic structure. We want to position ourselves to creatively pursue the growth

and opportunities that will emerge as a result of change, and in a manner that ensures not only our

continued vitality but also our continued relevance to the educational mission of post-secondary

education in Canada and in the world. We believe that if we establish effective structures that are

both stable and adaptable, that are both historically rooted and contemporary, we will not only

avoid the crisis that otherwise could potentially accompany further shifts in the intellectual, fiscal,

or demographic environments; but we will have secured for SFU a legacy appropriate to the

university's illustrious beginnings in a time of urgent transformation - a transformation which

SFU was able to imagine not as crisis but as opportunity. We will be able to reaffirm our legacy -

Nous sommes prêts!