SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S.03-20
Senate Committee on University Priorities
?
Memorandum
TO:
Senate
FROM:
John Water
Chair, SCU
Vice Presid
RE:
Department of History
?
DATE:
?
January 10,
External Review
The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External
Review Report on the Department of History together with the response from the
Department and comments from the Acting Dean of Arts.
Motion:
That Senate concurs with the recommendations from the Senate Committee on
University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of History on
priority items resulting from the external review as outlined in s.03-20
. ?
The report of the External Review Committee for the Department of History was
submitted on May 8, 2002 following the review site visit March 21-22, 2002. The
response of the Department Chair was received on August 9, 2002 followed by that of
the Acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts on November 15, 2002.
SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of History and the Dean of Arts be
advised to pursue the following as priority items:
1. Strategic Planning
As a result of the recent self-study and external review processes the Department has
had some significant opportunities to review and reflect on issues surrounding its
overall vision and strategic directions. In addition, with the number of faculty positions
that are currently or about to be vacant, the Department has been provided with a
unique opportunity to explore the use of thematic areas across the existing streams and
to identify opportunities to do things differently. It is evident that the Department has
committed to forging a new and vital pathway for itself and that it has already taken
some definitive steps towards regaining and strengthening its sense of collective
purpose and direction. Noteworthy among these endeavours are efforts to hold
meetings, both informal and formal, to discuss vision, research and programs, ongoing
colloquia and a willingness to engage all faculty members in this process. The
Department is encouraged to continue to pursue its positive and collective efforts in
strategic planning.
2.
Communication and Governance Structures
SCUP recognizes and encourages the Department's recent moves to effectively plan
and to facilitate its vision and strategic directions. It is hoped that the Department will
continue its work to nourish the communication and governance structures that are
necessary to accomplish its rejuvenation. Internally, openness, accountability and the
inclusion of all faculty members, particularly junior faculty, in discussions and decisions
will be key factors in determining the ability of the Department to carry through on its
strategic initiatives. Externally, the Department is urged to strengthen communication
between itself and the University Administration.
3.
Undergraduate and Graduate Programs
Information received from the new Chair suggests that significant work is already
underway in the academic programs to address concerns previously raised by the
External Review Committee. The Department is encouraged to establish faculty hiring
priorities, systematize student recruitment practices, improve its ability to provide
flexible and coordinated responses to changing needs and provide better focus for
students and the academic programs.
4.
Research Resources
A related issue to improving the depth and strength of the undergraduate and graduate
programs as well as serving as a recruitment and retention tool for faculty is the
research resources. Discussions need to be undertaken with the Library for ways to
enrich the print and archival collections for History.
?
0
end.
c: J. Little, Chair, Department of History
J. Pierce, Dean, Faculty of Arts
S
2
SCUP 02 -
1 US
?
LACADEVC
SlMC1 ?
JI1,
Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts
MEMORANDUM
To:
?
John Waterhouse,
?
From: Roger Blackman
Chair, SCUP
?
Acting Dean of Arts
Subject:
External Review of History
?
Date: ?
November 13, 2002
Dean's Report
The external reviewers of the History Department begin their report by
acknowledging the impressive record of scholarly accomplishment of SFU's
historians. We concur enthusiastically with this judgement. The reviewers gave
further accolades to the staff and to relations with the library, both clearly
deserved, before devoting much of the remainder of their 28-page report to three
broad and interrelated areas of concern: morale, curriculum, and administrative
structure.
is
Morale
The reviewers received input from a number of History faculty that they
saw as being reflective of low morale. Taken individually, the reported concerns
are recognizable and perhaps even common characteristics of academic life in a
period in which we are being asked to do more with less. It is possible that the
reviewers' opinions in this regard were shaped by input from a relatively small
and unrepresentative group of faculty with negative views. In aggregate,
however, these concerns were deemed salient enough to warrant their own
substantial section in the reviewers' report. Furthermore, even if it is only a
minority problem, low morale can be infectious.
If there is an underlying theme to the concerns, it has to do with some
faculty members being disillusioned about identifying and achieving departmental
goals. In some cases, the goals seemed so disparate across faculty members
as to be apparently irreconcilable. In other cases, it appears that the means for
collective goal achievement were not seen to be readily available. The History
Department needs to work harder on both these counts. It should create a
working environment that is more conducive to problem-solving, one that more
effectively encourages, facilitates and rewards representative group efforts
directed at identifying and achieving departmental goals.
3
Such a facilitative environment is necessary but not sufficient. Also
needed is a willingness among faculty members, on occasion, to put collectively
determined departmental goals ahead of personally favoured ones. This is one
way to understand the reported lack of cohesion and of mutual support in History
(the reviewers use of the term "anarchy" seems excessive). A weak commitment
of members to departmental needs may thwart the accommodations and the
compromises usually required to achieve collective goals. This makes change
difficult and slows progress. At worst, the ties that bind the department, and
faculty members to it, become brittle and may break.
It is encouraging to see that the Department is already taking steps to
improve morale by adopting many of the recommendations of the review team.
The effectiveness of these and other responses in improving the workplace
climate will be monitored to determine whether more vigorous action is
warranted.
Curriculum
There is pressure to move away from a stream-based to a theme-
based curriculum. This merits serious consideration, for several reasons. It may
provide for a better reflection of contemporary approaches to the teaching of
history. It may supply linkages between areas that will promote greater
interactions between faculty members. It may afford a better framework for a
reconsideration of the faculty renewal plan. And it may yield a map of a
somewhat smaller domain than the department now attempts to cover; resulting
in some deeper and stronger foci of faculty interests. When insufficient
resources make it a real stretch to cover all areas, it is sensible to consider plans
that would lessen the stretch.
There are other pedagogic and curricular features needing attention.
Keeping in mind the mixed model recommended by the external reviewers, the
department should move toward an undergraduate curriculum that has more
meaningful shape, and to a PhD curriculum that has a stronger focus. Core
courses, prerequisites, and varied course structure (lecture/tutorial, seminar) will
likely all have a role to play in reshaping the undergraduate curriculum to better
fit both student needs and resource limitations. Small enrollments make it
difficult to reform the graduate program, but the Deans of Arts and Graduate
Studies are very keen to help the department promote and improve the quality of
the graduate student experience. For its part, the History Department has
indicated a willingness to address most of these curricular issues.
0
Administrative structure
The strong, confident departments in the Faculty of Arts tend to have
committee structures that are based more on election than selection. However,
that sometimes makes it difficult to strike a balanced representation. The
reviewers feel the History Department is in need of such representation on its key
committees, although the Department protests that balance already exists.
Whatever revisions to administrative structures are adopted, they should be
clearly designed to allow the fullest and broadest faculty involvement in key
departmental decisions. This is only process, of course, but process is an
important servant of substance. To achieve substantial progress, faculty
members will all have to make a conscientious commitment to administrative
service, which is a lot to ask when the teaching and research demands are so
heavy. But if the product of such
efforts
is a reinvigorated department pursuing a
common purpose with renewed commitment, it will be well worth the price.
Summary
In conclusion, we see the History Department as being at a crossroads. It
has the capability to rejuvenate itself and become a more cohesive and
innovative unit if it is prepared to commit to hard decisions on morale, curriculum
• ?
and administrative structure. These decisions will have a discernible and lasting
impact as they place the department in a better position to take advantage of
emerging university curriculum requirements, opportunities for co-operation with
other disciplines, the fostering of collegial responsibility, and the development of
a more attractive graduate program.
AMC_^_L
0
5
SCUP O2-
' ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
?
MEMORANDUM
TO: William Krane
?
FROM:
?
Hugh Johnston
Associate Vice-President Academic
?
Chair
RE: External Review Report
?
DATE: ?
8 August 2002
Attached is the Department of History's response to the report of the External
Reviewers, Donna Andrew, Christon Archer and Jim Miller who visited the Department
on 21 and 22 March 2002.
•
AUG 09 2002
110
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
?
RESPONSE TO THE EXTERNAL REVIEW?
21 AND 22 MARCH 2002
The Department of History has received the report of its external reviewers,
Donna Andrew of the University of Guelph, Christon Archer of the University of
Calgary, and Jim Miller of the University of Saskatchewan. Every faculty member and
every graduate student in the department and the department's undergraduate student
representative received copies of the report. The report was discussed at a special
meeting of the department on June
5
and at the regular department meetings on June 27
and July 18. It will continue to be discussed as the department moves forward in its
planning process. This response was approved at the recent department meeting.
The department has a splendid record of individual accomplishment in research,
publishing, teaching, and service. We are proud of this record and pleased that the
reviewers have noted it clearly. The first concern of the University should be whether
History is delivering high quality research and high quality teaching. Is this a department
of which the University can be proud? The answer of the reviewers is brief but definite:
"We were impressed, even before we arrived, by the record of accomplishment of the
historians at Simon Fraser. The volume and significance of their research is outstanding
and ongoing. Their fellowship award record is also evidence
of
their national and
international achievements."
[Not noted by the reviewers, but appended to this report, is a table indicating that, in
Canada other than Quebec and Ontario, SFU has the largest number of students majoring
in History.]
Having given that very positive answer, the reviewers devote the bulk of their
report to questions concerning the administration of the department's programs and its
morale. We share this concern and see most of the specific recommendations of the
/T
• ?
review committee as reasonable, constructive and helpful. We shall consider these
recommendations below and discuss how we will implement them.
We are committed to regaining and strengthening a sense of collective purpose
and direction while retaining our longstanding connections to other programs and
departments. These, we believe, are a source of dynamism in our research and teaching,
and contribute to Simon Fraser University's identity as an interdisciplinary institution.
We have considered, and could continue to consider, how this purpose and direction have
become dissipated. Demographics, patterns of hiring, retirements, department culture, all
have played a role; doubtless there are other reasons as well. It is, however, more
important to work to correct this problem. We propose to do this in the following ways,
building on some, though not all, of the recommendations of the external review.
First, we have begun a series of meetings to discuss our future direction and
program. These have taken place at a regular department meeting, a brown-bag lunch,
and a series of meetings of small groups of faculty members. These meetings will be
ongoing, and have already had a positive effect. Some of these meetings will involve the
whole department, as per the first item in the external reviewer's recommendations.
Second, we will begin a series of informal gatherings in which faculty
members can meet each other without the burden of discussing departmental issues. This
will include a launch for new books by members of the department, an ongoing
discussion of faculty members' research interests and teaching techniques, a workshàp on
publishing, and a workshop on oral history. Each of these will be open to graduate and
undergraduate students as well. The aim is to foster a cooperative climate and td.build
social cohesion. This will be in addition to our continuing, and very successful,
colloquium, a regularly held forum where students and faculty present work in progress
to the department.
Third, the undergraduate studies committee and other interested faculty
members will design a course in historical methods. This will be presented to the
department, not as a mandatory course for students but as a strongly recommended
course. When it is approved by the department and the university, we will monitor the
• ?
course to determine if it should be made a core or mandatory course, instead of simply
introducing a core course, as specified in item number twelve.
I'1
Fourth, the department will take the reviewers' advice to review the streams
We ?
discuss ?
it
system. ?
will ?
what ?
enables us to do and what it prevents us from doing. We
will encourage faculty to develop more thematic, cross-stream courses at the graduate
and undergraduate levels. At that point, we will be able to assess what changes to the
stream system should be made.
Fifth, the department will consider modifying its governance structure by
replacing the Omnibus Committee with an Executive Committee consisting of the Chair
of the department and the elected Chairs of the Graduate and Undergraduate Studies
Committees, and the Chair of the Working Environment Committee. The Executive
Committee would act in an advisory capacity, discussing and framing policy changes in a
coordinated manner, informed by an understanding of the department as a whole. This
recommendation actually came from our department retreat, and we believe it has merit.
Finally, we wish
to
implement one recommendation that has not been suggested
by the external review. At our departmental meeting of 27 June, the Appointments
Committee was charged with developing a list of thematic areas of focus to provide
cohesion and identity to our departmental program, facilitate strategic planning for
appointments, and allow for further definition of our graduate program. it will also allow
us to build on the success of our graduate program, already noted by the external review.
Building our graduate program will do several things. It will differentiate the
department from other BC history departments and the colleges and university-colfeges.
It will enable us to involve more members of the department in graduate teaching and
supervision. This last will encourage us to think more thematically and bring members of
different streams together in joint projects, something that will also speak
to'
some of the
issues raised by the reviewers with respect to our graduate and undergraduate course
offerings. As well, it will share graduate workloads more equitably and will help us
attract more graduate students. As part of this project, the graduate studies committee will
draw up proposals to include credit for graduate supervision into normal workload and
reward systems, in line with the penultimate point in the external review.
These initiatives may appear modest. Taken together, however, they will
address the overriding problem of morale by building links between faculty and building
the department as a whole. They directly address points 1, 3, 4,
5, 6,
9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20,
•
?
and 23 of the external review. They will provide the social cohesion we need to address
the remaining items in a frank, open, transparent, and collegial fashion.
In response to item 2, we will meet with the dean as a department to discuss the
review and our response to it. We will undertake discussions on points 7 and 8, which
deal with governance; we are loathe to make quick changes in these areas without
consulting all faculty members.
Regarding item 13, we realize we need to make hard decisions about public
history, which will require discussion on hiring and planning priorities. We believe the
co-op program deserves our support and we will work more closely with it to continue to
place our students in appropriate jobs that will give them valuable work experience. In
turn, this will demonstrate the utility of a history degree and will help with our
undergraduate and graduate enrollments.
We disagree with point 14, the workload question for TAs. Our expectations
for TAs fall within the TSSU contract, and as the external review notes, our graduate
students have not found this onerous. We believe that experience in the classroom is
excellent preparation for their careers and contributes to their teaching, research, time
management, and writing skills.
We concur with point
15,
and will increase the recruitment of students for the
Honours program. We think this will also increase SFU candidates for our MA program.
We recognize the need to recruit students from other regions (point 16). The research
themes will help us focus our recruiting efforts. We will also take up discussions with the
dean of arts and the dean of graduate studies to find ways and means to recruit
St dents.
In the meantime, we will poll those students whom we accepted but did not tome tot SFU
over the last three years. Determining why they did not come will help us plan successful
recruiting methods.
We enthusiastically endorse item 17, and will expand our departmental session
run in conjunction with TA day. Regarding our policy on TAships for Ph.D. students, we
have tended to give them fellowships instead in their first year so they can complete their
fields and comprehensive examinations more quickly. More recently, however, we have
. ?
employed them as TA5 as well.. We also hire them as sessional instructors when they
have completed their comprehensive examinations. We also endorse point 19 and will
/10
introduce the necessary changes to have Ph.D. students take a year of coursework. We
have already given a department workshop for MA students interested in pursuing the
Ph.D., and look forward to continuing this.
We disagree with point 22, the compulsory student oral presentation at the
department colloquium. We believe students are better served by being strongly
encouraged to give this presentation as well as presentations at the annual Qualicum
conference and other venues. At present, virtually all the students give presentations and
making this compulsory is unnecessary.
There are, however, two areas in which the reviewers have taken an overly
negative view of our department. First, the Review does not accurately capture the wide
representation of faculty on our committees. It fails to identify the extent to which our
junior faculty are involved in committees. Over the past two years, the heaviest
committee loads have been carried by faculty who are ten years or less from their first
appointment. Through the work of its committees, the department has been able develop
a good deal of consensus in its decision making. A survey of the minutes of department
meetings going back several years would show unanimous or near unanimous votes on
all major decisions: approval of an updated constitution and subsequent revisions,
approval of a mission statement and subsequent amendments, approval of new
undergraduate courses, approval of graduate program changes, endorsement of
appointments, and approval of a long term strategy for faculty replacement. - Our
incoming chair, Jack Little, has been elected by acclamation and this reflects the general
atmosphere of consensus and agreement.
Second, the reviewers comment negatively on the involvement of
'
many of our
faculty in duties outside the department. We believe, to the contrary, that our connections
with other programs and departments are a strength. ?
We said this in the . self-study
provided to the reviewers and we reaffirm it now. We have joint appointments with
Humanities and Women's Studies and associations with Labour Studies, Canadian
Studies, Latin American Studies, and Graduate Liberal Studies. We are also looking
forward to a new relationship with Geography with whom we are making a joint CRC
appointment in Environmental History. The individuals who hold joint appointments
contribute to interdepartmental exchanges; one has acted as Chair of the Department of
'II
History and Chair of the Undergraduate Studies Committee and both participate strongly
•
in our internal administration.
The impact of external activities is exaggerated because they have been counted
along with study leaves, SSHRC buy-outs, medical leaves, retirements and resignations,
and administrative responsibilities. While the reviewers have calculated that two-thirds of
the department was on reduced teaching during the past academic year the actual
proportion is about one-third. This is higher than normal as a consequence of medical
leaves and new appointments. At the same time, our commitments to programs such as
Labour Studies, Canadian Studies and Graduate Liberal Studies and our two joint
appointments, as well the reduced teaching loads of an endowed Chair do mean that we
have fewer faculty hours available for teaching History than a simple headcount shows.
The reviewers have made this last point, and we agree with it, even if we disagree with
their broader statement about the impact of external activities. The reviewers do not note
the effect of a small cohort of faculty at the middle level, which can make it difficult for
the department chair to find colleagues to take on the more onerous administrative
41 ?
responsibilities.
The past few years have been difficult ones for the department. We have lost
colleagues and friends to retirement, death, and other universities. Our strategic plans
have often been disrupted by unforeseen circumstances. In that environment, it is not
surprising that we have tended to turn inward to pursue our teaching and researh as
individuals. Added to that is the fact that history tends to be more of an individual pursuit
than other disciplines. However, we recognize, and the external review makes plain, that
we need to work as a community of scholars as well. We need to fãnction as a
department, as a collective as well as a collection of individuals. We believe the changes
we are making and will discuss over the next year will do much to rectify the situation.
Given the support of the administration, we are confident that we will continue to renew
and rebuild.
L
j I;.
1.
List
The
of External
Department
Reviewers'
must meet
Recommendations
as a whole to discuss
?
its future direction and to establish a
40
program for the Department's rejuvenation.
2 It would be essential for the Dean to meet with the Department to go over some of the
issues and to rebuild solid bridges based upon understanding rather than rumour.
3.
We suggest that the Department consider some modification to its mentoring system in
the direction of institutionalizing practices and expectations with a view to ensuring more
certain outcomes.
4.
We suggest as an antidote to the problems that can arise between various units of the
University the
use
of as much openness and accountability as is Consistent with
Department culture and tradition.
5.
We suggest that the Department arrange for regular lunch-time meetings either for
faculty or for faculty and graduate students at which people could give brief outlines of
their current research or some other academic activity in which they are heavily
engaged.
6.
We suggest that the Department replace its Omnibus Committee with a body that is
avowedly
7.
We recommend
advisory in
a
character,
number of
and
changes
both elected
to what
and
we
appointed
consider
in
the
nature.
structure
?
of senior
.10
committees in the Department. In general, we propose that their numbers be expanded to
involve all faculty, probationary and tenured, in the administration of the Department.
8.
We recommend that the faculty members on the Graduate program Committee and the
Undergraduate Studies Committee for the most part be nominated by the
advisory/executive committee, with provision made, should the Department think it
desirable, for additional members nominated and elected at large by the Department in
regular meeting.
9. We urge a Departmental study designed either to revalidate and update the "three
streams" or to decide on a
different
or modfled form of organization.' We strongly
recommend quick implementation of whatever changes the Department agrees
,
, to.
10.
The reviewers recommend that the Department prepare and regularlj' update a
comprehensive strategic plan designed to reexamine the streams, to establish hiring
priorities, and to offer a series offlexible responses.
II. We think, in terms of the desirabiiixy of prerequisites, that a mixed approach might
work best here: some courses, especially on the first or second year level, might have no
prerequisites, and appeal to broad University-wide constituencies, other on the third, and
especially fourth year, might have some course prerequisites.
''3
12.
There is also the question, still unresolved, of the desirability of core courses for
History majors. Though the Department currently does not have any such required
courses, we believe that one or more of these would be desirable.
13.
We recommend that the Department discuss and reconsider the future, goals and
shape of both the Public History and the Co-op Program.
14.
We encourage the Department to consider other methods of running tutorials for first
year courses that involve more facu fry supervision and marking. we strongly recommend
that the Department consider making teaching assistants responsible only for marking
essays and tutorial performance, subject to the instructor's oversight of course, and have
instructors mark examinations and tests. While the graduate students we met did not
complain about this workload, we think this exceeds normal practice at other
universities, and we strongly urge the Department to investigate this question and make
appropriate changes.
15. We recommend the Department to reconsider the scope and details of its fine
Honours Program, so that more students could benefitfrom its exceptional quality.
16. We recommend that the Department, in conjunction with the University, engage in
more systematic and energetic recruitment of graduate students, in order to increase the
geographic intake and improve the quality of its postgraduates.
17. We urge the Department to create and operate regularly a one-day workshop for
teaching assistants.
18.
We suggest that the Department consider making more TA money available for
doctoral students, and that doctoral students are more frequently employed as teaching
assistants.
?
-
19. We recommend that the Ph.D. program requirements be modified to include a year of
course work, involving two one semester seminars.
20. We also suggest the creation of a department workshop or works/cops for lvL4
students who are interested in advancing to Ph.D. work
21.
We urge the Department to consider seriously the creation of thematic courses at the
graduate level that would be open to all graduate students regardless of which degree
they are seeking or geographical area in which their scholarly interest lies.
22.
We also suggest that each graduate student be required to make a brief (twenty
minute) oral presentation at a meeting of a faculty-graduate student lunchtime
colloquium at some point in his or her graduate career.
•
?
23. Based on our experience and observations elsewhere, we believe that credit for
graduate student supervision should be built into normal workload and reward systems.
Appendix: Registered History Majors across Canada from
The Directory of History Deptartments, USA and Canada
2001-02
All the figures are from 2000-2001
SFU
?
360 Majors
Guelph ?
250 Majors
Saskatchewan 160 Majors
Calgary
?
208 Majors
Alberta ?
150 Majors
UBC
?
300 Majors
U Victoria ?
205 Majors
York ?
787 Majors
Toronto ?
741 Majors
Queens
?
649 Majors
McGill
?
562 Majors
Ottawa ?
523 Majors
Trent ?
500 Majors
Concordia ?
400 Majors
SFU ?
360 Majors
Outside Quebec and Ontario, SF1.1 has the largest number of
students majoring in History in the rest of Canada.
0
SCUP O2-
a
Department of History
?
Simon Fraser University
?
Report of the External Review Committee
?
March 21 - 22, 2002
./p
V
(JE(
Prepared by:
Dr. Donna Andrew (University of Guelph), Chair
Dr. Chris Archer (University of Calgary)
Dr. Jim Miller (University of Saskatchewan)
Submitted: May 8, 2002
0
REVIEW OF SIMON FRASER HISTORY DEPARTMENT
?
Recommendations
The Department must meet as a whole, to discuss its future direction and to establish a program
for Departmental rejuvenation.
It would be essential
for
the Dean to meet with the Department go over some of the issues and to
rebuild solid bridges based upon understanding rather than rumor.
We suggest that the Department consider some modifications to its mentoring system in the
direction of institutionalizing practices and expectations with a view to ensuring more certain
outcomes.
We suggest as an antidote to the problems that can arise between various units of the University,
the use of as much openness and accountability as is consistent with Departmental culture and
tradition.
We suggest that the Department arrange for regular lunch-time gatherings either for faculty or for
faculty and graduate students at which people could give brief outlines of their current research
or some other academic activity in which they are heavily engaged.
We suggest that the Department replace its Omnibus Committee with a body that is avowedly
advisory in character, and both elected and appointed in nature
We recommend a number of changes to what we consider the structure of senior committees in
the Department. In general, we propose that their numbers be expanded to involve all faculty,
probationary and tenured, in the administration of the Department.
We recommend that the faculty members on the Graduate Program Committee and
Undergraduate Studies Committee for the most part be nominated by the advisory/executive
committee, with provision made, should the Department think it desirable, for additional
members nominated and elected at large by the Department in regular meeting.
We urge a Departmental study designed either to revalidate and update the "three streams" or to
decide on a different or modified form of organization. We strongly recommend quick
implementation of whatever changes the Department agrees to.
The reviewers recommend that the Department prepare and regularly update a comprehensive
strategic plan designed to reexamine the streams, to establish hiring priorities, and to offer a
series of flexible responses.
We think, in terms of the desirability of prerequisites, that a mixed approach might work best
/
11
here; some courses, especially on the first or second year level, might have no prerequisites, and
appeal to broad, University-wide constituencies, others on the third, and especially fourth year
level, might have some course prerequisites.
There is also the question, still unresolved, of the desirability of core courses for History majors.
Though the Department currently does not have any such required courses, we believe that one or
more of these would be desirable.
We recommend that the Department discuss and reconsider the future, goals and shape of both
the Public History and the Co-op Programs. ?
-
We encourage the Department to consider other methods of running tutorials for first year
courses that involve more faculty supervision and marking. We strongly recommend that the
Department consider making teaching assistants responsible only for marking essays and tutorial
performance, subject to the instructor's oversight of course, and have instructors mark
examinations and tests.
We recommend the Department to reconsider the scope and details of its very fine Honours
Programme, so that more students could benefit from its exceptional quality.
We recommend that the Department, in conjunction with the University, engage in more
systematic and energetic recruiting of graduate students, in order to increase the geographic
intact and improve the quality of its postgraduates.
We urge the Department to create and operate regularly a one-day workshop for teaching
assistants.
We suggest that the Department consider making more TA money available for doctoral
students, and that doctoral students are more frequently employed as teaching assistants.
We recommend that the Ph.D. program requirements be modified to include a year of course
work, involving two one-semester seminars.
We also suggest the creation of a Departmental workshop or workshops for doctoral students and
M.A. students who are interested in advancing to Ph.D. work.
We urge the Department to consider seriously the creation of thematic courses at the graduate
level that would be open to all graduate students regardless of which degree they are seeking or
the geographical area in which their scholarly interest lies.
We also suggest that each graduate student be required to make a brief ( twenty minutes) oral
presentation at a meeting of a faculty-graduate student lunchtime colloquium at some point in his
or her graduate career.
0
?
Based on our experience and observations elsewhere, we believe that credit for graduate
A
if
supervision should be built into the normal workload and reward systems.
While the graduate students we met did not complain about this workload, we think this exceeds
normal practice at other Canadian universities, and we strongly urge the Department to
investigate this question and make appropriate changes.
.
a'
.
?
D. Andrew
REVIEW OF SIMON FRASER HISTORY DEPARTMENT
C. Archer
J. R. Miller
INTRODUCTION
Coming from different provinces and departments of different sizes, the three reviewers
found this visit stimulating and rewarding. We were impressed, even before we arrived, by the
record of accomplishments of the historians at Simon Fraser. The volume and significance of
their research is outstanding and ongoing. Their fellowship award record is also evidence of their
national and international achievements. Once we arrived at Simon Fraser we noted two
significant and positive features in the workings of the History Department. First was the job
satisfaction and integration of the Department's hard-working and involved staff. Their
contribution is often neglected, but they are central to the smooth workings of a Department, and
we found unanimous mutual praise of the staff for the faculty and visa versa. The second area in
which things seem to be going quite well, and which has demonstrated an improvement since the
last review, is in the relations between the Library and the Department. Especially useful in this
regard has been the creation of a Liaison librarian, not only to help the Department build web-
sites and other technical tools, but to represent the needs of the Department to the Library.
Having noted these Departmental strengths, muchof the rest of this report will be taken
up with analyzing and making suggestions for the Department's improvement. We hope that this
report will examine all the major areas we were told to consider, though not necessarily in the
order given. That is the job that we have been asked to do, and we do it knowing full well that
neither our own departments, nor any department in any university anywhere in the world is
without room for improvement. We do not mean to suggest, however, that the History
Department does not deserve, or should not receive, the fullest economic and moral support from
the University, or that anyone outside the Department itself can or should provide it with a
foolproof "roadmap" or set of instructions for its future. What we urge on both the Department
and the University is that, in recognition of its fine history, its strengths in research and funding,
.
?
I
and its ongoing commitment to excellence in teaching, the History Department be encouraged to
reinvigorate itself through a process of open and free-ranging discussion. Only through such a
process, unimpeded by covert dealings or mutual suspicion, can the History Department continue
the fine work that it has accomplished to date.
CONTEXT
In its September, 1996, "Special Planning Committee Report" the Department correctly
represented the previous thirty years as an epoch of effective teaching and distinguished
productivity in every area of its mission. At the same time, the writers of 1996 were prescient in
their recognition that cutbacks, changing tastes within the discipline of History, and new currents
would have to be addressed. Well before some other departments got around to studying their
internal demography, the Department was cognizant that in just over ten years, sixteen faculty
members would retire. This picture—daunting though it was for Departmental planners-
. --did not
take into account the unexpected departures of dynamic younger faculty members to other
universities, and the interdisciplinary administrative responsibilities placed upon a significant
number of Department members. Moreover, earlier planners could not have foreseen the
unplanned arrivals of a university chair and professorship held by former senior administrators
David Gagan and John Stubbs, or of the prestigious Farley and Pan Hellenic endowed Chairs
held by Joy Parr and André Gerolymatos.
The losses ofjunior professors and the valuable additions of three senior chairs and a
professorship that were extra to Departmental planning produced some understandable friction
that even in the best of circumstances might have been difficult to avoid. The prestige of having
the chairs in the Department of History may have led to confusions and misunderstandings.
Although members of the Senior Administration recognize that the chairs were unplanned
windfall additions, the existence of these scholars within the Department may have reinforced
impressions that from a purely statistical or numbers point of view, History is not pulling its
weight. This misapprehension arose in part because it was not understood that though such
positions enhanced the Department's and University's
49
Z
prestige,
1
they did not add significantly to
I.
its teaching complement. Moreover, the heavy interdisciplinary commitments of many historians
to other sectors of the University, that will be discussed elsewhere in this report
(See External
Ties)
have reduced available teaching strength and perhaps withdrawing primary loyalty and
identification
from
the Department or possibly provided alternate avenues for some who feel
uncomfortable within today's Departmental environment. Clearly, some historians are convinced
that their contributions have not been adequately recognized. Although the situation is complex,
effective leadership, open decision-making, and enhanced communications with the senior
administration will allay many of these concerns.
During the period of transition since 1997, the Department has made six new
appointments of young scholars who, as one senior historian observed, "will re-stimulate a
Departmental culture." These young scholars are a precious resource that must be developed and
nurtured. Recently trained and the products of major Graduate programs, the majority within this
cadre views the Department of History differently than their more senior predecessors. From
their point of view, Departmental structures, committees, and attitudes sometimes appear
cliquish, antiquated, and difficult to penetrate. Rather than viewing History from the perspective
of national experiences and chronological development, and the traditional streams used in the
Department to approach global history
(See Streams and Bridges),
some of these new scholars
prefer thematic approaches that do not fit conveniently into existing models. As a result, they
reported their anxieties concerning the period of transition that sees them "chaffing at the bit" for
change on the one hand and on the other fearful that they may have to take on significant
administrative workload that will detract from their research and writing. There was also concern
reported to the reviewers that the senior generation of historians appears to be defensive about
considering innovations and determined to maintain their legacy. A collective document
submitted to the reviewers by the new faculty members called for greater efforts to integrate them
into the Department, to retain faculty members who receive offers from elsewhere, and to rethink
the "three streams" curriculum that they consider outmoded and limiting.
Many of the above concerns might be described as general griping among any new faculty
members, but at Simon Fraser University the problems are a little deeper. Some of the young
faculty members expressed shock at the loss of other younger faculty members with a little more
I
seniority who were hired away to the University of British Columbia or the University of
Toronto. The combination of these factors appears to have created a kind of group anxiety among
the new faculty members who share their thoughts with each other and often meet socially. They
seem to have the impression that they are in a buyer's market and that movement from university
to university is the norm rather than the exception. Some of these faculty members have one eye
on developments at Simon Fraser University and the other on the job market. This is quite
unusual among such junior scholars and although they are probably correct about the
employment picture over a longer term, some of the new faculty members are not as positive
about developing their careers in the Department as might be anticipated. It is clear that the
Department and the Faculty must work hard to nurture these young scholars who possess the high
talent and skills needed to maintain excellence in teaching and research. They need both to be
made to feel an integral part of the Department, and to feel that their teaching/Departmental
contributions will be recognized at promotion and tenure granting meetings.
Another matter noted by the reviewers concerned changes in the discipline of History that
younger faculty members felt were difficult to introduce into the culture of the Department.
Although the curriculum streams will be discussed elsewhere in this report, it is important that
the Department find ways to introduce thematic courses such as World History, War and Society,
and other courses that do not fit well into the traditional three-streams system of curriculum
organization. Such courses would not only revitalize and renew the course offerings, but could be
expected to increase enrollments, not only by attracting history specialists, but by appealing to a
wider University constituency.
The review committee proposes several recommendations designed to smooth transitions
and to improve the work environment in the Department. First the Department must meet
whole, to discuss its future direction and to establish a program for Departmental rejuvenation. In
this, the senior faculty members and the Chair need to offer more effective leadership internally
and externally. Equally, it would be essential for the Dean to meet with the Department to go
over some of the issues and to rebuild solid bridges based upon understanding rather than rumor.
One of the most divisive problems the Department now faces is the suspicion, held by some, that
certain faculty members can make personal arrangements with the Dean, while others can not.
I.
Second, efforts should be made to enhance the integration of the new faculty members to allow
them a greater voice, to welcome them as professional scholars, and to stimulate the development
of a dynamic collaborative environment. In this regard, regular visiting speakers and a program
of research colloquia, most likely at lunchtime, would assist social and intellectual intercourse.
Third, for the sake of the Department, the Chair and senior professors should meet with the
endowed chairs with the goal of creating a positive working relationship and working
environment. The suggested transfer of the endowed chairs from the Department to other
university units might inflict a major blow to morale as well as to the longer-term scholarly
strength of the unit. Based upon conversations with the reviewers, both of the endowed chair
holders appeared to be very willing contributors, though each holds an individual vision of their
role in the Department. Everyone in the Department should recognize that the presence of the
endowed chairs brings special reputation and recognition. In return, the Chairs should be leaders
in the Department, not outsiders, part-time members or privileged and voluntary contributors.
MORALE
0
??
It is not surprising that the Department is experiencing strains in its morale and
esprit de
corps
as a consequence of the challenges of transition and renewal (previous section). Such a
changeover in a unit that has enjoyed a distinguished history in its relatively brief existence
creates anxieties and stresses as a cadre of senior professors departs and is replaced by much
younger, more professionally junior academics. This normal process at Simon Fraser is
complicated or intensified by the fact that the senior professors who are now departing were the
founding generation: they laid the foundations, established the patterns, set the course in
curriculum, governance, and Departmental structure. Such changes can cause stresses for several
elements in the Department's complement: retiring senior faculty who are concerned about the
fate of what they created; junior faculty who are simultaneously intimidated by the prospect of
taking over the operation and eager to make changes that reflect their own sense of the discipline;
and a middle, or 'sandwich' generation who will carry much of the administrative burden during
the period of transition.
.
I
These strains in the Department fabric seemed to the reviewers to manifest themselves in
several ways. A couple of very senior faculty whom we had both expected and hoped to talk with
did not meet with us. Similarly, we did not have a chance to converse with all those in the middle
level of experience. From more junior faculty we heard repeatedly that they are both worried
about having to step in and run the program soon and also that they have ideas, especially ideas
concerning curriculum, that they would like to see adopted and implemented more quickly than
is occurring. We reviewers did not know what to make of the apprentice generation - doctoral
candidates who serve as sessional lecturers - as we met nary a one of them during our visit. A
final factor to keep in mind so far as the morale issue is concerned is that recruitment for at least
the next few years will be a seller's market in which Simon Fraser will, as will all Canadian
institutions, have to convince new faculty why they should decline other opportunities to come
and stay in the Department of History of Simon Fraser University.
What might be done to ease these strains? It seems to us that the Department as a whole
might consider a number of modifications or amplifications of existing practices to integrate new
faculty more effectively, ensure that the Department's response to problems of retention does not
exacerbate the tensions, and promote more internal cohesion on both intellectual and social
planes. We address each of those topics in turn, leaving for a subsequent section the matter of
Departmental governance, an area that has the potential to contribute to or detract from a climate
of cohesion and harmony.
The orientation and integration of new faculty to an academic unit are tasks that are
universally viewed as important. The existing faculty are desirous of ensuring that their new
colleagues are made to feel at home and provided with the knowledge that they need to tackle
their demanding jobs effectively and enjoyably. The Department of History at Simon Fraser has a
program that addresses these goals now. (See Appendix 4.4 [H].) The Chair informs new faculty
prior to their arrival on campus by letter of the name of the faculty member who has been
assigned to serve as their mentor. It is expected that the mentor and new faculty member will
meet, chat, and become familiar with each other soon after the new colleague arrives. What we
reviewers were told, however, was that the initial ntacts, and certainly any ongoing
communication between new faculty and senior member, was somewhat hit-or-miss. We suggest
that the Department consider some modifications to its rnentoring system in the direction of
institutionalizing practice and expectation with a view to ensuring more certain outcomes. More
specifically, we suggest that the Chair's letter to both the new appointee and mentor refer to the
necessity of the two meeting within a week or ten days of the arrival of the new faculty member.
For those pairs of mentor and newcomer that find it congenial, a firm arrangement to meet for
lunch once or twice, or even more frequently during the initial semester, would be desirable. The
Chair should instruct his secretary to place reminders in the Chair's calendar to inquire of both
mentor and new faculty colleague if the initial meeting(s) occurred early in the new semester.
Even better would be a system by which the Chair brought the two together, although this might
not always be feasible. Finally, we suggest that the Chair inquire of both new appointee and
mentor in mid-semester and at the end of the appointee's first semester as to the progress and
fruitfulness of the individual mentoring arrangement. Such steps, should they commend
themselves to the Department, would amount only to a formalization of existing expectations for
the treatment of new faculty. We will have an additional suggestion concerning integration of
new faculty in the Governance section (below).
We heard from faculty members at all levels of experience that the Department has
recently had to deal with problems of retention, or 'poaching' as it was somewhat pejoratively
described by a few informants. Recently the Department has lost relatively new faculty members
to the University of British Columbia and the University of Toronto, and it stands in imminent
danger of seeing the departure of a middle-rank colleague who has contributed a great deal to
Departmental administration (to say nothing of impressive contributions in teaching and research
as well) thanks to the Canada Research Chairs program. Moreover, at least two new faculty had
either received offers from other institutions or been short-listed in job searches at other places.
That the pulls away from the Department were not all the result of the activities of nefarious
poachers was made clear to us; applications for academic positions elsewhere are either
contemplated or matters of record among some junior faculty in the Department. Such a situation
can be both symptomatic of internal strains and/or a contributor to tensions. If newer faculty are
not fully comfortable in their Simon Fraser home, they will be more susceptible to offers from
other places, whether those offers were generated by the competitor institution or the faculty
0
member's application for ajob elsewhere. Finally, the seller's market referred to earlier in this
section increases the likelihood of such worrisome developments.
?
0
Clearly the Department of History should consider pre-emptive action to guard against
such an exodus, and undertake measures to counteract competing offers when they develop.
Many of the suggestions in this report are intended to help the Department foster a climate in
which there will be sufficient consensus on and enthusiasm about a collective project of teaching
and research that faculty at all levels will not want to depart. Nevertheless, no matter how well
such a prophylactic atmosphere is developed and maintained, there will still inevitably be cases
when other institutions, perhaps unsolicited, attempt to lure Simon Fraser History faculty away.
In such situations the Department, acting through the Chair, and senior administration at the
decanal and vice-presidential levels must react. How they respond can contribute a great deal to
maintaining a harmonious climate in the Department. What we heard several times - and we
cannot vouch for the complete accuracy of what we heard - was that 'deals' were made to fend
off external recruiters, sometimes leaving a legacy of dissatisfaction. Such situations arise
inevitably in academic units, especially in the present market for proven or promising academic
staff. What we suggest as an antidote to the problems that can arise is the use of as much
openness and accountability as is consistent with Departmental culture and tradition. For
example, with the consent of the faculty member who is being recruited, the Chair might discuss
the situation and what administration proposes to do to counter an offer with as many faculty
members as possible. A committee of the tenured members of the Department is one possible
venue; a representative senior committee is another. The Chair need not lay out for whatever
group is consulted all the details of any counter-offer, but its broad outline might be explained. In
such a transparent and accountable system there would be a greater sense of 'ownership' of any
resulting solution to a problem of external recruitment than is now the case. We suggest that the
Department consider such an approach to responding to offers to faculty members.
There are less formal steps than institutionalized mentoring and transparent retention
practices that would also contribute to improved morale in the Department. We heard from many
informants that there was very little academic or social interchange among faculty, or among
faculty and graduate students, owing in large part, it was explained, to the 'commuter university'
A.
nature of Simon Fraser University. No doubt the explanation goes far to explain this unfortunate
phenomenon. It is probably equally beyond doubt that a greater sense of cohesion and common
purpose would encourage more faculty, if not to come to the Burnaby campus more often, at least
to stay longer when they do come and to interact more with colleagues and graduate students.
While there are many innovations that might be suggested to foster more involvement on
campus, we propose only a modest initiative that is both intellectual and social in nature. We
suggest that the Department arrange for regular lunch-time gatherings either for faculty or for
faculty and graduate students at which people could give brief outlines of their current research
or some other academic activity in which they are heavily engaged. (We recognize that there is a
colloquium, recently reinvigorated we were told, on the books, but we are proposing a more
regular, quasi-social occasion here.) Perhaps such a regular gathering might evolve in two
different, but not unrelated, directions: towards a formal, regular faculty (or faculty-graduate
student) colloquium, and in the direction of less formal, but one hopes equally regular, social
gatherings for conviviality and conversation after daytime working hours. We earnestly urge the
Department to consider undertaking some common activity that will bring the Departmental
community together frequently for both academic and social purposes.
GOVERNANCE
The Department has developed a system of governance that has served it well during its
formative decades. (See Appendix 4.4.) Aspects of it struck us as perhaps conforming more to
Walter Bagehot's classification of 'dignified' elements of the constitution, rather than the
'efficient' portion. The exhortations about Mentors in Appendix 4.4 (H) comes to mind in this
respect. Other organs of the Department constitution are obviously active and efficient. It seemed
to us that the Committees on Salary, Tenure and Promotion, on Appointments, on the Graduate
Program, on Undergraduate Studies, and Omnibus responsibilities (especially nominations) were
the most vital elements. The Department has an elaborate system for nominating and electing
members to these and other committees. Both the self-study document (p. 16) and the Chair
informed us that twenty members served on Department committees.
Fri
Nonetheless, there are some aspects of governance that give pause. When we reviewers
asked "Why only twenty?" serve in a Department with many more faculty, we did not receive a
convincing reply. Moreover, for reasons that will be developed in the section on STREAMS
(below) the method of recruiting members of committees preserves and intensifies boundaries
that probably are not serving the Department as well now as they once did. Finally, a number of
newly appointed faculty expressed concern either about not having much opportunity to serve in
the governance structure of the Department and/or not knowing what was expected of them when
they were elected to some of the more onerous committee responsibilities. For these reasons we
make bold to invite the Department to consider the following modifications of its system of
governance.
First, we suggest that the Department replace its Omnibus Committee with a body that is
avowedly advisory in character. In some institutions such a committee is termed an Advisory
Committee or an Executive Committee. We recommend such a body to serve as advisory to the
Chair, to act as a nominating committee, to deal with specific issues that arise unexpectedly, and
to provide political representation for the Department as a whole. We propose that this advisory
or executive body be partially appointed and partly elected. The Chair would chair this
committee, and the chairs of the undergraduate and graduate committees would be appointed
members, serving on the committee as long as their administrative appointments lasted. In
addition, at least two (four might be better in the interest of representativeness) other members of
the Department would be chosen at large by election, with one-year terms of office. It would be
desirable to have the Department's constitution state that nomination and election to this
advisory/executive committee should be done with an eye to rounding out representation of rank,
area, and thematic interest. (So, for example, if both the Chair and the Graduate Chair come from
one geographic or thematic part of the Department, the elected members should be sought
elsewhere in the unit's complement.) We believe that such a senior committee would serve the
Department well, both by providing representation for a diversity of viewpoints and interest and
by giving the Chair a formal sounding board and advisory body.
Second, we suggest a number of changes to what we consider the structure of senior
committees in the Department. In general, we propose that their numbers be expanded to involve
'S
2q
all faculty, probationary and tenured, in the administration of the Department. For those
committees, such as the Committee on Salary, Tenure and Promotion, whose composition and
powers are mandated by institutional policy we make no suggestions. The Chair of the
Department, we think, should be
ex officio
a member of all other committees in the Department.
We made no recommendation as to which chairs of committees should have reductions in their
teaching assignment or the magnitude of such reductions. Nor do we comment on the
Department's plan to make the Chair of the Undergraduate Studies Committee the Associate
Chair of the Department. We recognize that the faculty of the Department are the best judges of
such questions.
However, we do have some suggestions about some of the other committees. We
recommend that the faculty members on the Graduate Program Committee and Undergraduate
Studies Committee for the most part be nominated by the advisory/executive committee, with
provision made, should the Department think it desirable, for additional members nominated and
elected at large by the Department in regular meeting. If the faculty of the Department could find
it in their hearts to place less emphasis on the streams as a recruitment ground for those members
of committees that are elected, we think the results might be good. Finally, we propose that
responsibility for the direction of the Honours program be transferred to the Undergraduate
Studies Committee.
The logic and intent of our suggestions on governance are probably obvious to all readers.
We think that the Department, especially the Chair, will be better served by a more formal
advisory body. It would also serve well, we believe, as a nominating body, replacing the quaintly
title Omnibus Committee in this regard. More generally, expansion of the committees and their
composition by a combination of nomination and at-large election are suggested with an eye to
involving all faculty in governance and ensuring, so far as informal arrangements and
constitutional exhortations can, that the most senior committees doing the weightiest work are
representative of ranks, areas, and thematic interests. We urge the Department to give these
proposals on governance careful and sympathetic consideration.
.
30
EXTERNAL TIES
At first glance, the Department of History appears to be a sizable unit quite capable of
offering the Undergraduate and Graduate curriculum listed in the University Calendar. The 2001
Self-Study reports thirty continuing appointments with twenty-five located in History, three joint
appointments, two prestigious endowed chairs, a university chair and special full-time position
that will be retained until the incumbent retires. However, a significant number of Department
members maintain external linkages with interdisciplinary programs and departments such as
Liberal Studies, Women's Studies, Humanities, Canadian Studies, Labor Studies, and in the
recent past Public History and Latin American Studies. Several historians who were a bit critical
of the existing Departmental environment informed the reviewers that they found happier homes
in their other interdisciplinary programs and departments. Other historians occupy release time
administrative posts as major committee chairs within the Department that grant them needed
teaching load reductions. Some interdisciplinary responsibilities originated from split
appointments dating from the time when they joined the University. Although solutions are
difficult to conceive, the reviewers became aware that the proliferation of duties external to the
Department may have served to erode the general cohesion of the Department and affected its
working environment. In 2001, thirteen members of the Department received teaching remissions
for interdisciplinary, research, administrative, medical, and duties related to chairs; two had
SSHRC buy-outs; two had study leaves; and two left campus permanently owing to a resignation
and a retirement. Thus in 2001, almost two thirds of the Department was either absent or on
reduced teaching loads. For those remaining in the Department, the element of dilution and
external duties might have contributed to lower morale, misunderstandings, and the view
expressed strongly by some new faculty members that they are not adequately consulted about
Departmental administrative and teaching matters.
In many respects, the external ties and commitments represent strong interdisciplinary
orientation that forms part of the tradition of Simon Fraser University. However, these external
connections and obligations combined with retirements, study leaves, and course releases could
pose internal difficulties for the Department that requires more effective management, leadership,
3'
and collegiality. Many of the historians noted that their colleagues were not on campus as often
as they had been in the past (possibly owing to their use of e-mail communications) and that most
left Burnaby Mountain about 3:30 in the afternoon. The reviewers propose that faculty members
and especially the newer appointees be given as much information as possible regarding the
interdisciplinary roles of colleagues and the benefits that accrue to the Department. Regular
informal colloquia, research lectures, and occasional social events (perhaps surrounding a
visiting speaker) could help to bridge possible misunderstandings and to strengthen Departmental
culture.
STREAMS AND BRIDGES
Since the foundation of the Department, the "three streams" curriculum, Europe, the
Americas, and Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (AMA) has been an important feature of
historical studies at Simon Fraser University. Recently, however, a combination of factors
including changes in the broad discipline of History, divisions between the culture of senior
professors and junior faculty members, retirements that did not yield replacements, and other
strains challenged this approach and strongly suggest that reforms should be considered. One
professor spoke of the "stranglehold of streams," that could be exacerbated by a "chasm between
older and younger" faculty members. The supporters of each stream presented their own cogent
arguments for replacements—pointing out that their areas would or already had suffered losses
through retirements, illnesses, or resignations that made it difficult for them to offer their existing
curriculum. For example, both Africa and Latin America are reduced to one-professor areas and
with the impending retirement of Professor Richard Boyer, without a new appointment this latter
field—a major area of the Americas in terms of history and geography—could be wiped out
entirely. The retirement of Professor William Cleveland has reduced the Middle East field, until
recently an area of three specialists, to one and a half. Students complained to the reviewers that
they were unable to round out their majors because the Middle Eastern courses are no longer
offered on a regular rotation. The reviewers noted that part of this difficulty may have resulted
from time-tabling problems. Other students stated that courses in the Latin American field soon
0
might cease to be offered at all. Even the European stream and the Canadian and American
sections of the Americas stream that are in better shape at present reported that resignations and
retirements could leave them without adequate strength. Several professors spoke of "turf wars"
within the Department and noted that there is little cooperation to offer thematic courses across
existing streams. Indeed, the reviewers heard such a broad variety of opinions from different
historians that we recommend a Departmental study designed either to revalidate and update the
"three streams" or to decide on a different or modified form of organization.
Although the streams approach is in some respects similar to the organization of fields in
other university History Departments, there appears to be a certain level of inflexibility caused by
the competition for resources (new replacement appointments) and defense of area integrity.
Faculty members who support themes and bridging courses that might join two separate
streams—a course on the Atlantic Slave Trade for example—felt frustration at the lack of interest
from the other stream. Those who support the addition of courses on World History, War and
Society, and other broad thematic courses that are popular elsewhere with students, were of the
view that such initiatives are difficult to effect within the existing system. Moreover, the
plus
Department's
an at-large
Omnibus
member,
Committee
carries the
that
streams
consists
approach
of three
into
faculty
other areas
members,
of Departmental
one from each stream ?
0
governance. As a nominating committee and sometimes as a general advisory committee, one
perception is that the Omnibus Committee is wedded to the existing system and a barrier to
innovative planning and curriculum reform. Since some faculty members are of the view that a
small group or clique runs the Department, and others feel that election to the committee is not
democratic, the Department might look at replacing the Omnibus Committee
(See Governance).
A revised system of committee selection might involve a combination of general elections and
appointments by the Chair so as to guarantee that all members of the Department are able to
fulfill service roles. Such an innovation would help to remove the focus of faculty members in
defense of their own streams and also contribute to general innovative thinking.
Complicating the issues surrounding replacements for retirements within the streams, the
Department has lost some key younger faculty members who accepted posts at other universities.
With university budgets in British Columbia expected to be tight for the next several years, it is
X
0
quite possible that replacements for past, current, and future retirements and departures may not
be made immediately by the Faculty. Until 2010, the pace of retirement replacement will require
annual searches for at least two replacements. Some senior administrators argue that to meet
student demand generated by the large Asian communities settled in the Lower Mainland, greater
attention must be given to Asian History. Although this does not take into account the fact that
the nearby University of British Columbia is extremely strong in Asian fields, the argument is
compelling. Nevertheless, growing interest in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America—areas
that are not as thoroughly covered by the cross-town competition validates special attention to
those areas. Until recently, Simon Fraser University was a center for Latin American Studies and
in this field the Department of History was one of the strongest in Western Canada.
In his presentation, the Associate Dean of Arts informed the reviewers about the
pressures for new positions driven by enrollments within faster growing disciplines in the Faculty
of Arts and he illustrated his points with a table. At present, History does not have the growing
enrollment pressures of some other departments. He made one suggestion that to cover some
positions opened by retirements, the Department might consider a cost-effective interim or
• ?
bridging measure of hiring senior lecturers in lieu of expensive tenure track appointments. The
reviewers pointed out that in areas such as Latin American History or in other small fields, this
would have a disastrous impact similar to eliminating the area entirely. The other, major effect of
such a short-term hiring solution would be to further degrade and reduce Departmental morale
and sense of the importance of teaching undergraduates, which is surely the primary goal of the
Department of History.
The "three steams" approach embracing most major world areas faces criticism by new
faculty members who want courses on "themes as well as streams." In order to confront a
potential problem with replacements that could be compounded as the upcoming annual rounds
of retirements take hold, members of the Department should establish careful priorities. Can
Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and all of Asia be maintained as effective areas within
the existing streams? Should some areas be restricted to Undergraduate Studies and forego
Graduate Studies? In many respects, the "three streams" curriculum demands a commitment to
global geographic regions that are viewed individually as separate segments rather than through
31
the thematic lenses of world historians.
Looking toward the future, the European Stream appears to be relatively healthy with four
?
0
replacements planned in the 2001-2004 Ten Year Plan for Retirement Replacements. Potential
losses through forthcoming retirements in Russian History, History of Science, Social and
Cultural History, and History of Medicine are areas for concern. Although the European Stream
meets for the purpose of future planning, some faculty members mentioned that there is
insufficient rotation of large courses, little discussion of possible innovation, and limited
strategic planning. Asked by the reviewers why there had been little movement on the idea of a
course on War and Society, one senior historian answered, "inertia." One special advantage for
the Europeanists is the presence of Professor André Gerolymatos, Chair of Hellenic Studies, who
offers a Mediterranean perspective and linkages to the Middle East. More might be done in
integrating his expertise with the work of the European stream as a whole. For the European
Stream, the Department recently has hired excellent young scholars to replace retirements.
The Americas Stream that represents Canadian, United States, and Latin American
History faces combined challenges of retirement replacements and the retention of younger
scholars who may be attracted to better situations elsewhere. The area of Canadian History,
certainly the core of the Americas Stream in a Canadian university, could be threatened by a
combination of retirements and raiding as the seller's market for scholarly talent becomes
evident. For example, Professor David Gagan who holds a university chair, at retirement his post
will revert to the central administration. United States History has undergone some renewal.
Professor Michael. Feilman, internationally respected as an historian of the American Civil War,
has centered part of his teaching and administrative roles in the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies
at the Harbor Center. As noted previously, the weakness in the Americas Stream concerns Latin
American History that until recently was a major source of Departmental strength. If History
plans to maintain this specialization that is backed by solid Library holdings, a replacement
should be made when Professor Richard Boyer retires in 2002 and one other Latin American
historian should be added so that the range of Undergraduate and Graduate courses can be
maintained.
For a variety of reasons, the Africa, Middle East, and Asia (AMA) stream may be the
/ 0
:35'
most difficult to maintain. In some respects, this stream is a kind of catchall that embraces the
history of much of the world's surface, truly enormous populations, and great and complex
civilizations. As has been noted, the senior administration and some within the Department wish
to promote Asia so as to offer adequate coverage for the large Asian community of the
Vancouver area. In the best of worlds, typically this would mean a minimum of five historians—
for China, Japan, South and Southeast Asia, and perhaps even one to cover the Philippines as
part of the Pacific Rim. A few years ago, the Department of History at the University of
California, Irvine, followed this sort of initiative. However, it is important to note that UC-Irvine
received extra budgetary funding and also committed positions from other fields to this new
direction. The Middle East area requires at least one additional position to maintain its viability.
It would be useful to have Arabic, Turkish, and Hebrew language training available. For Africa, a
continent that has not received sufficient attention in Canadian History programs, Simon Fraser
University was an important exception. However, a one-professor program simply cannot
maintain the range of courses needed by students. Here again, at least one additional appointment
is needed to regain viability and depth.
Already, the plan for Faculty Renewal has fallen behind immediate requirements for
automatic replacements. If in the future the Department cannot obtain the return of positions
opened by retirements one for one, it might be necessary to establish new priorities and to think
about reducing the number of areas of strength. Although shared programs offered at Harbor
Center that involve faculty and students from both Simon Fraser University and the University of
British Columbia might allow for resource sharing, except in special circumstances the past
record is not cause for much optimism. Recognizing the historical commitments of the
Department to the use of tutorials, it might be necessary to pose questions related to pedagogy
concerning this particular approach. Tutorials are most certainly beneficial to student
development. Nevertheless, to free teaching resources for the different streams, the broad
application of tutorials in smaller intermediate-level and senior-level courses may have to be
reexamined or some other larger formats tried in conjunction with tutorial classes. All of these
complex issues require thought, flexibility and good strategic planning supported by the
Department. The reviewers recommend that the Department prepare and regularly update a
A
Sb
comprehensive strategic plan designed to reexamine the streams, to establish hiring priorities,
and to offer a series of flexible responses. Al! members of the Department should be involved in
its creation and adoption. It would be a good idea to invite the Dean, Associate Dean, and the
History Librarian to participate directly at a planning session so as to obtain their views regarding
future budgets and faculty directions.
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS
One of the brightest moments in our visit to the History Department was when we spoke
to some of the undergraduates currently enrolled in its Honours Program. Clearly, we all thought
(and continue to think) any department that can produce such students, so verbal, so intelligent,
so self-possessed and reflective, is doing many things right. Having said this, however, we think
we have identified some areas in which undergraduate programs might still be improved.
One of the unresolved issues in the Department concerns the need or desirability for
undergraduate course prerequisites. While some historians favour these in the upper year courses,
others fear that the imposition of such prerequisites might unduly depress student enrollment and
thus have a deleterious effect on future staffing. We think a mixed approach might work best
here; some courses, especially on the first or second year level, might have no prerequisites, and
appeal to broad, University-wide constituencies; others on the third, and especially fourth year
level, might have some course prerequisites. It is not necessary to have a single prerequisite for
an upper year course, and this may indeed limit the numbers who would qualify, but asking the
student to have taken one of several possible prerequisites is surely not a severe hinderance. This,
of course, would entail levels of Departmental management and planning sometimes not visible
now. We have already noted local but severe scheduling difficulties which we hope advanced
planning and coordination could preclude.
There is also the question, still unresolved, of the desirability of core courses for History
majors. Though the Department currently does not have any such required courses, we believe
that one or more of these would be desirable. In a University like Simon Fraser, which draws
significant numbers of its students from junior colleges, it is important that all students majoring
31
in history have some shared methodological and historiographical training. Such a course or
courses would establish a common level of expertise to which all undergraduates could work. It
might also create in some undergraduates a clearer understanding of what history as a profession,
rather than as a common practice or hobby, requires. This might have some positive spillover
effects into recruitment for graduate programs.
The future of the Co-op and Public History programs is still not clear. The reviewers
think that while both are deserving of continued support and funding, they need to be re-
invigorated and perhaps combined. We see in the combination of these two programs not only a
critical size necessary for their continued support, but that this strengthened program could have
a significant outreach potential into the community, enmeshing the University even more closely
into the life of the area which supports it. We recommend that the Department discuss and
reconsider the future, goals and shape of both the Public History and the Co-op Programs.
In addition to reiterating here our view that all large courses should rotate among several
professors, ideally that all faculty members should teach at least one large course every year, we
also wish to repeat our shared concern about the lack of ongoing tutorial supervision in such
courses. Excellence in their teaching and grading establish these sorts of courses as nurseries for
higher level courses. Commitment to a dynamically taught and administered first and second year
set of History courses will result in a higher student enrollment in the upper years, not only
among those already interested in History, but also in attracting and retaining others who take
such courses initially only for interest or as a University requirement. We encourage the
Department to consider other methods of running the tutorials for first year courses that involve
more direct faculty supervision and marking.
While our admiration for the work of the Honours program and its students has already
been noted, we think the addition of an extra semester and the limitation of its students to about
ten a year is unduly restrictive. There is no reason why this excellent program could not be
slotted into a normal four year course, with entry in the first or second semester of the final year
or even earlier. There is no reason why up to thirty qualified students should not be admitted
annually. There is also no reason why the Department does not publicize this option widely in
first and second year courses, with perhaps an evening organized by current Honours students, to
3,
give details of the Program to possible future students. Lastly, there is no reason why students
accepted to this Program can not be given the positive news much earlier in the previous
semester. We recommend the Department to reconsider the scope and details of the very fine
Honours Programme, so that more students could benefit from its exceptional quality.
Finally, we think that much more could be done to help interested students think about
and plan for application to graduate programs. Many students (including, in the past, one of the
reviewers) never consider the possibility of graduate study unless some knowledgeable teacher
suggests it to them. Help and encouragement in choosing graduate programs and in applying for
scholarships and admission should be the centerpiece of an annual event, perhaps accompanied
by food and drink, and aimed at upper year students.
GRADUATE PROGRAMS
As the Department's self-study document makes clear, the graduate program in History at
Simon Fraser is really two programs. the M.A. and the Ph.D. being distinct. The M.A. candidate
is offered a choice between the degree by thesis or the degree by project, the latter option
requiring more course work. Most M.A. candidates opt for meeting the degree requirements by
completion of a thesis. The Ph.D. program at the moment caters primarily to candidates in
European history, Canadianists having fallen off of late for reasons that are not clear. All those
involved with the graduate programs point to inadequate funding as a source of many challenges,
an assessment with which the reviewers agree. The Department's completion rates for graduate
students are respectable, and the average length of time to completion, while somewhat above
University norms, is not seriously out of line with experience elsewhere. In general, the M.A.
student body is heavily domestic or internal; the Ph.D. cohort heavily European and rather
avocational in purpose. In general, as informants told us and the self-study document implies, the
graduate programs, while performing respectably, are not achieving the results that the
Department would wish.
One area that should be addressed is the recruitment and orientation of new students,
particularly from other institutions. In this regard, an institutional commitment to better funding
/ 0
MI
of graduate students generally would be helpful, as universities across the country are stepping up
their scholarship and teaching assistantship support in a growing competition to boost graduate
enrolments. Other steps that might help include more energetic advertising beyond British
Columbia, the Qualicum Conference apparently being the principal locus of effort at the moment.
We also suggest that the Department devote more attention to apprising senior undergraduate
students of opportunities to do graduate work, whether at Simon Fraser or elsewhere, by
providing information systematically, holding information sessions for potential students, and
creating an orientation meeting for new graduate students each semester (as necessary). We
recommend that the Department, in conjunction with the University, engage in more systematic,
energetic recruiting of graduate students. In the same vein, we urge the Department to create and
operate regularly a one-day workshop for teaching assistants. We are aware that there is a
University workshop to which teaching assistants go, but we believe that another preparatory
session more focused on the Department's expectations, goals, and policies would be helpful.
Such a Departmental workshop might bring together experienced teaching assistants with
appropriate faculty and those newly appointed.
We were struck by several aspects of the teaching assistant program. First, it is reserved
almost exclusively for M.A. students for reasons that are not clear to us. We suggest that the
Department consider making more TA money available for doctoral students. Second, teaching
assistants seemed to us to be required to do a great deal of work —210 hours - per semester for
their stipend. While the graduate students we met did not complain about this workload, we think
this exceeds normal practice at other Canadian universities, and we urge the Department to
investigate the question. Finally, we reviewers were greatly surprised to see the degree of
marking responsibility that teaching assistants have. Although many faculty take some discussion
groups themselves and mark all the work for them, it appears that a majority of students in
lecture-tutorial courses have their tests and examinations marked by teaching assistants. We
question whether this practice is appropriate. We suggest that the Department consider making
teaching assistants responsible only for marking essays and tutorial performance, subject to the
instructor's oversight of course, and have instructors mark examinations and tests.
Had we not been invited to examine the question of structure in the graduate programs we
.
0
would have done so in any event, because this struck us as a matter that deserves review. The
structure of course work and project/thesis at the M.A. is standard and seems to work
?
S
satisfactorily. On the other hand, the absence of required course work in the doctoral program
seemed to us unfortunate, principally for reasons the Department flagged in the self-study report
(pp. 37-8). The absence of course work inhibits the development of intellectual ties between
doctoral and M.A. students, as well as between the Ph.D. candidates and a sampling of
Department faculty. As the self-study report says, the absence of course work means 'they have
very few opportunities to meet other graduate students and faculty and to be trained in the
practice of scholarly engagement.' It also means, as the report continues, that faculty who write
letters of reference for doctoral students do not have course grades to provide partial
documentation for their evaluations. This lack might work against doctoral candidates' chances
for scholarships and fellowships.
We suggest that the Ph.D. program requirements be modified to include a year of course
work, involving two one-semester seminars. For those doctoral students who have not completed
a course on Historical Methods, completion of HIST 814 should be required. For those who have
completed a methods course, an advanced Historiography seminar and/or a seminar on
professional issues might be offered. For those doctoral students who would be still in search of a
seminar to complete their degree requirements, enrolment in one of the seminars catering
principally to M.A. candidates would be appropriate. Whatever the precise arrangements,
addition of a requirement of a year of minimal course work is desirable to provide a better
formation, including professional formation, for doctoral students and to encourage the
development of more of an intellectual community among the graduate student body as a whole.
This would perhaps also allow for graduate student mentoring; i.e. the Phds advising the MAs on
graduate school and fellowship applications and procedures. It would create a collegiality that
would make graduate education much more attractive.
We would also suggest the creation of a Departmental workshop or workshops for
doctoral students and M.A. students who are interested in advancing to Ph.D. work. Such
workshops could provide advice and hands-on practice in applying for entrance to doctoral
studies, for SSHRC doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships (the new offerings of the Trudeau
26
0
Foundation come to mind, too), and for job searches for doctoral students approaching
completion of their dissertations. We suggest practical advice, including simulated applications
and interviews, with critiques, constitute the substance of these workshops.
Our final recommendations are intended for all graduate students. We urge the
Department to consider seriously the creation of thematic courses at the graduate level that would
be open to all graduate students regardless of which degree they are seeking or the geographical
area in which their scholarly interest lies. Such an approach would both reflect the emphases that
have developed in the discipline of History in the last decade or two and foster the development
of a greater sense of cohesion and community among graduate students as a whole. We also
suggest that each graduate student be required to make a brief (approximately twenty minutes)
oral presentation at a meeting of a faculty-graduate student lunchtime colloquium at some point
in his or her graduate career. Such a presentation would be a requirement of both the graduate
programs with a course number analogous to that for thesis research, but without credit units
(and fees) attached to it. To participate would be to pass, but not to participate would be to fall
short of meeting the degree requirements.
In closing this section on the graduate program we comment on those of the questions
that were posed in the self-study document (pp. 37-8) that we have not already addressed. In our
opinion the doctorate is primarily a professional degree, and academic preparation for it, if a
choice must be made between satisfying vocationally-oriented students and the avocational
student, should emphasise professional aspects of the program. it seems to us that the desirable
goal of providing more doctoral opportunities in the Latin American, Middle Eastern/Islamic,
and Far Eastern areas can only be met by policies of recruitment and renewal that we have
addressed elsewhere in this report. The issue of attracting more external students into the M.A.
program and more Canadianist candidates into the Ph.D. program, we suggest, can be tackled in
part by improvements to student funding levels and more aggressive advertising and recruiting
efforts. Based on our experience and observations elsewhere, we believe that credit for graduate
supervision should be built into the normal workload and reward systems. To do otherwise is to
discourage faculty participation in graduate supervision or create resentments based on
inequities, or both.
0
CONCLUSION
?
17J
Thus, though we have made several recommendations that the Department may wish to
explore, we end, as we began, with a note of caution. The central and primary requirement for
Departmental rebuilding will not come through externally imposed mandates, from special deals
struck with individuals, or even from the well-meaning suggestions of external reviewers. In the
end the department must come together to examine the shape and nature of its future. It must
collectively decide on its direction, and make the very hard choices of priorities that all
University Departments everywhere have and are making in times of financial retrenchment.
When we listened to various individuals and groups trying to describe to us what, in their
view, was not working in their department, we were struck by the ubiquity, the widespread
explanatory usage of the "myth of the generations"; that is, that the department was at a critical
turning point as a result of the incompatibility/impossibility of communication between the older
and the younger faculty. Like all myths, we found there were major elements of truth in this
belief, which we have discussed throughout the report. However, coming "from away," we feel
that perhaps we have attained some critical distance on this myth, and can see a more complex
picture of the department's needs and problems. The "myth of the generations" complains of a
splintering; we feel that the Department has splintered in a larger, and more complex, number of
ways. We were told that the Department was very proud of its decentralized democracy; we
wonder whether that very thin line between democracy and anarchy has not been crossed. Indeed
we feel that the Department sorely needs to regain some sense of internal cohesion, of joint
Departmental planning and collective responsibility. It also needs a closer and more transparent
relationship with its University administrators, and we most strongly advise this larger rebuilding
process to begin immediately. Only through renewed discussion can both the University and the
Department come to understand the particular strengths, and needs, of the other. Only through
renewed discussion can the Department find that kernel of purpose which will allow it to remake
itself to face the next decade, while maintaining its energy and productive output.
"3 ?
A.
