The report of the External Review Committee for the Department of Sociology and

Anthropology was submitted on April 7, 2003 following the review site visit February 19

—21, 2003. The response of the Department was received on May 27, 2003 followed by

that of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts on July 14, 2003.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and

the Dean of Arts be advised to pursue the following as priority items:

Under g raduate Program

SCUP has been advised that the Department has already begun to take action to

address the concerns about the undergraduate program by the external reviewers,

specifically in the areas of program requirements, academic advising, co-op and course

scheduling. The Department is urged to continue with its efforts in this regard and in

particular to proceed with a Faculty Retreat in the Fall of 2003 to discuss curricular

reform and long-term planning in relation to the undergraduate program.

Graduate Program

With respect to the graduate program, in order to address concerns expressed in

relation to student progress and degree completion times as well as structural issues,

SCUP urges the Department to continue to focus its efforts towards examining and

improving:

• Programmatic Structure - including student/supervisory relationships, clarification

of program options and completion times, long term planning for program

offerings and increasing inter-discipline offerings.

• Program Administration - including allocation of resources between the

undergraduate and graduate programs, establishing a credit system for graduate

teaching and supervision and providing improved and additional information and

opportunities for graduate student funding.

Administrative Issues

SCUP noted that a number of initiatives are already underway to explore and address

administrative concerns raised by the external reviewers including communication with

the Dean, research productivity, faculty complement, departmental governance, capital

budget, and the Latin American Studies Program. SCUP recommends that the

Department continue these efforts as well as work on increasing its campus profile and

involvement in university activities.

With respect to the specific recommendation on administration of grants for community-

based research, the Department is advised to work with the VP Research to develop

workable solutions/practices in this area.

M. Kenny, Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology

J. Pierce, Dean of Arts

J. Pulkingham, Chair, Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology

end.

RAI

SCUP 03 -033

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts

MEMORANDUM

Subject: External Review:

Date: ?

July 10, 2003

Sociology and Anthropology

External Review of Sociology and Anthropology: Dean's Response

The recent external review of Sociology and Anthropology made the following

observation: "Our overall impression is that the department is doing things

exceedingly well in areas of research, publishing and dissemination, external

grant acquisition, undergraduate teaching and graduate training."

The report goes on to say, however, that".. .the department was trying to do

too many things and spreading its resources too thinly." There is no question

that the department is excelling in many areas but at the same time not

sufficiently focusing and prioritizing with respect to the resources and talents

available. I will address these issues in the context of both the external review

report and the response from the department.

Undergraduate Program:

While there are a number of important recommendations made with respect to

the undergraduate program, two are particularly worthy of commentary. The

report identifies the need for curriculum reform which among other things

would identify core courses and simplify program requirements and

prerequisites. The department has struck a committee to undertake these

reforms and I am optimistic that this will be completed within a year and

implemented to achieve the desired effects.

The other critically important recommendation is in the area of undergraduate

advising and academic oversight. It is imperative that faculty play a more

active leadership role in course scheduling and assignment of faculty to

courses. I am sure the long term planning undertaken by the UPC will address

these issues.

Graduate Program:

The review team notes that it has made a number of improvements since 1996

and that an overall measure of the quality of supervision can be inferred from

the high proportion of doctoral graduates appointed to tenure track positions.

Having said this, it is recommended that a rebalancing between undergraduate

and graduate programs be required. Specific recommendations are made and

largely accepted by the department to establish a system of credit for graduate

teaching and to provide more structure and rigor to student/ supervisory

relationships in order to improve completion times and reduce dropout rates.

It is also proposed that with respect to the MA options greater clarity needs to

be established around expectations for each. I would agree.

The review team is of the opinion that more scholarship support is required for

graduate students. There are various mechanisms and means to do this

including an increase in SSHRC funded research, attracting higher calibre

students and working with the Dean of Graduate Studies to enhance standard

sources of support. While this is an important goal, the department needs to

evaluate better the factors underlying relative slow completion times. While

funding levels may be an issue this remains unclear given the faster average

completion times in other departments with comparable funding.

Administrative

In keeping with the

Issues:

Sociology

and Anthropology response, I will deal with the

remaining comments/ recommendations under the rubric of administrative

issues.

To improve research productivity it is recommended that faculty make use of

the Faculty of Arts Grants Facilitation officer. By the Fall of 2003 the Faculty of

Arts will have two Grant Facilitators, and I would strongly urge faculty to avail

themselves of these services.

In keeping with earlier recommendations to reform the undergraduate

curriculum and involve the Chair of the UPC in course scheduling, future

Chairs should receive a course release annually for this administrative work.

support this recommendation.

With respect to the remaining recommendations, the Dean has met with the

current and incoming Chair to clarify a variety of issues including the size of

the faculty complement, expectations regarding visibility and involvement in

inter-disciplinary programming and the future of Latin American Studies

(LAS). Regarding faculty complement, the department has received

authorization to convert their lecturer position to full time status.

The Dean has also met with the LAS steering committee and is in the process of

preparing a short to medium term plan to enhance teaching resources and

improve access to LAS courses. It is the Dean's assumption and I believe

supported in principle by the majority of members of Sociology and

Anthropology that if various resource issues can be resolved in LAS, then the

program will continue to have a strong and supportive base to develop its

programs within Sociology and Anthropology.

SCUP is in the process of making recommendations with respect to the LAS

external review. The outcome of those deliberations will have the potential to

significantly impact the structure and ultimately the

future

of the program.

The Dean has not discussed capital budget issues but these will be addressed

by Associate Dean Roger Blackman.

Conclusion:

I believe these existing and proposed changes alluded to above will have a very

positive effect upon the quality of programming and research as they will on

overall morale. I look forward to working with the department to ensure that

the momentum is not lost.

JTP/rt

Cc: M. Kenny, Chair, Sociology and Anthropology

T. Perry, Associate Dean, Arts

L. Summers, Director, Academic Planning

1^

SCUP 03 -033

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

___

_OFFICE OF THE CHAIR

8388 UNIVERSITY DRIVE

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA

AND ANTHROPOLOGY

CANADA

V5A 1S6

httpi/www.sfu.calsociology

Telephone: (604) 2914297

Fax: (604) 291- 5799

Email: kennv)sfii.ca

MEMORANDUM

To: ?

John Pierce, Dean of

Arts

vLaurie Summers, Director, Academic Planning, VP Academic

From: ?

Michael Kenny, Acting Chair

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Re: ?

External Review Response

Date: ?

May 26, 2003

Dear John/Laurie,

Please find attached the Department of

Sociology

and Anthropology's response to the

. ?

report of the External Reviewers. This response was arrived at by consultation of the

committee chairs of the department and sent to the department as a whole. As you will

see, it includes a special appendix concerning CFL faculty status in the department now

and in 1987, which we have used as our baseline year for comparative purposes.

Michael G Kenny, D.Phil.

Professor and Acting Chair

MGK/jp ?

1272093)

^1 on 

RESPONSE of the DEPT. OF SOCIOLOGY

ANTHROPOLOGY?

to the

REPORT of the EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

(May 26, 2003)

Introduction

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology was last reviewed in 1995, and

since Senate regulations mandate a review every seven years, a new Review

Committee was struck in the fall of 2002. The Department prepared an Internal

Review Report in preparation for its visit, and with this document in hand, the

2003 Committee visited Simon Fraser University from February

19th

21st

spoke with faculty, staff, and students of the Department as well with the Vice

President and Associate Vice Presidents Academic, the V-P Research, the Dean

of Graduate Studies, and the Dean of Arts.

We thank the reviewers for the extraordinary care and attention they devoted to

this task, for their general observations about the state of the Department, and

for their specific recommendations about how our endeavor might be improved.

It is very gratifying that they found much to praise concerning our research

productivity, innovative activities, and collegiality. Even though

Sociology/Anthropology is a joint department -- not always a cosy arrangement --

it was found that we work together remarkably well, both on a personal and

programmatic level and that by and large students find our learning environment

stimulating and cordial.

Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement. It was, for example, noted

that we seem to be trying to do too much with too little, that there is an imbalance

between the undergraduate and graduate programs, and that a number of

modifications in the undergraduate program appear called for in the light of

overstretched resources and common practice in other universities.

The Committee also observed that relations between ourselves and with the

Administration appear to be rather distant, and that --

the Review Report put it

- we sometimes 'fall below the radar' with regard to the breadth and depth of our

activities. The Department was advised (Rec. 21) to develop a strategy whereby

it 'celebrates its successes' and increases its visibility in the wider SFU

community: by the same token, the Administration was advised that improved

communication with S&A is called for from its side (Rec. 20 & 25). Of course

communication is a two-way process, and we are taking steps to improve it, the

present response being one link in that chain.

Many of the Committee's 28 recommendations call for further work on our part,

and therefore our detailed response to its Report must be seen as the opening

phase of a 'work in progress.' In what follows we will not respond to each

recommendation in detail, and instead deal with the general thematic areas of

concern by outlining the steps that will be taken to address them.

These areas are: (1) Structure of the Undergraduate program, (2)the Graduate

program -- its relationship to the undergraduate program, course offerings,

clarifying the expectations of graduate students about program options,

improving the supervisory relationship, and funding issues, (3) administrative

issues - faculty resources, dept. committee structure, relations with other units,

and space concerns.

Underg raduate Pro

g ram

(Reviewers Recommendations 1-8)

Here the Reviewers identified a number of areas of concern: ensuring regular

and more predictable offering of the courses necessary for a degree; re-

evaluating our commitment to joint majors and certificate programs; simplifying

the prerequisite structure so

to facilitate students' progress; greater faculty

involvement in the course planning process; enhancing student advising with

faculty input; and closer attention to the Co-Op program. By and large, we agree

with their suggestions, and therefore undertake to do the following:

ram Committee and Chair of the De

Our Under g raduate Pro

p artment will

begin a process of lon

-term planning to ensure that students are able to

com p

lete their de g

rees in a timel y

fashion. This wilJ necessarily involve

greater "academic oversi

ht" over the course

p lannin g

process on the part

of the UPC and the Chair of the Department.

The UPC, Chair, and Departmental Assistant will examine the present

prerequisites for our own courses as well

whether it is possible to cut

down on courses that the De p artment is obli g

ed to offer to service limited

use joint maiors and certificates.2

The appointment of a representative of each disci p

line to serve as

supplementary student advisors in their respective fields.3

With thanks to Ann Travers, Chair of our UPC.

some revisions in prerequisites are going forward now as part of our current submission to the

FACC).

Rec. #7 of the Review Report advises the Department to "consider appointing a faculty member

as Undergraduate Coordinator to work closely with the DA in providing academic counseling for

undergraduate students." Is it implied that faculty should be trained to advise on technical details

of course and program planning? This would necessitate acquiring the detailed knowledge of

student records and data-bases, and the fine-points of each program, major, and option that our

• DA now has, but that faculty do not. However, the Reviewers may in fact be suggesting that we

need supplemental advising concerning the intellectual content of our respective disciplines and

what program and course options might best serve particular student interests - knowledge that

the DA does not necessarily have. We will discuss the options.

The appointment of a member of the UPC to serve as Co-O

Co-,

ordinator. In the past the Department has p

rovided little input into locating

and/or suggesting possible co-op placements to the Faculty of Arts Co-OP

program, which may well be one reason why the number of S&A

placements has been declining in recent years.

The Reviewers had a specific recommendation (#2) concerning our

undergraduate theory offerings in both Sociology and Anthropology. In light of

experience at their own universities, they suggested that each subject should

introduce an 'upper-division required course in contemporary theory.'

We concur

that our theory requirements should be revisited, and therefore will undertake the

following in relation to reconsideration of our undergraduate curriculum as a

whole:

The UPC will organize a facult

retreat (per Rec. #1) in the Fall of 2003

aimed at involvin

all members of the Department in curricular revision.

In p

ut will be sou

ht in advance of the retreat as to what the nature,

content, and sequence of our theory offerin

s should be.

The Reviewers singled out our Statistics requirement (STAT203) as

problem

(Rec. #3), and we can affirm that it is, both in our own estimation and in that of

our students. However, this is not a problem of our own making. We were

compelled by the findings of an earlier university committee (PACUP) to farm out

the course to STATS so as to avoid what were then seen to be unnecessary

duplications in course offerings. So, we find ourselves in the anomalous situation

of having a basic course in S&A taught outside the department. We have always

thought that the offering of sociologically-relevant statistical techniques should be

an in-house concern directly related to our own methods, theoretical concerns,

and teaching styles. We are not satisfied with the present arrangement, and

therefore:

We will reconsider the present lower-division statistics requirement as a part

of our re-examination of the undergraduate requirements as a whole, with the

aim of brin

g in g

such teachin

back in-house in the context of substantive

course-work on research methods.

Finally, it was recommended (Rec. #5) that the dept. should "incorporate more

problem-based, self-directed, and experiential approaches to education and

place greater emphasis on writing skills."

• The recommendation for a new upper division course in contemporary anthropological theory

appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the content of our current required theory course

(SA301), which in fact is rooted in contemporary theory. Nevertheless, there may be a need for a

new lower-division anthropology course that corresponds to SA250, which focuses on 'classical'

rather than 'contemporary' sociological theory.

SEmphasis on the development of writing skills is one of the central concerns of

the recent report on undergraduate curriculum revision inspired by the Vice-

President Academic, but this -- like other suggestions of the reviewers -- involves

complex problems of resource allocation, and inevitably implies a heavy

allotment of faculty or TA time. Nevertheless, we would point out that many of

our courses are already writing-intensive, and that experimentation on how better

to do this is currently going on.

But how to bring a truly writing-intensive

approach into the general curriculum is a difficult business, and this too must be

reserved for consideration at our fall retreat. We also note that the Reviewers

recommend shifting faculty resources from the undergraduate to the graduate

program, while at the same time advocating still greater allocation of resources at

the undergraduate level! This strikes us as a Catch 22, but we will try to deal with

it as best we can. Hopefully resources will be forthcoming from the University to

help implement the writing-intensive vision of the undergraduate curriculum

review committee.

2) The Graduate Pro

g ram

(Recommendations 9-15)

The department is pleased that the external reviewers recognize: the

improvements to the graduate program that the department implemented since

the last external review; the success of Ph.D graduates in securing tenure track

positions; graduate student representation and influence in departmental affairs;

the overall quality of relations between graduate students and their supervisors;

and the scholarly depth and breadth of the education and input from supervisory

committees.

Now however, the Reviewers observe that our "graduate programs needs to

undergo a ... thorough and imaginative restructuring and become more

adequately resourced." The thrust of their recommendations for improving the

graduate program is to implement structural changes that would result in greater

clarity about the nature of the program and progress through it, direct more

resources into graduate teaching (course offerings, provision of

teaching/supervisory credit, enhanced supervisory attention), and provide greater

and more assured funding for graduate students.

As already mentioned, the Reviewers advocate a shift of departmental resources

from the undergraduate program into the graduate program. At the same time,

the reviewers indicate their overall concern about the lack of resources for

graduate programs that characterizes SFU as a whole. It is recognized that this

SA201 (Anthropology & Contemporary Life) recently developed for Distance Education by Dr.

John Bogardus is precisely the sort of thing that is called for here. It sets problems on a regular

basis that require written response and offers constant feedback to DE students by e-mail.

With thanks to Jane Pulkingham, Chair of the Graduate Program Committee and Chair-Elect of

the Department.

problem is not unique to

S/A;

the department must plan for changes in the

graduate program in the context of these wider structural constraints.

Coordinating an extensive restructuring of the undergraduate and graduate

programs simultaneously will be challenging and will take a few years to bring

about.

The department's Graduate Program Committee will work toward defining and

implementing programmatic change. The Reviewers recommend (Rec. #9) a

system of teaching credit for graduate teaching and supervision in order to focus

faculty attention on the graduate program, and duly reward the care and time

involved. Toward this end the Department will:

Review current systems of credit for graduate teachin g

and supervision in

other departments and programs in the university and will implement a

system of credit that is feasible and practicable for the department.

The Reviewers (Rec. #11) point to considerable graduate student uncertainty

concerning the "expectations for each program choice", and identify problems

with what is sometimes experienced as an overly remote supervisory relationship

with faculty. Students may end up feeling rudderless and uncertain as to their

degree of progress through the program. Given this, we therefore propose to:

Rethink the annual progress review process, expectations and requirements

in order to p

rovide more support and direction for students, and explicit,

reasonable and accountable

u milestones n

for a review of progress. For the

MA, this would be based on an ex

ected completion time frame of 6

semesters. For the PhD this would be based on an ex p

ected completion time

frame of 12 semesters. O p

tions to consider include semesterl

rather than

annual progress reports initiated b

the supervisor and com

pleted with

student and committee input.

Revise the departmental g

raduate handbook to indicate an expected

com p

letion time for the MA program (thesis,

rolect or extended essa

s) of 6

semesters (rather than the unrealistic t

3-4 as at

present).

Re-define and elaborate the guidelines for the PhD

q ualif

in g

examinations

regarding process, timelines and expectations.

Consider the possibility of requiring a more hands-on a

roach on the part of

the GPC chair vis a vis supervisory committee functionin

g and accountability,

includin g

the number of students supervisors should take on in a senior and

committee ca

p acit y

within the department and in other programs.

Rethink the distinction and course requirements for the two main MA options

(thesis versus prolectfextended essa

s) and the timelines and milestones for

successfull

progressing throu

h each option.

As with the undergraduate program, the Reviewers recommend a more cross-

disciplinary approach to our graduate offerings, with serious consideration given

to mounting joint courses with cognate departments. 7

Therefore we propose to:

Consider interdisciplinary arrangements that would serve to increase the

number of scheduled (i.e. not directed readings) courses available to students

and increasing the opportunity for obtaining S/A credit for courses taken

elsewhere.

Graduate Funding:

Beyond putting MA students forward for entrance scholarships and allocating

GFs, the department has little control over scholarship opportunities available to

our MA graduate students. The department has no program specific endowment

or scholarship fund, thus the only scholarships the department can allocate are

GFs. The number of GFs is determined by the number of full-time students

registered in the autumn semester of any given year (part-time and on-leave

students do not count toward the allocation of these awards to the department).

This number does not correspond to the number of students the department

typically admits in any given year (we admit more students than there are GFs).

Not surprisingly we advocate a higher level of graduate student funding across

the University as a whole, but would also ask that careful consideration be given

to the question of eligibility criteria for it. We do not wish to see a mechanical

system put in place that depends solely on grade-point average for the allocation

of funding. Therefore, the Department has made it known to the DGS (in its

review of graduate funding for SFU students) that:

We do not want to see an ex p ansion of universit y funded scholarshi

awards

that provide an opportunity for uninterru

p ted stud y

and research based only

on "academic excellence" or merit, inter p reted narrowl

in terms, of grade

point average. The de

artment would like to see a broader interp

retation of

merit, as is the case for the department's own allocation of GFs.

ond the

GPA threshold (for GFs. for exam

p le), a wide ran g

e of factors "merit" such

awards in our department.

Since many students are supported by TA & TMs, we consider better hourly

remuneration for these positions to be essential. Students must be adequately

remunerated for the work they do and in order for them to be able to complete

their studies. In attempting to rationalize the TA workload at the department level

such that TA positions do not negatively affect completion times, we are aware of

the potential negative impacts this will have on student's financial resources. It is

7 . The most obvious are Women's Studies, Communications, Political Science, and Criminology.

plus the new interdisciplinary program in Development Studies, and the programs under

development in the Institute for Health Research Education.

in all of our interests to enable students to complete in a more timely fashion:

better financial support for TA/TM positions is an important part of addressing

this issue.

On its part the Department undertakes to:

Inform incoming students (and revise the Graduate Handbook accordingly)

that the department, funds permitting, will make every effort to financially

support students b

way of TA/TM positions and GFs, for a

eriod of no more

than 6 semesters (MA students) and 9 semesters (PhD students). ABD Ph.

students have been and will continue to be encoura

g ed to a pp l

for Sessional

Instructor positions within the department, both for the sake of fundin

and for

professional develo p

ment. Where students are successful in obtainin g

other

academic sources of fundin g

s) these will count as semesters of su

ort when it comes to

determinin g

eligibility and priority for TA/TM positions and GFs (in the case of

scholarshi p

s). Departmental financial support will be contingent on

satisfactor

progress in the program.

Implement a system for ongoing planning and trackin

the distribution of

academic financial resources to graduate students; this will facilitate the

development of a fundin g

lan for our graduate program and enable students

to know, as far in advance as

p ossible, of any fundin

offer the de

p artment is

able to provide them. However, it must be reco

nized that given the current

fundin g

resources for graduate students the department can allocate (TA/TM

bud g

et and GFs) we find our hands tied vis a vis the numbers of students

who can be guaranteed fundin g

, the amount of this fundin g

, and the time

frame over which the fundin g

offer is possible.

Consider wa

s to increase the p

ool of students who are suitabl

qualified,

available and interested in undertakin

RA positions with the externally

funded research facult

obtain; this mi

ht include considerin

g the efficac y

cohort based recruitment into the graduate program; rationalizin

the TA

workload ma

also hel

, in addition to developing a fundin g

plan suggested

b y

the Reviewers in their Rec. #14.

These areas of concern notwithstanding, we emphasize that relations between

faculty and graduate students continue to be very good, certainly a considerable

improvement over the situation at the time of the last External Review in which

there was considerable acrimony generated by funding issues. Of course the

funding issues remain, but the Department very conscious of them and very

attentive to addressing them as best we can under the circumstances.

Ô3) Administrative Issues

This is a heterogeneous category, which - with the exception of the question of

our faculty allotment (Rec. 25) -- will be dealt with in summary fashion.

Recommendation

#16:

The Reviewers find that faculty research productivity and

originality is of a quite high order, but do advise that faculty make greater use of

grant facilitation services available in the Dean of Arts Office. We agree:

The Faculty of Arts Research Grants Facilitator will therefore be invited to

s p eak to the Department in the fall, and on a regular basis thereafter.8

Recommendation

#17

of the Report focuses on problems that our faculty have

had with the administration of grant funds devoted to community-based research.

As they point out, this has been a real bureaucratic headache which impedes

research in non-conventional settings. We therefore reiterate the central point

that:

The administration should work to ada

t their research and accounting

su pp

ort to accommodate communit y

-based research.

Recommendation #18 identifies uncertainty in "expectations about the

requirements for tenure and promotion." There is obviously no cookie-cutter

solution to this, no one general formula that can be easily applied, but rather

consideration of a balance among factors. Perhaps the issue is inherently vague

are the University criteria themselves as outlined by Senate regulations.

This is a problem that must be brought forward and clarified in general discussion

among us.

Recommendation #19: The Reviewers seem to think that we have too many

committees. In fact a number of these meet only infrequently and take up little

time, which leaves us with only two committees - the Undergraduate Program

Committee and the Graduate Program Committee - that count as high demand.

This is already recognized for the GPC, in that its Chair is granted a course

release for his/her services. We propose to extend this privilege to the Chair of

the UPC, since, if implemented, the changes to the undergraduate program

and the other members of the UPC.

It is therefore recommended that the Chair of the UPC be granted regular

course release if the above mentioned chan

es in the undergraduate

program create greater demands on this office than currently exist.9

This service would also beuseful in helping to ensure that higher levels of graduate student

funding via external grants (re Rec. #15).

1fr

The Reviewers also find that we have too many Department meetings. The

Department will be asked to judge, and it would be no surprise if we end up

having fewer.

Recommendation #20 identifies a problem of faulty communication with the Dean

of Arts concerning mutual expectations and understandings about the status of

the Department in the Faculty, particularly with regard to the role it is apparently

expected to play in fostering 'interdisciplinarity.' As said in the opening

paragraphs of this response, this is a two-way problem and steps are being taken

now to address it and to clarify a number of outstanding issues by direct

conversation.

It should also be mentioned in this context that department has long had been

interdisciplinary in effect; it is itself a joint department, and as the reviewers

pointed out, a successful one; it cross-lists with other departments, and in effect

is the home department for the interdisciplinary Certificate in Family Studies; with

several faculty having joint appointments with other departments; we have been

directly involved with the deliberations that led up to the creation of the IHRE,

and are closely following the development of health-related programming; the

emerging programs in development studies and social policy are also a matter of

interest.

Recommendation #21 advocates that the Department "celebrates its successes"

and develop a strategy to enhance its profile in the University at large. Greater

service on University-level committees are one way to do this, and this is being

made known to our faculty. The Department web-site is currently under revision,

and this is another. Clearly the matter will require further thought.

Recommendation #22 suggests a more innovative use of space, while

recognizing that this is a University problem. Indeed it is, and we are up against

the limits of our own space. We do not see what can be done about this on our

own initiative.

Recommendation #23 advocates that the Department be provided with $18,000

for capital equipment purchase per our Internal Review document. We agree.

Recommendation #24 suggests a reorganization of staff office space and a

reorganization of staff duties for the sake of efficiency. What the latter part of the

recommendation means, we do not know. The DA handles advising, course

scheduling, financial accounting, etc; the Graduate Secretary performs a variety

of functions for both the S&A and the LAS graduate program; the Chair's

Secretary serves both programs in handling appointments correspondence, TPC

This has not been the practice in the past since the UPC has not been as demanding as the

GPC save for a flurry of activity around the time for submission of curriculum revisions to the

FACC.

matters, and so on. The General Office Secretary handles everything else, book

orders, phone calls, and - very importantly - direct contact with students on a

day-to-day basis. The Reviewers seem to think that staff office space can

somehow be combined in a more efficient manner. We disagree, since the

Graduate Secretary, Chair's Secretary, and DA all have to deal with separate and

confidential matters in the course of their regular duties.

Recommendation #25 advises that the Department and the Dean of Arts come to

a clear understanding about our allocation of replacement positions. There is one

replacement position in Sociology that is still outstanding due to budgetary

constraints. The Dean's office appears to recognize that we are in fact down one

position, and naturally we advocate, as do the Reviewers, that a search be

authorized to refill it at the earliest possible moment.

However, we also believe

that this

roblem must be seen in wider

p ers p ective. To that end we have

compiled a history of faculty staffin

g since 1987 so that both ourselves and

the Dean's office ma

y more clearl y p

erceive what our

p resent situation

actually is

(a summary table of retirements, resignations, and hirings is provided

as an Appendix to the present document, accompanied by a brief commentary).

Recommendation #26 advises filling the replacement position mentioned in #25.

Recommendation #27 advises that the current half-time lecturership held by Dr.

John Bogardus be up-graded to full time. This has already been authorized by

the Dean of Arts Office, and steps have been taken to do it.

Recommendation #28 pertains to the future status of the LAS Program, which

was externally reviewed at the same time we were. The result of that review was

straightforward: the LAS program is of great value to the University if properly

supported rather than allowed to limp along with its present inadequate level of

faculty staffing. We fully concur with this point of view, and have been since this

relationship was first mooted by the Dean; in order to advance this relationship,

Latin-American expertise was emphasized in one of our retirement replacement

positions. 10

Now, however, the status of LAS seems to be in limbo. The bottom-

line of the LAS Review was: su

ort LAS ade

q uatel

or close it down. Our own

Reviewers therefore advise (and we agree) that:

"The Dean of Arts should reach a decision about LAS so that the

de p

artment can consider LAS in its planning decisions."

See M. Kenny's Response to the LAS External Review. Unfortunately the holder of this

position resigned after only a short time with us, and the position (mentioned in recommendation

26) is currently unfilled.

In sum our 2003 External Review has -- as it should - given us (and the

Administration) much to think about. We regard this particular Review as

exceptionally productive and useful, and a recommendation for the process as a

whole. The Reviewer's Report concluded with possibilities for 'Future Directions'.

These "directions" can be expected to emerge out of our consideration of the

specific recommendations above: greater focus on strategic allocation of

resources, reconsidering the balance between the undergraduate and graduate

programs, emphasis on new pedagogical initiatives, program revisions,

investigating the possibility of greater interdisciplinary collaboration with regard to

teaching (the Reviewers singled out the IHRE in this regard, which bids fair to

become the core of a new Faculty of Health Studies with its own graduate

programs).

We also emphasize that we have already been working toward some of these

ends -- for example, through the collaborative, interdisciplinary, and community-

based 'Health and Home' research project. And this is not the only such effort,

since a number of faculty are involved in extensive multi-university projects.

Further endeavors along these lines would be very desirable.

We look forward

to a most productive period between now and three years hence, when

University regulations require an evaluation of the progress made since the

Review.

On behalf of the Dept. of Sociology &AnthroPObgY

Michael G. Kenny, D-Phil

Professor & Acting Chair

May 27, 2003

.'Health & Home' made considerable use of graduate students as RAs, a great plus with

respect to both funding and professional development.

i'1

(re recommendation #25 of the External Review):

APPENDIX

A Longitudinal Comparison (1987-2003) of CFL faculty in the

Department of Sociology & Anthropology

Table 1. Undergraduate and Graduate FTE, Budgeted CFL FTEI

Department of Sociology

. and Anthro p olo

and Faculty of ?

Arts.f

I ?

S&A

Facutly of Arts

1987/8 - 2002/3 comparison

UG and GR FTE Change

1.31

1.46

CFL FTE change

1.16

136

UG/GR FTE to CFL FTE change

0.86

0.89

UGIGR to CFL FTE Ratio

22.4

25.3

tThis table excludes 1 CFL FTE position (the Escudero Lectureship) for a total of 18.5 S&A CFL

FTE S&A in 2002/3.

Table 2A. S&A FACULTY: 1987

1987

Sociology

Anthropology

Adam

Dyck

Dickie-Clark

Gartrell

Dixon

Gates

Gee

Kenny

McLaren

Stearns

Peter

Whitaker

Sharma

Teeple

Whitworth

Wyllie

= 10 full time sociologists

= 6 full time anthropologists

= 16 Total CFL Faculty

(all full time)

Table 213. S&A FACULTY:

2003

Sociology

Anthropology

Atasoy

Culhane

Froschauer

Dossa

Gee (to be searched)

Dyck

McLaren

Gates

Pulkingham

Howard

Teeple

Kenny

Travers

Pigg

Whitworth

Lacombe (112 with Crim)

Ignace

(1/2 with NS; Kamloops)

Mitchell

(1/2 with Gero)

Nicholas

(112 with Arch; Kamloops)

Otero

(1/2 with LAS)

Bogardus (Lecturer)

Bogardus

(Lecturer)

Landholt (unfilled)

=8 full time sociologists

(when Gee position is filled)

= 3 halftime ( 1.5 full positions)

= 9.5 Total

=7 full time anthropologists

= 2 half time ,(= I full position)

= 8 Total

The Bogardus Lecturership serves both sides of the department, and will

be counted as one additional member to the departmental total.' The

Escudero Lecturership is technically counted to the Department for

administrative purposes, but since it only serves Spanish & LAS, it will be

ignored. The Szafnicki laboratory instructor position is a half-time position

in the department. It is technically treated as a position with teaching

responsibilities and is thus included in administrative CFL FTE figures, but

he does no teaching in this department and his role is limited to lab

management.

Department total = 18.5 full-time equivalent positions

'.Currently this Lecturership

half-time but,

since it

has been authorized for upgrading

time, we

as one

position

rIMAVA

Comparison

1987 was selected

as the comparison year because the department had

been relatively stable for some time, but then began to change rapidly due

to retirements, illness, and a buy-out.

What then are the salient differences between the two periods?

Based on Table I figures (derived from Table 4 figures) over this period,

the department experienced a grater relative decline in the ratio of UG/GR

FTE to CFL FTE than the faculty of arts as a whole (0.86 compared to 0.89

respectively) and our ratio of UG/GR FTE to CFL FTE is higher than that for

the faculty as a whole (25.7 compared to 25.3 respectively).

the total CFL faculty complement has increased from 16 to 18.5 (Tables

2A and 213). These figures exclude the Escudero and Szafnicki positions.

However:

1.5 of the Sociology total complement is made up of half-time positions,

which in the nature of the case do not carry the same clout with respect to

teaching and departmental service as full-time positions. In 1987 Sociology

had a complement of 10 full-time sociologists; but it has only 8 now (with

additional support from the Bogardus Lecturership).

A Sociology position (the Landholt replacement) has been on hold since

the resignation of Patricia Landholt in 2001, and funding for it is still

pending.

One of the Anthropology total is comprised of two half-time positions

attached to the SCES program in Kamloops. In practical terms this position

has little impact in Burnaby, save a degree of graduate supervision and a

small increment to anthropology's FTEs. Anthropology has therefore

gained one full-time position on Burnaby Mountain since 1987, and added

the Kamloops position through a special funding arrangement.2

The above figures point to the department's inability to maintain a

proportionate CFL FTE replacement rate given the rate of growth in UG and

OR FTE in the department, compared to the faculty of arts. In addition, the

department is concerned about the administration's apparent

disproportionate resort to half-time positions as a de facto recruitment

strategy for S&A which is an established program in the faculty. Half-time

positions may afford the faculty flexibility and interdisciplinary objectives,

and may be desirable in this regard. However, these positions come at a

The additional position in Burnaby came about through a special arrangement involving the

transfer of an anthropologist from another program at SFU.

c21

' ?

cost to the department in terms of administration and teaching. This needs

to be recognized and compensated in planning the departments hiring

needs in the future.

-------

OIA

TABLE

-j

SA Department

Retirement/Resignation/Hiring

H. Dickie-Clark (Prof)

1989

1990

(1) B Gartrell (Assist) (Med Leave)

(1) M Howard (50%)

Jane Pulkinghham (new position)

1991 1

Karl Peter (Prof) (retired)

Stacy Pigg (replace B. Gartrell)

1991

Parin Dossa

1992

Keith Dixon (Prof) (resign/buyout)

(2) M Howard (100916)

Ian Angus (100%)

1993

Ian Whitaker (Prof)

Marianne Ignace (50%) FNS CFL Pos 11904

1993

Mary Lee Stearns (Assoc)

Karl Froschauer (Replacement Pos 11901)

1994

Dara Cuihane

1994

Dany Lacombe (50%) Crim

1995/96?

(2)

B Gartrell (off payroll)

1996

Gerardo Otero (50%) LAS (transfer from SL.AS)

19981997

(1) Ian Angus (50%) Human (Prof)

G Nicholas (50%) Archae

1999

Had Sharma (Assoc to Erner)

Patricia Landoldt (Replace Pos #11910)

Barb Mitchell (50%) Gero (spousal consid) no search

Patricia Landolt (resign)

When S. Pigg hired, advertisement was for 2 Anthro (1 replacement & 1 new)

Marianne Ignace - position authorized w/special funding from gov. for the joint

SCES/SFU Program

In letter to_

Dean,

_Bob _Wyllie _mentions _SA_

still

_owed

_I_Soc_POS

G. Nicholas limited term starting 1991, continuing lecturer 1995-1998

IrL

Cl)

TI.'

Cl)

—f

ID ? 

0

Cc

? CD 

-

- -.

(/)C)

-n

-C)

0 ?

000CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD(OCOC)C)C)0)

CD

CD

(n ?

•0)

9 -

•0

CL

0

CD 0 CD

7R

-'

C) -

CD.

CD C

. Ni

CA

CD 0

CL

--0

CD CO 

--CD--'

N.)

0 0

• ?

d.r

CD 0 

C)03

-

..

?

CD ?

U)(D

CD

F.)

000CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCOCDCDCD

CD)

0) 0) F.)

0) Ni N) - CO

(.3 (.3(4 N.) Ni NJ NJ N)

s - -

00 (31

000000

C) 0) C) 0)0) 0) 0) 0) C) 01 01 C."

C) 0

0-U1

CO . ?

.96

4 416 F.) -

-J0 -

0 -

0 . ?

000(DC)0)C)C)C)NiC)NiCC)1i

b o

0000—

N.)

0 0 CD CO (0 (0 (7%

_s ?

s ?

C0C)C)NiC0C)C)0NiNi0---0C4C)m

oNi0)A . C)C0-JC)ppCO-

0CDC

-4

0) C.) - (.3 C.) -4 -4 -' -N. -4 - CO

0 (3% -4 .N.

C) .N.

CD -4 .

J Ni

c.)0)C)0)c.)NioN)m3

N. -N. C) CD (.3 (9 0)

0 -

-n

-44.4C)C)C)C)C)C)C)C)C)0101

Ni-40C)O

ca

c2f

SOUP 03-033

REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Simon Fraser University

Matthew Cooper, McMaster University

James Frideres, University of Calgary

Daiva Stasiulis, Carleton University, Chair

March 2003

2s',

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND

SYNOPSIS OF REVIEW TEAM'S EVALUATION.........................................................

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING AND

CURRICULUM.................................................

Theorycourses....................................................................................

Statisticscourse....................................................................................

CooperativeEducation ...................................................................................

Undergraduate advising and academic oversight...................................................

GRADUATE TEACHING, CURRICULUM AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT

.......................... 12

StudentSu

pervision

.........................................................................................

GraduateCurriculum.....................................................................................

GraduateFunding...................................................................................

FACULTY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTIVITY ...........................................................

SSHRCC and other Scholarly Grants .................................................................

Publications and Dissemination

Knowledge ..

.....................................................

GOVERNANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT....................................................................

CONNECTIONS

THE FACULTY WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY

.............24

RESOURCES, FACILITIES AND SUPPORT .................................................................

SpaceResourc

..............................................................................................

LibraryResources ..........................................................................................

..28

Computer

operating/Capital

Resources

Budget................................................................................

.....................................................................................

Computing...................................................................................................

Staff.............................................................................................

ContinuingF

aculty

List ..................................................................................

Kamloops.........................................................................

Studies ............................................................

... 33

FUTUREDIRECTiONS...........................................................................................

Involvement in the Institute for Health Research Education.....................................

Appendix

Review Committee Schedule .........................................................................

040

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page I of 34

PREAMBLE

The External Review Committee was composed of Dr. Matthew Cooper

(McMaster), Dr. James Frideres (Calgary), and Dr. Daiva Stasiulis (Carleton, Chair of the

Committee). The Internal member of the Committee was Dr. Robert Menzies

(Criminology, SFU). We warmly thank Dr. Menzies for his many insights into the

history and operation of the University. As per the terms of reference for the review, he

was not involved in writing the report. The committee spent three days, February 19 to

February 21, 2003, visiting the university, holding meetings, and interviewing various

groups and individuals.

We would like to thank several people for facilitating our review process: Laurie

Summers, the Director of Academic Planning, for her excellent work in organizing our

visit; Michael Kenny, Acting Chair of the Department, Jane Pulkingham, and the

'Internal Report' committee for responding promptly to our requests for information, and

for producing an informative internal report under difficult circumstances; and the

faculty, support staff, and students for their openness and candour.

BACKGROUND

This report is based on analysis of various documents received before and during

our visit, as well as our three-day visit to the department. During that time, we had

meetings with the following groups and individuals:

Senior Administrators:

John Waterhouse (Vice-President Academic)

Bill Krane (Associate Vice-President Academic)

Bruce Clayman (Vice-President Research)

Jonathan Driver (Dean of Graduate Studies)

John Pierce (Dean of the Faculty of Arts)

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 2 of 34

Laurie Summers (Director, Academic Planning)

S/A

Faculty:

We held meetings with the S/A Undergraduate Studies and Graduate Studies

Committees, and members of the 'Health and Home' Research project. We also had a

conference call with George Nichblas at the SFU/SCES project in Kamloops. Faculty

members we met with were:

At a reception organized by the department, we also had the opportunity to meet

with other faculty members including Karl Froschauer, Barbara Mitchell and Yildiz

Atasoy. Two Library representatives met with us to provide us with an overview of

Sociology and Anthropology holdings. We also held a meeting with approximately

twelve graduate and undergraduate students. We were grateful to students for meeting

with us during their study break.

The documents received by the external review team for the purposes of conducting

the review are:

• Internal Report of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology including

department statistical tables

• CVs of Sociology and Anthropology faculty

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 3

of 34

• Terms of Reference for the External Review

S• Senate Guidelines for External Reviews and Terms of Reference

• Three Year Plan of the Vice-President Academic

• Faculty of Arts Three Year Plan

• 2000 Survey of 1998 Baccalaureate Graduates Reports for Sociology and

Anthropology

• 2001 Survey of 1996 Baccalaureate Graduates Reports for Sociology and

Anthropology

• Data on SFU Research Grants and Contracts to Academic Departments

• Data on Research Funding for the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

• 2002/03 University Calendar

• Graduate Studies Fact Book

• President's Agenda and Administrative Structure Chart

• Previous External Review Report (April 1996)

• Graduate Caucus Report for the External Review

• Sociology and Anthropology Student Union Undergraduate Report

• Review Committee Schedule (see Appendix 1 for schedule of the Review

Committee)

SYNOPSIS OF REVIEW TEAM'S EVALUATION

The Sociology and Anthropology Department at SFU is characterized by several

notable strengths. It is the site for the production of nationally- and internationally-

recognized critical and interdisciplinary research in several important substantive areas in

the social sciences. The two disciplines are exceptionally well integrated; the cross-

fertilization and absence of apparent tension between the two disciplines is unique among

departments offering combined sociology and anthropology programmes. There is a very

strong commitment among faculty to offer premium undergraduate programmes that is

supported by practices such as the assignment of senior faculty to large introductory

crol

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 4 of

courses. All constituencies - faculty, support staff, undergraduate and graduate students

- convey the strong impression that S/A is a congenial, supportive, and intellectually

stimulating environment within which to work. The recent new hires have brought

renewed energy into a productive department and charted novel directions for research

and teaching strength.

A few months prior to the External Review, in November 2002, the department

suffered a major blow with the sudden death of its beloved and highly esteemed Chair,

Ellen Gee. There has been a very impressive response since Professor Gee's death

evidenced by how the department has pulled together and moved forward. This response

speaks strongly to the potential of the department to move on and to prosper in the long

term. The future leadership also is highly competent and this augurs well for the

department's ability to weather the transition, chart new directions, and undertake

reforms to strengthen the teaching and research capacities of the department.

Along with a high degree of collegiality, democracy and good-will in the

department, however, there prevails a sense that its contributions and achievements have

not always been sufficiently valued, understood or supported by the SFU Administration.

There is less than perfect accord between the understanding of the department's future

within the department and the senior administration's plans for the department built

around diverse interdisciplinary programmes. This absence of alignment has introduced

further challenges and considerable uncertainty surrounding the department's capacity to

mount its programmes. The Faculty Dean has, with great clarity, revealed his plan as to

how the department could facilitate interdisciplinary teaching and research in several

different ways. Unfortunately, this vision has not been articulated clearly to the

department who are unaware of his vision of the future and the role they might play.

Better communication needs to be restored between the department and the Faculty Dean

in order for important issues to be resolved such as future hiring, structural

interdisciplinaritY, and budgetary, faculty recruitment and other forms of resource

allocation.

go:

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page

Our overall impression is that the department is doing many things exceedingly

well in areas of research, publishing and dissemination, external grant acquisition,

undergraduate teaching and graduate training. There is a great deal of exciting,

innovative and policy relevant work being carried out in the department, reflecting

diverse methodologies and theoretical perspectives. However, the Committee also felt

that the department was trying to do too many things and spreading its resources in some

areas thinly. In particular, we felt that the department needs to reassess the balance

between its undergraduate and graduate programmes, allocate more resources and focus

to its graduate programmes, and improve the completion rates for MA students. This

would entail several reforms, including giving graduate teaching credit to faculty,

introducing new courses, sharing resources with other units to develop interdisciplinary

courses, introducing more effective monitoring of student progress, and possibly

recruiting thematic or interest-based cohorts. With respect to its undergraduate

programmes, the department is in the midst of an internal review through an

undergraduate curriculum task force, and the department is thus working diligently to

• streamline and enhance its undergraduate programmes. Its biggest task will be to

implement the recommendations that emerge from the task force. In this report, we have

identified several areas where we feel that the undergraduate programmes might benefit

from reforms. Finally, with respect to governance issues, we suggest some areas where

faculty need to become more involved (e.g., undergraduate supervision) and others where

we feel departmental administration needs to become less burdensome. In total, we offer

28 recommendations in this report.

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

The department offers three undergraduate degree options: a major in Sociology

or Anthropology, and a joint major combining the two. In 2000/01, about

63%

students were in Sociology, 26% in Anthropology and 10% in Anthropology/SOCiOlOgY.

In addition, the department serves an important service function in that between 69% and

73%

of its course registrants, over the period

1997/98

to 2000/01, were students from

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 6

other programmes. From 1994/95 to 2000/01, S/A experienced an overall decline in

students with majors or minors in S/A, with the number of registrants contracting by

31%. However, in 2000/01, there was a slight increase of 6 percent. The explanation we

received for the drop in enrolment was two-fold: first, the shift at SFU in undergraduate

enrolments from Arts toward Science, Education and Applied Sciences, and second, the

shift in the university's policy away from college transfers and towards high school

graduates. The department's survey of undergraduate students, conducted in spring 2002,

suggests that a very high percentage (about 81 %) of S/A students are college transfer

students. Thus, while the shift in recruiting patterns produced a decline for the Faculty

of Arts as a whole, its effects were particularly felt in Sociology and Anthropology. The

increase in 2000/01 in undergraduate enrolments in S/A programmes, in absolute

numbers and relative to total university enrolments, is encouraging.

The quality of undergraduate instruction is high and strongly valued in the

department. Three faculty members have received awards honouring excellence in

teaching. We were particularly impressed by the department's commitment to have

introductory and core courses taught by full-time faculty members considered 'excellent

teachers,' including very senior members of the department. Several faculty members

conveyed an enthusiasm for teaching at the undergraduate level that had not diminished

after two to three decades of teaching. A recent SFU survey of undergraduate student

opinion found that students taking S/A courses were likely to express somewhat greater

satisfaction with the quality of their education than other students at SFU. The

undergraduate students with whom we spoke praised the diverse and rich theoretical and

methodological approaches to sociology and anthropology taught in the department.

They felt that the undergraduate programmes offered important tools for critical

understanding of cultural and social forces in contemporary societies and in the global

arena.

Small classes are highly valued by the department. Although the four-hour per

week format for courses is above the norm in other SFU departments and programmes,

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology

SFU ?

Page 7 of

faculty are convinced of the benefits and unique opportunities for contact of students with

faculty afforded by the 2-hour lecture, 2-hour discussion group format.

Despite their many strengths and general high quality, the structure, curriculum

and delivery of the undergraduate programmes require some revision in light of limited

and stretched faculty resources and difficulties conveyed by students and faculty. The

programmes are structured in such a way as to offer a great many options in terms of

majors, minors, joint majors and minors, as well as certificates. We recognize the value

of the richness and diversity of the department's curriculum, and of the integration of

sociology and anthropology in the curriculum. It was our estimation, however, that in

view of the resource constraints, the complicated character of the undergraduate

programmes and the fact that several of these options yielded low enrolments, the

department needs to make some tough decisions about priorities and the direction of their

undergraduate programmes. Some of this re-visioning is already in train with the

establishment of a departmental undergraduate curriculum task force.

One of the problems identified by students, and exacerbated by the trimester

system, is course availability. The department needs to engage in long-range planning in

order to ensure that courses are regularly offered (e.g., every fall, winter, and alternative

summer semesters) so that students can complete their degrees in a timely fashion.

Students expressed frustration with their inability to get into courses because

prerequisites were not always available. Unavailability of prerequisites requires students

to wait in order to take desired courses, which in the case of fourth-year students can

delay graduation for two or three semesters. The department was aware of this

obstruction in the programme and had already made efforts to simplify the prerequisites;

we applaud these efforts and suggest that this process of prerequisite simplification go

even further. Other aspects of the programme requiring reassessment pertain to the

theory and methodology courses and are addressed below. Finally, part of the difficulty

in planning, revision, and delivery of the programmes might be overcome if there were

more faculty oversight in the undergraduate programmes and more involvement of

faculty in academic counselling of students.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 8

We encourage the department to meet as a unit (for example, hold a retreat) to decide

Recommendation 1:

the courses required for the production of a well-trained undergraduate student in

Sociology and/or Anthropology. This would result in a clear identification of core

courses (both substantive and tools) that all majors would need to take. Once this has

been identified, the offering of such courses could be planned over a three-year cycle.

The remaining "optional" courses could then be offered as resources allow.

We further encourage the department to proceed with undergraduate curricular

reform and long-term planning (through their undergraduate curriculum task force),

and to bring it to a speedy conclusion. Aspects of curricular reform involve:

• consideration of whether to maintain all joint programmes and certificates

• further simplifying programme requirements and prerequisites.

Theory courses:

Currently, there are two required theory courses for Sociology Majors and

Honours students taught at the undergraduate level in Sociology (S/A250 and S/A35 1).

Other theory courses are offered, but are not required. While the lower-level required

theory course (250) for Sociology Majors offers classical theories and a smattering of

contemporary theories, the upper-level required course (S/A

350)

focuses solely on

classical theories. Both undergraduate and graduate students conveyed to us that their

instruction in contemporary theories tended to cover far too many theorists in too short a

time. This suggests a need for the required theory course offerings to be rethought. One

suggestion is that Sociology Majors and Honours students be required to take one lower-

level Sociology course in classical theory and a second upper-level course in

contemporary theoretical sociology. Our suggestion derives from the model that

currently exists in the sociology departments of the three reviewers from Carleton,

Calgary and McMaster. Currently, Anthropology Majors and Honours students are not

3tf'

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 9 of 34

required to take a course in contemporary theory. Consideration should thus be given to

0introducing a required 4" year upper division anthropology contemporary theory course.

We recommend that both Sociology and Anthropology introduce an upper-division

required course in contemporary theory.

Statistics course:

The Statistics requirement is covered outside the department (STAT 203-3 -

Introduction to Statistics for Social Science). A

culture of fear has developed

surrounding this course. We were informed that students delay taking it until late in their

programme ("at the last moment"). The sentiment prevails in the department that this

course may not be the most appropriate statistics course for sociology students.

Sociology Majors are required to take either S/A

355-6,

'Quantitative Methods' or POL

. 315-4 for which 203-3 is a prerequisite. Thus, it is unclear how students can take 203-3

late in their programme. All of this suggests the need for the department to reconsider

how the statistics requirement in Sociology is to be met.

Recommendation 3:

We recommend that the department reassess how it delivers the statistics requirement.

The undergraduate curriculum is distinguished by its strong interdisciplinarity in

integrating Sociology and Anthropology. Many courses are listed as S/A courses and can

be used for either the Sociology or Anthropology major. As the department has several

joint majors - with Women's Studies, Linguistics, Criminology, Archaeology,

Communications, Latin American Studies and Contemporary Arts, and strong linkages

with other departments (e.g., Political Science), the department should be encouraged to

strengthen interdisciplinarity in its undergraduate curriculum with these and other

disciplines.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 10 of 34

Recommendation 4:

The department should investigate cross-listing courses with other departments and

encourage its students to take courses in other departments. The joint majors

currently in place could provide the opportunity to develop truly interdisciplinary

courses with other departments.

The small classes in the department and the large number of contact hours per week

between instructors/teaching assistants and students provide opportunities for students to

engage in more 'hands-on', interactive pedagogy. The undergraduate students would like

to have more writing and skills development introduced into the curriculum, an idea that

we endorse.

Recommendation 5:

The undergraduate curriculum should incorporate more problem-based, self-directed,

and experiential approaches to education and place greater emphasis on developing

writing skills.

Cooperative Education:

The department's self-study points out that "while the Department of Sociology

and Anthropology was the first department in the Faculty of Arts to launch a Co-op

Education Programme, our students are not particularly involved in it." There has been a

steady downward trend in S/A enrolments from 18 students in 1998 to only 9 in 2000/01.

The Internal Report and the undergraduate students with whom we spoke suggested that

the weak involvement of S/A in the Co-op programme might be the product of the types

of placements available in recent times which seem more suitable to other disciplines

such as applied sciences, IT and business.

310

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 11

The department should create a Co-op departmental coordinator position. The

Recommendation 6:

departmental coordinator should be encouraged to meet with the Arts Co-op

Coordinator to discuss the opportunities that exist for S/A students. The Arts Co-op

Coordinator should be brought into the department along with students who have had

experience in the Co-op programme.

Undergraduate advising and academic oversight:

The norm in sociology/anthropology departments in other universities, and in

other units at SFU, is to have a faculty member serve as Undergraduate Coordinator,

whose role it is to share responsibility for advising students with a support staff member.

In this department, the departmental administrator (DA), Karen Payne, appears to have

sole responsibility for advising undergraduate students. Some undergraduate students

expressed the sentiment that they felt adrift in their program, with no faculty member

available to provide them with academic advice.

The DA in this department is responsible for scheduling and staffing of courses.

In cases of conflict, the DA alerts the Chair. In our experience, the scant amount of

academic oversight in decisions regarding the scheduling of courses and matching of

faculty to courses is unusual. In our departments, the usual procedure for staffing courses

involves the departmental Chair requesting course choices from the faculty and then

negotiating course offerings with individual faculty members in view of the faculty's

preferences and departmental needs. The DA's role is normally that of scheduling the

courses in consultation with faculty. The relative absence of academic oversight in the

annual planning of courses in this department might account for some of the problems

students are experiencing with respect to course availability.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 12 of 34

We recommend that the department consider appointing a faculty member to serve as

Undergraduate Coordinator to work closely with the DA in providing academic

counselling for undergraduate students.

Recommendation 8:

The department may wish to consider assigning faculty (possibly the Chair) to work

with the DA in the scheduling and staffing of courses, with the view that academic

oversight would add greater coherence to the programme.

GRADUATE TEACHING, CURRICULUM AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT

The S/A graduate programmes have several notable strengths and there is also

indication of improvement in several areas since the last external review in 1996. One

indicator of the high quality of the graduate students and graduate teaching in the

department is the job success of Ph.D. students. Nine of eleven Ph.D. graduates have

tenure-track faculty positions in universities. In comparison to the situation that prevailed

during the last external review in 1996, graduate students feel that the department has

made significant strides in creating a more welcoming community atmosphere. Whereas

in 1996 students were not represented on important departmental committees such as the

Appointments Committee, graduate students are now represented on all committees and

feel that they exercise real voice and influence. Students also felt that efforts had been

made to provide greater structure to graduate supervision and to correct some of the

problems governing the relationship between the department and its graduate students.

However, graduate students are still inadequately supported as far as graduate

curriculum, supervision, monitoring and funding are concerned. Many of the concerns of

graduate students are expressed in the

Graduate caucus Report for the External Review

of the Sociolo' and A nthropo1o' Department.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 13 of 34

While we have several specific observations and recommendations to make about

the graduate programmes, we feel that a major structural problem pertains to the balance

of resource allocation between undergraduate and graduate programmes. The problem of

insufficient support for graduate programmes characterizes SFU as a whole, and is not

confined to S/A. However, it manifests itself in the lengthy completion time for MA

students and high withdrawal rates for MA and PhD students in the department.

The time for completion for the PhD from 1994-2002 is on average five years,

which is about the average in S/A departments and for other departments in SFU. The

PhD withdrawal rate of 50 % is high in relation to S/A programmes in other universities

and to SFU as a whole, where it is 41 per cent. The completion time for the MA is 10.2

semesters, which is higher than in the university as a whole where it is 7.6 semesters, or

SFU's Faculty of Arts where it is 8.2 semesters. It was pointed out to us that there are in

fact several MA programmes in the Arts (including Archaeology, Criminology, Liberal

• Studies, Linguistics, Psychology, Spanish, Latin American Studies and Women's

Studies) where the completion rate is comparable to that of the S/A department. The

withdrawal rate for the MA of3l% is also higher than for SFU as a whole, where it is

22%. There are several reasons for the lengthy completion rates in the M.A. programme

in S/A and in the Faculty of Arts as a whole. They appear to be strongly influenced by

the heavy demands of time placed on students through their teaching assistantships, an

issue we address further below. The department is well aware of the problem of lengthy

completion and has begun to take proactive steps to address this problem through some

programme reforms (discussed below). But given that there are multiple reasons for the

long completion times, including slim course offerings and lack of credit given to faculty

for graduate teaching and supervision, the graduate programmes need to undergo a more

thorough and imaginative restructuring and become more adequately resourced.

A major discrepancy between advertising and programme reality exists: students

are informed (e.g., through the Graduate Studies Guide for the Department of Sociology

0and Anthropology, 200212003)

that the goal of the programme is 'to

facilitate

students

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 14

completing an MA within one year or 3-4 semesters' while the reality is that most MA

students take more than three times this time to complete. Students feel that much more

structure needs to be introduced into the graduate programme to facilitate their timely

completion.

In view of these structural problems, the department should make a concerted

effort to allocate more of its resources and make structural changes to the graduate

programmes.

Recommendation 9:

The balance between undergraduate and graduate programme resources needs to be

rethought, with a view to allocating more resources, making structural changes, and

facilitating student progress and completion in the graduate programmes. Part of this

reallocation should entail the establishment of a system of credit for graduate teaching

and supervision.

Student Supervision:

Students were very complimentary about the overall quality of their relations with

supervisors and the scholarly depth and breadth of the education and input they received

from their supervisors and committee members. While students highly valued the

mentoring and excellent quality of feedback they received from faculty, they also

expressed their concerns about the fairly lax character of supervision as far as timelines

were concerned and the lengthy turnaround times they sometimes experienced in

receiving feedback. Students report a "free fall" period after finishing their coursework.

They are requesting more structure and closer supervision and monitoring of their

progress so that they might better complete their programme in a timely fashion.

Monitoring seems to be restricted to the "annual review" of student progress through

written reports, which students themselves fill out and which faculty agreed is generally

treated as a formality. Students expressed concern about their lack of success in having

regular meetings scheduled with their supervisors and committees and the absence of

clarity regarding supervisor-student relations.

4t0

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 15

The department needs to respond to graduate student requests for more structure and

Recommendation 10:

proactive supervision to guide them through the programme and must institute

reforms to improve the quality of graduate supervision.

Programme Options:

In order to decrease the completion, times for MA students, the department

recently introduced options that are more course-based. Since 2000, the department has

offered three options for the MA: (1) courses plus extended essays; (2) courses plus

research project; and (3) courses plus thesis. The recency of these structural reforms

• makes it premature to evaluate their effects. However, early indications suggest that the

introduction of project and extended essay options is having a .positive effect in

decreasing MA completion times. Students pointed out, however, that there is still

confusion on the part of students and faculty surrounding the expectations for each

programme choice.

Recommendation 11:

Given the confusion shared by students and faculty regarding the expectations for

each programme choice, we suggest that more guidance and education need to be

provided delineating such things as the process for achieving the desired completion

times in each programme choice and the criteria underlying student selection of

programme options. Adjustments might also be required to the Research Design

course, which is currently biased toward thesis work, to accommodate all three

programme options.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 16 of 34

Graduate Curriculum:

The department advertises many diverse areas of study in its graduate

programmes. Yet it offers regular graduate courses only in theory 'and methods. This

means that heavy use is made of directed readings as a substitute for classroom-based

courses and students lose out on valuable aspects of the classroom and seminar

experience. The department needs to give thought to the introduction of new substantive

graduate courses, offered on a rotating basis. The establishment of new interdisciplinary

courses would permit S/A to share the workload and costs with other graduate

programmes.

A graduate programme based on "overload teaching" is NOT sustainable. The

12:

department needs to identify substantive, theory and skills courses that will be offered

to graduate students on a three-year cycle.

Recommendation 13:

In order to build up the graduate curriculum, the department could plan to offer

substantive courses on a rotating basis. In order to increase the availability of

graduate courses on a cost-effective basis, graduate courses could be established with

cognate disciplines, where staffing and other costs could be shared.

Graduate Funding:

The cumulative funding of the MA programme consists of 60% Teaching

Assistantships and Marker positions, 28% graduate fellowships (GFs), 10% Research

Assistantships, and about 2% from other sources. The funding of graduate students is

thus heavily reliant on teaching assistantships (TAships). Entrance scholarships exist for

Ph.D. students, but scholarships at the MA level were reported to be "very few and

scrabbly." TAships are a normal part of the graduate student experience. They provide

not only needed financial support, but also professional training in teaching. At SFU,

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 17 of 34

however, in the S/A department and seemingly in the Faculty of Arts and beyond, MA

students work on average 15 to 20 hours per week in their TA jobs, or one and a half to

twice as many hours as MA students in S/A programmes in other universities.

Undergraduate courses in the S/A department are organized on a 4-credit course system

and a 2 (lecture) hour and 2 (tutorial) hour basis. This system is thus heavily reliant on

the tutorial system for lower-division level courses. In addition to the 15-20 hours of

work required by their TA and TM contracts, graduate students also frequently work

additional hours in part-time jobs, thus further impinging on the time they have available

to devote to their studies and research. Under the current contract for TAs, reduction of

the TA load would also reduce the financial resources to students. In addition, the

increase in courses offered by distance education has augmented the number of Tutor

Marker positions in relation to the number of TA positions. As of May 1, 2003, a full TA

paid

$5635

for an MA student and $6680 for a PhD student; an MA Tutor Marker

position paid between

$3039

and $4979 for an MA, and

$3576

between $5864 for a PhD,

depending on enrollment. As Tutor Marker positions can be less well-remunerated than

TA positions, this shift has had a further detrimental impact on the financial support

provided to graduate students.

The training provided to students regarding grantsmanship has improved since the

last external review in 1996. Students have greater understanding of the process of

awarding of GFs. The recent announcement of increased funding by SSHRC for MA

programmes may augment the scholarship portion of funding of MA students.

Recommendation 14:

Efforts should be made to increase scholarship support to graduate students so as to

enable them to dedicate more time to their research and writing and reduce the level

of dependence on TA and TM positions. In cooperation with the Dean of Arts and

the Dean of Graduate Studies, the department should work out a model of guaranteed

funding for some reasonable period corresponding to the number of programme

years.

4'3

Report of the Review. Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 18

of'

Recommendation 15:

We encourage faculty to try to increase graduate student involvement in their

externally funded research. This will benefit students financially as well as in terms

of training and skills development opportunities.

FACULTY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTIVITY

While it is difficult to characterize the research thrust of a diverse department,

representing two disciplines and a wide variety of substantive areas, the emphasis in S/A

faculty research has been on "qualitative socially critical research of interdisciplinary

relevance"

(Internal Report).

Particularly notable have been research and publications in

such areas as globalization and indigenous peoples, ethnicity, race and immigration,

development, poverty, state theory, sexuality and moral/legal regulation, social policy,

and health and aging. Different projects are informed by diverse theoretical and

epistemological perspectives and are based on a range of qualitative and quantitative

methodologies. The Committee reviewed the research productivity of the faculty

members, including their publications, success at attaining external research grants and

involvement in journal editorial boards and professional associations. All indicators

underline that this department is an active and strong research unit. The great majority of

departmental members are fully engaged in the research arena. Research produced in the

department is the product of a mixture of individual scholarship and collaboration among

members of the department and scholars and community-based researchers outside the

department and University. While senior members have well-deserved reputations for

excellence in research, younger scholars and those hired in the 1990s have active and

exciting research programmes and have greatly contributed to departmental renewal. The

interviews with graduate students revealed the extent of "pull" of current faculty

members and the strong reputation of the department. Graduate students were clear that

their choice of attending Simon Fraser University was largely a function of the expertise

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 19

of specific professors, who they felt would provide them with the necessary inspiration

and direction in their academic area.

SSHRCC and other Scholarly Grants:

Our measure of success in grantsmanship examined faculty funding from

SSHRCC over the period of 1995-2001 as well as independent data obtained from

SSI-{RCC. This data revealed that the Department of Sociology and Anthropology was

ranked somewhere between 8th and 10th place out of 28 institutions in the country. Data

provided to the Committee by Research Services at Simon Fraser University reveals that

the department brought in over S 1 .2M of government funding over the past six years.

During our discussions with faculty members it was brought to our attention that other

grants had been obtained (e.g., grants from U.S. funding sources) but were not

administered by Simon Fraser University. Hence, we estimate that considerable

additional research monies have been obtained by faculty which are not tracked by the

University. SSHRCC grants are traditionally small yet we see that some scholars in the

department have been able to obtain major grants.

Six faculty members brought in nearly three-quarters of the SSHRCC. funding.

However, other faculty members have obtained modest SSHRCC and/or CIHR funding

for carrying out their research. Indeed, the majority of faculty are currently holding

research grants. Given the three-year cycle of research programmes provided by

SSHRCC, it is not unusual to find some scholars between research grants. Thus, our

analysis shows that one person has not obtained a research grant in the past three years,

two people have not received a research grant in two years, and two people have not

received a research grant in the last year. We found that in the past year scholars in the

department obtained 14 research grants and ranked

within Simon Fraser University

with regard to obtaining funds from Canadian federal granting agencies. It should be

noted that the most recent hires of the department are all holders of SSHRCC funding and

are either principal investigators or members of larger research teams. In summary, the

pattern of research funding supports a department that is fully and robustly engaged in the

research enterprise.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 20

These data suggest that faculty members are making a substantial contribution to

the graduate students' ability to continue and complete their academic programmes. This

is a considerable advance from the last external review when it was noted that few faculty

held external grants and only a handful were able to fund graduate students. Students

from outside the department and community researchers also are supported by faculty

research funds. The average allocation per student ranged from eight to eleven thousand

dollars per year over the past three years. These data suggest that faculty members are

making a substantial contribution to the support of graduate students. In addition to the

financial contribution to the graduate students, faculty are also providing valuable

research training and data for students to use in their theses or dissertations. Graduate

students were particularly supportive of this practice and there is every indication that

faculty will continue to engage in it.

Recommendation 16:

In order to maintain and further enhance faculty success in receiving external grants,

faculty members in the department should avail themselves of the services provided

by the Faculty of Arts. Other strategies such as mentoring should be investigated and

appropriate action should be taken as a collective unit.

A number of administrative, faculty workload, and ethical issues were raised by those

involved with the recent "Health and Home" grant. One issue concerns the university's

administration of community-based research grants and the difficulties in paying non-

traditional community researchers' salaries and expenses. Another issue pertains to the

huge volume of administration involved for faculty in administering such grants, such

that one faculty member quipped that among her research interests listed by the

university was "accounting theory." We believe the university has listened to these

concerns. The VP Research seemed to be very open to supporting innovative research in

substantial ways. Nonetheless, there is room for more progress in the university's

facilitation and recognition of community-based research.

L,q,

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 21

Given the "accounting headache" and other complex issues involved in the

Recommendation 17:

administration of grants for community-based research, we suggest that the

administration continue to work to adapt their research and accounting support to

accommodate community-based research. This might entail establishing a person or

unit dedicated to administration of community-based research.

Publications and Dissemination of Knowledge:

An examination of the CVs of faculty members reveals high levels of productivity among

senior, mid-career and junior faculty. Although we lack systematic data on this, we are

aware of the sterling reputations enjoyed by several of the faculty at the national and

international settings. (At a still fairly junior level, one faculty member was offered and

declined a Canada Research Chair at another university.) We were surprised that, given

their accomplishments, a couple of the senior associate professors in Sociology had not

been promoted to full professor.

The contribution to knowledge takes place in many different ways. Our review of

the CVs of faculty shows they are involved in knowledge generation as well as

dissemination in two principal ways. The first and more traditional form of scholarly

publishing occurs through journals, books, and other peer reviewed outlets. The research

published in these outlets is well regarded both nationally and internationally, creates

new knowledge in various fields and meets the criterion of being critical research. The

second and less traditional form of dissemination of knowledge is more applied in nature,

provides knowledge that can inform policy reform and community-based action and

occurs through reports, the mass media, and other vehicles.

Many faculty have published well-regarded books that are in wide use in social

science teaching and academic debate in many universities. Faculty members regularly

publish in a number of interdisciplinary refereed journals. A review of the citation index

4^7

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 22 of 34

was undertaken and a "citation impact" score was attempted. The lack of inclusion of

various journals that sociologists and anthropologists publish in prevented any

meaningful assessment. However, the data that were assembled would suggest that the

department ranked above the mean of 28 comparable institutions across the country.

There also is a commitment among many faculty members to make their research

accessible to community-based groups and policy-makers - so that their publishing

strategies have targeted both traditional scholarly venues (books and journals) and non-

traditional audiences.

S/A faculty overall have thus utilized both forms of disseminating their

scholarship. The form of scholarship outlet would seem to be related to the research

activities of the scholar. Hence one finds that when a professor has been engaged in

"community based" or more applied research, the initial publications tend toward the

second type. However, most scholars have followed these kinds of publications with

more formal, peer-reviewed publications. There are some faculty who have focused their

publication careers in the more non-traditional outlets. It was not clear to us that one or

the other form of scholarship was the best strategy for advancing the faculty member's

career.

Senior members of the department have "raised the bar" for promotion but this has

not been clearly communicated to others in the department. The lack of any departmental

material outlining the expectations surrounding promotion is something the department

should address.

Recommendation 18:

It is necessary that the department (informed by the criteria set out in the collective

agreement) communicate a clear and transparent set of expectations about the

requirements for tenure and promotion. Senior members of the department should

provide guidance in this matter to assistant and associate professors.

A number of senior faculty members have been or are currently involved in

professional associations, or sit on editorial boards of journals (for examples, see below

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 23

under "Connections of the Faculty within and outside the University"). These

appointments (or in some cases elections) are reflective of the stature of these scholars in

their profession. Finally, their involvement as reviewers for a host of journals and

commercial book publishers (as well as for SSHRCC) suggests reputations of high

quality that would encourage others to draw upon their expertise.

GOVERNANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT

The department values inclusiveness and democratic decision-making. It has

made significant progress in putting these values into practice. The 1996 Review Report

noted tensions between the department and its graduate students. According to the Report

of the current Graduate Student Caucus, at that time graduate students felt that "their

concerns were not listened to and that the department did not involve them in matters that

affected them directly."

We think that the department has responded well to these concerns. At present,

most departmental committees contain two graduate and also two undergraduate students

with full voting rights. Contemporary graduate students report that their representatives

"have real power and voice."

The Review Committee noted the relatively large number of departmental

committees, especially given the size of the department. There are the Executive,

Graduate Studies, Undergraduate Curriculum, Tenure, Appointments, and Computing

Committees. In addition, the department Self-Study notes

(p.

2.5)

that there are three

other committees concerned with aspects of the undergraduate program (although only

two actually are named). Having so many committees, plus other positions such as

Library Representative, places a heavy burden of administrative demands on faculty.

The Review Committee also was struck by the frequency of departmental

meetings, every two weeks plus additional meetings when necessary. In our departments

Raj

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 24

and most we know about, departmental meetings are held between four and six times per

year. Arguably, the number of department meetings contributes to the department's

collegial atmosphere and sense of mutual respect so evident to us. We wonder, however,

about the need for so many meetings. Indeed, we wonder if having fewer meetings and a

simpler administrative structure might free faculty to devote more time to their research

and other pursuits.

Recommendation 19:

The department should assess its own internal committee structure and the necessity

for fortnightly department meetings. We recommend that the department attempt to

simplify its administrative structure.

CONNECTIONS OF THE FACULTY WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE

UNIVERSITY:

The 1996 Departmental Review report rejects earlier allegations of insularity on

the part of the S/A department. It was interesting to us, therefore, to note that at least one

current administrator seems to regard the department as "very inward looking." We

suspect that the latter perception stems from the lack of S/A faculty members who have

served on high-profile University bodies, e.g., Senate. However, in our estimation, the

S/A department is not insular; rather its connections with other University units and the

service of individual faculty members within the University appear to "fly under the

radar."

However, it was equally clear that a sense of isolation exists in the department.

The lack of administrative attention given to the Self Study is just one indicator of such a

milieu. Faculty felt powerless and unable to reach senior administration and they have a

culture of not "duking it out with the administration;" instead, they have opted for a

withdrawal strategy from university governance. For younger scholars, the lack of

involvement was more personal; they reminded the committee that they were investing

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 25 of 34

their time in teaching as they all strove to be excellent teachers and were working to

obtain tenure and promotion, which required absorption of time in research, publications,

and presentations at conferences. These were competing with involvement in university

governance and clearly the latter was losing out. At the same time, students, staff, and

faculty all reported that the department is a congenial and supportive environment.

Formal departmental linkages within the University connect the department to

other units, such as through the Certificate in Ethnic and Intercultural Relations, the

Certificate in Family Studies, and the Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Social Policy

Issues. According to the department, linkages are particularly close with Political

Science. We noted that although Latin American Studies has been joined to S/A for

administrative purposes, few connections seem presently to exist, besides the

participation of two faculty members in both units. We comment on the relations of S/A

and LAS below. In addition, we would point to the strong interdisciplinary focus of the

SCES/SFU programme in Kamloops. Several faculty members hold joint appointments,

e.g., with the School of Criminology, the Department of Women's Studies, the

Gerontology Research Centre and Program, and the Department of Archaeology.

Individual faculty members maintain many links outside the University. For

example, the South East Asia Field School, run by Michael Howard, not only attracts

students from other universities but also serves to connect SFU with universities in

Vietnam and Thailand. We also noted connections of individual faculty with important

scholarly networks, such as the National Network for Aboriginal Mental Health Research

and Training, the SSHRC-CIC Centre of Excellence for the Study of Immigration and

Integration, the Metropolis Project, and the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies at

the University of Amsterdam. One faculty member is a member of the board of directors

of the Canadian Council on Social Development, a research advisor and associate with

the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and a member of the Income Security and

Labour Market Committee of the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. Another

is also a research associate of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Three faculty

members serve as editors of journals:

The Canadian Journal of Sociology; Medical

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 26

Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness; and The Canadian Journal

of Archaeology.

Finally, we note the important community connections established by

many members of the faculty, evident most notably in the innovative Health and Home

project.

As discussed above, the department has, for various reasons, become less

involved in university governance. Ellen Gee appeared -to have played a key role in

serving as liaison of the department with the senior administration. The faculty's lack of

involvement is not an indicator of lack of interest and it was clear that individual faculty

members were aware of various activities, policies and programmes ongoing in the

university. This information was shared at departmental meetings and actions taken at

the departmental level.

In considering the relationship of the department with the University

Administration, the Review Committee was struck by the apparently strained relationship

between the department and the Dean of Arts. From discussions both with the Dean and

with members of the S/A faculty, we concluded that a pattern of poor and sometimes

faulty communication has developed. We do not pretend, however, to understand the

causes or history of this relationship.

Recommendation 20:

In order to ensure open and transparent decision-making, we recommend that the

department and the Dean of Arts seek to establish a more open and productive

relationship.

Recommendation 21:

The department needs to develop a strategy by which it "celebrates its successes" and

makes itself more visible to the university community.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 27

The Review Committee bases its remarks on space largely on the department Self-Study

0 ?

RESOURCES, FACILITIES AND SUPPORT

Space Resources:

and discussions with faculty and staff. The overall space allocation to the department

needs to be increased. However, the Committee is well aware that space across campus

is at a premium and others will echo this concern. Nevertheless, it is important to have

graduate students in close proximity to the departmental members to ensure socialization

and support. In addition, when graduate students are dealing with undergraduates,

confidentiality and private discussion are necessary conditions. In other cases, research

assistants must have quick and easy access to their professors.

We understand that there are plans for new buildings which may be available by 2005.

Thus, space may be freed up for S/A in its present location when other units move. At

. present, space constraints appear to affect class sizes in that a large proportion of

available classrooms are small. On a more positive note, the space situation for graduate

students has improved since the 1996 departmental review. More office space is now

available for graduate students, who also have two small common rooms, one with

computers and a printer for their use.

The department, along with the Dean's office, needs to seek out innovative and

22:

creative ways to increase current usable space. This could include reconfiguration of

existing space, renovations, and alternative uses of existing space. The impact of the

addition of new buildings on campus by 2005 in providing further space for S/A in its

present location should be actively explored.

Library Resources:

In order to assess library resources, the Review Committee met with Dr Noel

Dyck, department library representative, and two representatives of the SFU Library,

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 28 of 34

Gwen Bird, Head of Collections Management and Nina Saklikar, Liaison Librarian for

Sociology and Anthropology. Ms Bird and Ms Saklikar presented us with a brief report

on S/A collections and budgets. We were pleased to see that S/A acquisitions budgets

have increased overall by

23%

from 1998/99 to 2002/03. The serials budget has increased

41.5%,

while the monograph budget has increased by a more modest 13%. We note

also that SFU students have access to excellent interlibrary loan services and can use the

UBC libraries.

Faculty, students and library representatives all seemed to find the acquisitions

budgets and collections reasonable. Holdings in medical anthropology were deemed

somewhat less than adequate; however, attempts are being made to build collections in

this area. Faculty expressed their concerns about the Library's decision to replace hard-

copy journals with electronic versions of the journals. This move would affect access to

journals, given the practice of publishers and journal marketers of bundling large groups

of e-journals together for library subscriptions. Many of these costly bundles contain few

or no journals of relevance to the S/A department. This is a potential problem faced by

faculty at all Canadian universities, given the move to e-journals generally.

Another concern raised by faculty had to do with library acquisitions for new

courses. Department faculty believe that the library will not pay for such acquisitions.

However, the library representatives reassured us that this was not in fact the case.

Indeed, they said that the only potential problem arose with journal subscriptions, which,

unlike monographs, represent a continuing expense. We suggest that the department

library representative contact Ms Bird and Ms Saklikar so as to able to correct the

faculty's misapprehension on this point.

Computer Resources:

The Review Committee's assessment of computing resources is based on the

department's Self-Study and discussion with faculty, staff and students. The department

has an enviable computer lab containing 22 new PCs which is shared with the

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 29 of 34

Department of Political Science. In addition, there are four computers in the graduate

students' lab, although one is old and needs replacement. According to the Self-Study,

only three of the four departmental staff have adequate computing equipment. Thus, the

department sees the need for capital funds to purchase a data projector, software, printer

for the undergraduate lab, a new computer and printer for one staff member, and one new

computer for the graduate students' lab. A concern expressed by undergraduate students

has to do with the hours during which their lab is available. Because it closes at 4 PM,

students find that it does not entirely meet their needs. However, other computing

facilities are available on campus for their use.

The Review Committee was unable to understand the funding basis of the

computer lab, especially how costs were shared with Political Science. We suggest that

the responsibilities of both departments be clarified as to both the capital budget and

support of the computer technician.

Operating/Capital Budget:

The Committee did not have access to capital budgeting information. However, it

was noted that the department was unaware of its capital budget. This lack of

information does not allow the department to assess its capital needs and set priorities. In

order for the department to plan strategically, budgetary information needs to be made

available. Without a capital budget, the department will find it difficult to establish

priorities and long term plans.

Computing:

New faculty have access to hardware and software that meets their needs. The

department's Self-Study (3.2-3.4) indicates that a number of pieces of equipment are

required in the areas of undergraduate, graduate, and office computing totalling $1 8,000.

It is less clear what the needs are regarding the hardware and software requirements of

continuing faculty, given the absence of information about these needs and the lack of a

0 ?

coherent Faculty of Arts policy regarding hardware and software upgrades for faculty.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 30

that the department be provided with $18,000 for capital

We recommend

23:

equipment purchase, as per details provided by the department's internal review

document (pp.3.2-3.4).

Staff:

The department has four staff positions: a Department Assistant (DA); a Secretary

to the Chair, a Graduate Studies Secretary; and an Undergraduate (Office) Secretary.

Since the last External Review, the department has been able to rectify a shortfall in

staffing. When S/A became the administrative home for Latin American Studies, it was

provided with a new staff position, which allowed for the separation of the role of

Graduate Secretary from Chair's Secretary, each of whom now serves the needs of both

LAS and S/A. Staff members in the department are dedicated and provide service well

beyond the required activities as outlined in their job descriptions. Given the size of the

undergraduate and graduate programmes it would seem that the staff complement is

sufficient. The Committee felt, however, that the housing of the staff in three separate

rooms, with no chance to share equipment and activities, was inefficient.

Given the seeming inefficiency of the current physical isolation of staff from each

24:

other in the department, the support staff should be involved in a process of

reorganization of their duties and reconsideration of space issues with the goal of

increasing effectiveness and efficiency.

Continuing Faculty List:

Over the past few years, the department has lost a number of continuing faculty.

At the same time replacçments have been made. However, the replacements have not

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page

of 34

occurred in a one-to-one replacement strategy and there is considerable misunderstanding

as to the number of replacements allocated to the department. It is important that the

Dean provide the department (as he did for the Committee) with a clear explanation and

identification of the replacements that have taken place.

While the continuing faculty list reveals that faculty replacement (in terms of

teaching) has indeed replaced the outgoing faculty members, it has not dealt with the

needs associated with graduate education and research productivity in the department. In

addition, the creation of a continuing "lecturer" position suggests that a two-tiered

structure is being put in place. This lecturer position - designated as half-time, permanent

status - has led to a permanent member of the department, who serves a vital function in

the department but whose intrinsic and extrinsic awards will not retain the person on a

long term basis. On the basis of workloads and the university's goal of developing its

distance education program, this position should be transitioned into a full-time

permanent position. Some members of the department raised the legitimate question of

how this position aligns with the institutional objective of being a research-intensive

university.

In addition, there are a number of cross appointees, e.g., with Kinesiology

and

First Nation Studies, who have their home in Sociology and Anthropology but who seem

to contribute little to departmental undergraduate teaching activities or graduate

education. In other cases, faculty are not on campus. A careful assessment of how these

cross appointees add to the teaching (both undergraduate and graduate), community

service, and research capacity of the department needs to be undertaken. The department,

along with the Dean, needs to establish generally acceptable workload indicators to

determine whether or not the student/faculty ratios are appropriate and are within the

range of acceptability.

Recommendation 25:

Given the divergent understandings of the department and the Dean of Arts with

respect to replacements and the current faculty complement, we recommend that a

clear understanding be reached between the two parties on these issues.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 32 of 34

Recommendation 26:

In addition to the hiring of the 'Ellen Gee' replacement, we recommend that the

department hire a full CFL position in S/A.

The department and Dean should conduct an assessment of the half-time, permanent

27:

lecturer position in view of considerations raised by this position discussed above.

The position needs to have a level of remuneration that would retain the individual

who holds the position.

The SCES-SFU Programme in Kamloops

The establishment of the Secwepemc Cultural Education Society-Simon Fraser

University project in Kamloops aligns with the vice-president's three-year plan. Based

on the data we have available, we find the programme is innovative and demonstrates a

"return to the community" in a tangible and important manner.

The data show that since 1994 more than one third of the students graduating

from the Kamloops programme have obtained a bachelor degree. Forty percent received

a certificate. The remaining graduating students have obtained some other form of

completion document, e.g., post-baccalaureate degree. What is not available is data on

the number of students enrolling over the past five years, the number of dropouts, and the

number of completions per year. Nevertheless, the output of the Kamloops project has

been impressive and it is clear that few of the graduates would have such a degree if they

had been forced to attend Simon Fraser University in Burnaby. Again, without benefit of

any budgetary information, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of this

programme. It would seem prudent for Simon Fraser University to investigate possible

partnerships with the University College of the Cariboo and the Secwepemc Cultural

Education Society.

45f

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page

33 of 34

The recent decision of Simon Fraser University to stop payments to University

College of the Cariboo that allowed Aboriginal students to use their library has called

into question the positive learning environment for students. While we are aware that

the mode of instruction in Kamloops is focused on small classes and customized

instruction, the nature of this teaching is not clear. With over two thirds of the students

not on the Kamloops campus, its value needs to be reassessed.

Relationship of S/A to Latin American Studies

Our External Review of Sociology and Anthropology coincided with the External

Review of the Latin American Studies programme that is currently administered by the

S/A department. The department perceives LAS to have had a neutral impact on S/A,

except with respect to resources such as support staff where it has been viewed to be a

drain. The Dean of Arts' characterization of LAS as providing a catalyst for greater

interdisciplinarity seems not to have been communicated to the department and has no

resonance among S/A faculty. While S/A faculty appear to be prepared to take up the

• opportunities and challenges presented by LAS, there should be administrative support

and clear direction about meaningful integration. Currently, the S/A Department is

working with the understanding that LAS wishes to remain an autonomous academic unit

and therefore has distanced itself from LAS. The department is therefore constrained

from moving in a more integrative direction until it knows the future of LAS.

Recommendation 28:

LAS has clearly had a turbulent history and its placement in S/A appears to be based

purely on administrative convenience. The Dean of Arts should reach a decision

about LAS so that the department can consider LAS in its planning decisions.

Report of the Review Committee, Sociology and Anthropology SFU

Page 34 of 34

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

It was clear in our discussions with the future Chair, the Acting Chair, and other faculty

that the department is willing to be creative in arriving at solutions and strategies

addressing some of its weaknesses. The Undergraduate Programme Task Force is still at

work. Earlier in the report, we have indicated some suggestions and recommendations

that we feel would strengthen the undergraduate programmes. As far as the graduate

programme is concerned, one idea being floated is to recruit on the basis of interest-based

or thematic cohorts. Pursuit of cohort-based graduate programmes is a sensible idea

given the small size of the programmes.

Involvement in the Institute for Health Research Education:

The department is receptive to the possibilities for interdisciplinary collaborative

development of the Institute for Health Research Education. The Dean of Arts is

intending to bolster the area of Health Studies in the department through the replacement

hiring of Ellen Gee. In addition, the new CRC joint appointment to S/A and Women's

Studies, will be in the area of health studies. It is our understanding that the department is

receptive to engaging in collaborative development of the IHRE, but there seems to be

uncertainty and lack of information, lack of direction, goals and objectives.

Review Committee Schedule - see Appendix 1

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Simon Fraser University

Site Visit Schedule, February 19, 20 & 21

2003

Reviewers:

Dr. Daiva Stasiulis, Carleton University, Chair

Dr. Matthew Cooper, McMaster University

Dr. James Frideres, University of Calgary

Dr. Robert Menzies, School of Criminology, SFU

Wednesday, February 19,2003

8:00

9:00

Opening meeting with Senior Administrators:

Strand Hall

Dr. Bill Krane, Associate VP Academic

President's

Ms. Laurie Summers. Director Academic Planning

Conference

Dr. Jonathan Driver, Dean of Graduate Studies

Room

Dr. Bruce Clayman. VP Research

*Continental

Dr. John Pierce, Dean, Faculty of Arts

breakfast served

*fltis is ajoint meeting with the Sociology and

Anthropology and Latin American Studies Program

External Review Teams

Meeting with Dr. Michael Kenny, Acting Chair

Ellen Gee

Common Room

AQ5067

10:00

11:30

Meeting with the Sociology & Anthropology

Undergraduate Studies Committee

11:30

1:00

Lunch and Discussion Time

5067

1:00

4:30

Meeting with undergraduate student representatives

and representatives of the Sociology & Anthropology

graduate student caucus

Department to arrange for taxi back to Hotel

('1

January 27, 2003

Final

Thursday, February 20, 2003

9:00

9:15

Meeting with Ms. Mickey Naisby, Graduate

Meeting with Ms. Jeanne Persoon, Chair's

Secretary

9:15

9:30

5067

Secretary

9:30

9:45

Meeting with Ms. Joan Byron, Undergraduate and

AQ 5067

General Office Secretary

10:00

Meeting with faculty members involved in the

AQ 5067

"Health and Home" project and related research

including Drs. Darn CuLbane, Rebecca Bateman,

Parin Dossa,_Stacy Pigg

11:00

11:45

Meeting with

Dr.

John Pierce, Dean, Faculty of

AQ 5067

Arts

11:45

2:30

Lunch and Discussion Time

5067

2:30

4:30

Meeting withthe Sociology and Anthropology

AQ 5067

Graduate Studies Committee

4:30

6:30

Reception at the Diamond University Club

DUC - Fraser

1Lounge

Department to arrange for taxi back to hotel

(,2

January 27, 2003

Final

Friday, February 21, 2003

9:00

10:00

Meeting with Dr. Jonathan Driver, Dean, Graduate

Meeting with Dr. Bruce Clayman, VP Research

Meeting with Jane Pulkingham, Graduate

11:00

11:30

5067

Program Chair

11:30

12:00

Meeting with Dr. Noel Dyck, Sociology &

5067

Anthropology Library Rep

12:00

1:45

Lunch and Discussion Time

Gwen Bird, Library Representative

1:45

2:15

Conference call with Mairanne Ignace and

2:15

2:45

AQ 5052

George Nichols, SFU/SCES Program

2:45

3:15

Meeting with Karen Payne, Department Assistant

Meeting with Dr. Michael Howard, individual faculty

Closing meeting with Senior Administrators:

3:45

4:00

Walk over to Strand Hall

4:00

5:00

Strand Hall,

Dr. John Waterhouse, VP Academic

President's

Dr. Bill Krane, Associate VP Academic

Conference

Ms. Laurie Summers, Director, Academic Planning

Room

Dr. Bruce Clayman, VP Research

*Light

Dr. Jonathan Driver, Dean of Graduate Studies

refreshments

Dr. John Pierce, Dean, Faculty of Arts

served

VPA

Office to arrange for taxi back to hotel

January 27, 2003

Final

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

S.03-89

FROM:

RE:

Gerontology Program and Research

Centre External Review

As a result of the recommendations of its year 2000 External Review, the Gerontology

Program and Research Centre was asked by the Senate Committee on University

Priorities (SCUP) to provide a report on the unit's progress towards increased peer-

reviewed publishing on annual basis for three years. Subsequently, Dr. Gloria Gutman,

Director of Gerontology, has submitted to SCUP an annual report on peer-reviewed

publishing in Fall 2001, 2002 and 2003. At its September 17, 2003 meeting, SCUP

received the final report as well as a summary report from Gerontology and passed the

following motion:

"That SCUP accept the final update report and the four year overview from the

Gerontology Program and Research Centre in relation to publishing in peer-reviewed

publications. Furthermore, with the receipt of these reports, SCUP would like to advise

Senate that the Gerontology Program and Research Centre has successfully fulfilled

the recommendations which were put forward by SCUP in December 2000 as a result

of the May 2000 external review report."

The summary report is provided to Senate for information.

end.

Dr. G. Gutman, Director, Gerontology

Dr. B. Krane, Associate Vice-President Academic

Dr. J. Pierce, Dean, Faculty of Arts

Ms. L. Summers, Director, Academic Planning

SCUP 03 - 035

From: "Gloria" <gutmansfu.ca

To: "Laurie Summers" <lsummers@sfu.ca

Subject: Person by person progress report

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:12:49 -0700

X-MSMai1-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)

Importance: Normal

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1

165

X-Virus-Scanned: by ebola.sfu.ca

running antivirus scanner

Dear Laurie

Attached please find a table showing publications by type for each faculty

member of the Gerontology Program as well as Gerontology Centre staff. I

have summarized four years. Year I corresponds to the year in which we were

last reviewed (FY 1999-2000), Year 2 is the first year after the review (FY

2000-2001), year 3 is the second year post-review and year 4 is third year

post-review. As requested, I have separated the publications in terms of

those published in a given year and those in press.

In reading this table, it is important to note that the some of our faculty

and staff are only part time and/or if full-time, were only with us part of

the year (e.g. McDonald-Miszczak only works with us in the summer months;

Mabmood joined us mid-year). In fact, FTE's range from 0.2 to 1.0. It should

also be noted that some of our Gero Centre staff hold management positions

in addition to being designed a Research Associate (e.g. Y. Jones is half

time with us and halftime with BCIT. Her job description includes serving

as manager of the Living Lab). Additionally, some of our GRC staff hold

positions where they would not ordinarily be expected to publish (e.g.

Tredwell & Adams who are information specialists/librarians. Some staff

turnover is also apparent in this table. In one case, lack of peer reviewed

publications was the explicit reason for not renewing the contract.

Overall however, what I believe this table shows is that at the time of the

review we were, for the FTE's and type of faculty and staff we had, for the

most part publishing at a more than acceptable level. We have done our best

to emphasize the importance of peer-reviewed publications over the past 3

years -- I would suggest that an average of 4.89 in print and 4.44 in press

among our academic staff-- the rate achieved in year 4 -- is pretty good.

With respect to the GRC, the average rate of peer reviewed publications in

year 4 in -- if Wister and I are included in the count -- is 2.0. This

number should go up dramatically next year as our three post-doctoral

fellows publish. It is also important to recognize the large impact that

some of our GRC staff have had on public policy as a result of commissioned

reports they have producted (e.g. Charmaine Spencer). While these reports

dont count in the peer-reviewed publications column, they do count in terms

of improving the quality of life of Canada's elderly population!

Gloria M. Gutman, PhD

President,Intemational Assn. of Gerontology and Professor and Director,

Gerontology Research Centre & Programs,

Simon Fraser University

#2800 -

515

West Hastings Street

Vancouver, Canada V6B 5K3

Tel: 604-291-5063 Fax:

604-291-5066

Web: www.sfu.ca/iag

or www.sfu.calgero

Gerontology Program Centre

By individual faculty/staff?

1=1999-2000 (year of last

review)

Faculty

Peer-reviewed

Newsletter/Magazin

Books/Journal

Reports/Reference ?

le/Newspaper ?

iConference

Name ?

Yr of review

'Articles/Chapters ?

Works

jArticies ?

IPresentations

Carrier, Yves - Assistant Professor (Yr.

1=1.0

Yr.20.4

Chaudhury, Habib - Assistant Professor

(

0.6

FTE

Yr.3; 1.0 FTE yr.4)

Crawford, Susan- Senior Lecturer Gero/Kines (Yrs. 1&20.5FTE)

Gutman, Gloria - Professor and Director (Yrs. 1-4=0.5 FTE Gero

reports

2! 3 chapters

Press

Program &

0.5 FTE GRC)

Editor -1 journal special

11 book, 3 chapters ?

41 ?

2:4 journal articles

1 ref. work, I report ?

2i ?

issue, I journal article, I

3 chapter

7 1 ?

413 journal articles ?

1 report

In Press

1 1 journal article ?

1 ref. work, 1 report

Mitchell, Barbara - Assistant Prof.Yrs. 1-2, Associate Prof.Yrs 3

4 (0.5FTE)

2 journal articles, 1

2 review ? 1 report

32 journal articles

1 ?

2 chapters, 2 reviews

32 chapters, 3 reviews

1 journal article,1

4! chapter, 1 review

Oakley, Kate- Assistant

Professor

(Yr

1=1.0 FTE;

2=0.4FTE)

Assistant Professor (Yr.3= 0.75 FTE; Yr 4=1.0

O'Rourke,

FTE)

Andrew - Associate Professor & Associate Director, Years

3! 5 journal articles

4! 8 journal articles

I & 2;

Professor Years 3

1 journal special issue,

3 journal articles, 1

Total

Gerontology Program Centre ?

I book, 6 chapters, 1

5 chapters, 12 journal

articles, I review

1 report, 3 ref. work

13 journal articles, 2

articles, 2 chapters, 2

By individual faculty/staff?

Gerontology Program Centre

By individual faculty/staff

Information Officer (yr.2=0.75FTE; Yrs. 3-4 1.OFTE)

In Press

7 journal articles

1 report,3 ref .w

2 chapters, 4 journal

articles, 1 review

8 journal articles, 3

chapters. 3 reviews

book, 12 journal

articles, 3 chapters, 1

reviews

Gerontology Research Centre Staff

Adams, Ray -

Clarke-Scott, Mary Ann - Reseach Associate (yr. 1-0.4 FTE)

Aug.Apr. ?

Cusack, Sandra - Research Assocxiate (Yrs. 1-4=

0.2FTE)

Published ?

Groves, Mark- Research

book, 1 journal article

Associate (Yrl=O.2FTE;

.1.

___________

Yr. 21.OFTE; Yr.30.75FTE)

Gutman, Gloria - Professor (Yrs. 1-4=0.5 FTE Gero Program & 0.5 FTE GRC)

See above

I ?

Jones, Yvette

Manager, Living Lab/Research Associate (Yr2.1-2=0.5FTE; Yrs 3-4 on mat leave)

McDonald-Miszack,

Leslie, Research Associate (Yrs.1-2 0.25FTE;

Yr.34 on

Mahmood,Atiya, Post-doctoral

4=0.75FTE)

Mihailidis, Alex, Post-doctoral Fellow GRCand LT

Asst. Prof. Engineering Science

(Yr.4=0.4FTE

Research Association (Yrs.1-4=1.0FTE)

2 journal articles; 1

Spencer, Charmaine

2 1 journal article ?

Treadwell, Suzanna - Information Officer (Yr.1=1.0; Yr. 2=0.5FTE)

Wister,

Associate Professor & Associate Director, Years I & 2; Professor Years 3

See above

Zimmerman,

Lillian -

Research Associate (Yrs. I -4=0.2FTE)

Gerontology Program Centre ?

By individual faculty/staff

Gerontology Program Centre

By individual faculty/staff ?

1 journal article, 2

chapters

212 chapters

Total GRC Staff exclusive

Gutman &

Wister