Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

S.02-54

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

TO:

FROM:

RE: Department of Humanties

DATE: ?

June 17, 20

External Review

The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External

Review Report prepared on the Department of Humanities in January, 2000 together

with the response from the Unit and comments from the Dean of Arts.

Motion:

That Senate concurs with the recommendations from the Senate Committee on

University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of Humanities on

priority items resulting from the external review as outlined in

S 02-54

The report of the External Review Committee for the Department of Humanities was

submitted on February 29, 2000 following the review site visit January 12 - 14, 2000.

The response of the Department Chair was received on May 3, 2000 followed by that of

the Dean of the Faculty of Arts on May 10, 2001.

Given the considerable amount of time that has elapsed between the external review

site visit and this series of recommendations, it is understood that the Department may

have already made significant progress towards accomplishing some or all of the

actions contained within the review report and commentary. However, the

recommendations provided in this document are meant to highlight the areas/issues of

concern that were raised during the review process.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of Humanities and Dean of Arts be

advised to pursue the following as priority items:

1. Structure

The Department of Humanities and the Dean of Arts is encouraged to continue to

seek opportunities to establish, maintain and evaluate effective administrative

structures and practices that are complementary and supportive of its mandate

including but not limited to arrangements with affiliated programs, collaboration with

other departments, cross listing of courses, joint appointments and committee

structures.

2. Curriculum

The Department is advised to focus its energies on the further development and

enhancement in the areas of interdisciplinarity and coherence at the undergraduate

level before considering a plan to develop a graduate program. In particular, the

Department is urged to focus on the following specific recommendations from the

reviewers:

• The development of a new capstone upper division course;

• The provision for all Major, Joint Major, Minor and Extended Minor students

to request upon graduation a letter outlining and explaining their programs of

study;

• That a student recruitment strategy be devised;

• That an analysis of the post graduation survey be undertaken to determine

the subsequent career paths of graduates and to demonstrate the value and

scope of their studies to potential students;

• That sufficient teaching resources be made available to ensure the continued

balance between courses on culture and courses on ideas and language

instruction.

Faculty Renewal

Any faculty renewal strategies will need to be in keeping with the multifaceted and

interdisciplinary nature of the Department's structure. An overall strategy will need

to be developed not only to address impending retirements and the gaps they will

create, but also to plan for future priorities leading to the expansion and

? is

enhancement of the Department's offerings and research activities.

J.S. Woodsworth Chair

It is recognized that an appointment to the Woodsworth Chair will greatly enhance

the scope and stature of the teaching, research and outreach activities of the

Department of Humanities. The Department is encouraged to clarify the nature of

the Woodsworth Chair and to make an appropriate appointment.

end.

J .

Pierce, Dean of Arts

S. Duguid, Chair, Dept. of Humanities

SCUP 02-93

1 1

O ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts

MEMORANDUM

Subject: External Review

Date: ?

May 10, 2001

Department of Humanities

I view the External Review Report as useful in identifying strengths and

weaknesses of the program, but also incomplete, which I will comment

upon in the substance of my response.

The overall impression of the Department is a favourable one in terms of

the quality of the scholarship, program strength, teaching mission, and

potential to improve. Understandably, given the new status of the program,

there are teething problems largely with respect to charting a clear course of

Interdisciplinary Studies was dissolved, Humanities absorbed the Asia

Canada Program,

Institute for the Humanities, and Graduate Liberal

•

Studies. Although the reviewers note that there is a logic to the presence of

Asia Canada, less positive observations are made about the place of GLS in

Humanities, and the administrative reporting line for the Institute and J.S.

Woodsworth Chair. The reviewers believe that given the broad mandate of

the Institute and the J.S. Woodsworth Chair "the future of these institutions

lies with their administration at the Faculty level (a committee of rlevant

departments) ....".

While the Institute has an external advisory committee

that extends beyond membership in the Department of Humanities, it may

be that the J.S. Woodsworth Chair should be responsible to a larger

constituency. ?

The reviewers recommend, however, the Chair remain in

Humanities and receive improved base funding; something which was

done last fall.

With respect to GLS, the report notes "It is difficult to see

how GLS can be made a net contributor to the Department of Humanities."

No further elaboration is made on this point.

The Department of

Humanities, however, is prepared to experiment with the relationship for

at least three years. ?

Equally ambiguous were the comments, "Our reaction

to the Institute for Humanities was mixed" and "the Department must also

have the assurance that it be granted the same autonomy as other

Departments." ?

Departments other than Humanities have been asked to

absorb other programs/units without, in my view, compromising their

autonomy.

The reviewers make specific recommendations regarding changes to

satisfactorily to these and needs no further elaboration other than the

comments relating to a future graduate program.

Dr. Duguid believes that

"we acknowledge the need to proceed gradually", whereas the review

committee argues, Any question regarding the graduate program should

be left for some time.' I agree with the latter. The undergraduate program

requires the full attention and support of the faculty at this point in time.

The last issue of prominence addressed by the review committee is faculty

renewal. There is no question that a significant 'greying' of the faculty will

take place and that replacements will occur. Base funding for the J.S.

Woodsworth Chair has been provided and a search is underway to fill that

position. This office is prepared to examine requests for positions in

'European Thought and Culture' and 'Religious Studies'. The actual

timing of these appointments would depend upon student demand and the

retirement schedule of faculty.

The Department of Humanities has used the external review as a

framework for articulating their three-year plan - a plan which is clear and

reasonable. The Dean's office is in the process of responding directly to this

plan, and other departmental plans, as part of an implementation strategy.

1ierce

copy:

S. Duguid, Chair Humanities

SCUP 02-93

•

Department of Humanities Response to the

Report

the External Review-7

Committee on the Department

Humanities, Simon Fraser University

1.::

Stephen Duguid, Chair, Dept. of Humanities

(

MAY '

3 2UCQ

The external review of the Department of Humanities, while a difficult

undertaking for such a relatively new academic unit, was a very beneficial

experience. The self-study procedure provided an opportunity to construct a

coherent history of the Humanities at Simon Fraser, think through more clearly our

sense of interdisciplinarity, and review our current structure and future plans. The

visit by the reviewers was convivial and educational, their questions and

comments reminding us of what a unique, complex and innovative academic

enterprise we are. The final report of the reviewers we take to be a very positive

document, though one which draws attention to our need to address several key

issues in the coming years.

The report of the external reviewers begins with the judgment that the

"Humanities Department is a major success story at Simon Fraser", noting the

academic achievements of its faculty, its slow but steady development from

program to department, the innovative qualities of its interdisciplinary curriculum,

and the high levels of satisfaction among its faculty, staff and students. In the

remainder of the document, we have identified three areas which the reviewers felt

needed attention in the future development of the department: structure,

curriculum and faculty renewal. In this response we address each of these areas.

1. The Structure of the Department of Humanities

Given the structural complexity of a department with two affiliated units, an

institute and a centre it is no wonder that the reviewers expressed some

concerns about coherence and misunderstood some of the relationships. We

certainly agree that attention must be paid to establishing administrative

traditions within the department, reviewing our committee structure and

ensuring that our well-being as a unit is not over-dependent on the skills and

abilities of specific individuals.

Concerning the relationship between the department and its two affiliated

academic units (the Asia-Canada Program and the Graduate Liberal Studies

Program) we were cheered to read of the committee's judgment that our link

with the Asia-Canada Program has a "demonstrable logic" and that we

"complement each other in terms of commitment to the interdisciplinary study

of culture and ideas". In this first year of our connection we have worked hard

to nurture this link with Asia-Canada. The reviewers were less persuaded of

the viability of the affiliation between Humanities and Graduate Liberal

Studies. While we feel that the administrative relationship between the two

units is functioning quite smoothly and there are a number of individuals with

academic interests in both, we have not as yet explored fully the potential

benefits to be derived from this affiliation. There is a consensus among faculty

involved in both programs and the department that more time is needed to

evaluate the affiliations before making any changes. It should be noted that

both of these affiliations are for an initial period of three years after which they

are to be reviewed.

Concerning the Institute for the Humanities, the reviewers found the close link

between the Institute and the department to be outside their range of

experience. While the Institute for the Humanities is an "independent body" as

per Policy R

40.01 Centres and Institutes,

it has in historical terms a very close,

indeed intimate link with the newly established department. While the Institute

interacts with academic units across the University and engages with a wide

variety of community organizations, it is linked to the department via

administrative ties, shared academic concerns and a joint involvement with the

J.S. Woodsworth Chair in the Humanities.

Finally, the reviewers left with certain misconceptions about the J.S. -

Woodsworth Chair in the Humanities, seeing it as linked to the Institute rather

than the department. The terms of reference of this Chair (see Memorandum of

Agreement 18 December 1984, SFU and Gov't of Canada) stipulates that it is a

chair "in the Humanities" and in subsequent negotiations with then Dean of

Arts R.C. Brown a search procedure was established involving faculty from the

(then) Humanities Minor Program and the Institute for the Humanities. More

recently the current Dean of Arts has stipulated that the Woodsworth Chair will

be an academic appointment in the department of humanities.

Many of the suggestions made by the reviewers concerning the establishment

of various committees within the department are in fact already in place. The

Humanities Program and now Department has long had a DTC and as outlined

in its constitution has as well a curriculum committee and an appointments

committee. As there is no graduate program in Humanities at this time there is

no need for a graduate director or chair.

2. The Humanities Curriculum

The report acknowledges the important position of the Humanities course

offerings within the University, citing in particular the offerings in classics,

medieval studies, Latin, Greek and Asian languages, and comparative religion.

As well, they note that the Humanities curriculum "...expands the educational

mission of the Faculty of Arts and is in step with the development of

interdisciplinary studies in Canada". In their review of the department's

curriculum, the report makes six specific suggestions:

• "To forge more productive links with the other Departments, we urge that

future courses offered by Humanities be recognized by other Departments by

means of cross-listing or through credits. "(p.8)

In fact, cross-listing is a

standard part of our procedures, carried out on a semesterly basis. In addition,

Humanities Majors must take one Philosophy course and one History course as

part of their program. As stipulated in the calendar, students may also ask for

permission to use two courses from other disciplines towards their Humanities

programs. In co-operation with other departments in Arts, we are compiling a

list of courses which students may use as substitutions for Humanities courses

to count for program credits.

• "In order for students to flourish, particularly as Majors and Joint Majors,

the Department should consider implementing a new capstone upper division

course ... [to] be offered annually ... and be required of every Major and Joint

Major in the one the last three semesters of her/his program. "(p. 9)

When

Humanities was still a program, we had a course similar to the one

recommended in the Review called the Proseminar which all registered

students were required to take before graduation and which included a

substantial graduating essay among its requirements. Because it was difficult

to co-ordinate offering this course with students' graduating needs (there were

rarely enough students completing upper division work in any given semester

to make offering the course possible), both the course and the essay

requirement were replaced by an optional 5-credit Humanities Study Project,

completed under individual supervision by a faculty member and requiring a

substantial essay.

We agree with the usefulness of a course similar to the Proseminar as

recommended by the reviewers in fostering student identity as Humanities

majors, and now that we have more students in our program it may well be

feasible to reinstitute it. We will be investigating this issue further.

"The Department should consider providing each Major and Joint Major,

and upon request, Minor and Extended Minor, with a letter upon

graduation... [which] will provide a narrative explanation of the program, an

overview of the generic skills and accomplishments of graduates, and an

explanation of the individual student's program, its strengths and coherence.

The student could use this letter as part ofjob applications or in application

dossiers to graduate programs... "(p. 9)

We agree that the interdisciplinary

nature of our students' degrees may need to be explained to prospective

employers or graduate admission committees; we will seek to implement this

recommendation.

• "...the department needs to focus its energies on becoming an integrated

and functioning department with an enhanced and coherent curriculum. "(p.

course (Studies in European Cultures) and an upper division course (Great

Figures in the Humanistic Tradition) to our curriculum. This year we will be

proposing a new first year course to FACC, HUM 101-3: Introduction

to the

Humanities. This will give coherence to our first year offerings which have

been notably sparse to date, and will also serve as a foundational course in

introducing students to a range of issues and concepts in the Humanities. We

will continue to review our curriculum in the light of issues of coherency and

responsiveness to students' needs and interests.

• "As well, the department should begin tracking the post graduation

educational and career paths of its [students]... in order to demonstrate the

usefulness of their degree. "(p.10)

We have begun to track our graduates, and

will continue to do so as the numbers increase.

• "[The Department] should be focused on consolidation and developing a

strong undergraduate curriculum. Any question of a graduate program should

be left for some time".

(p.

10)

As our undergraduate program is consolidated

and our faculty complement increased, we will begin to consider the potential

• ?

for a graduate program in Humanities. While we think there is student demand

for such a program, we acknowledge the need to proceed gradually.

3. Faculty Renewal

The reviewers stress throughout their report (pp. 7, 10, and 12) the crucial

importance of faculty renewal for the long-term viability of the department.

Three specific recommendations were made in reference to this issue:

• With four retirements in the next three years in the area of 'European

Thought and Culture', the review cites the danger of the department losing its

"critical mass" in this core area of its curriculum and calls for at least one

replacement position for 2001, a position".. .of critical importance.. .for the

Department to maintain its coherence and balance between ancient, medieval

and modern cultures". The department has made this position its first hiring

priority.

• While there was some confusion on the part of the reviewers concerning the

placement of the J.S. Woodsworth Chair in the Humanities (see above), their

report does urge the University to "...explore ways to increase and stabilize

funding for the Chair". With an endowment currently at $1.2 million the

Woodsworth Chair can be filled only on an intermittent basis, interest from the

endowment being accumulated to fund a visiting position. The department has

a long-standing request that the Woodsworth Chair be assigned a cfl position

which, when combined with the revenue from the endowment, would enable us

to fill the Chair on an on-going basis.

• Recognizing that the Department of Humanities has a central role in the

study of religion and comparative religion, the reviewers recommended an

appointment in Religious Studies to 'bridge' to the retirement of Dr. Grayston

in 2004.

In these faculty renewal recommendations the external reviewers have

essentially confirmed the renewal plans set out in our Three-Year Plan and in

our Self-Study document, namely a position in Modern European Thought and

Culture, a position for the Woodsworth Chair, and a position in Religion and

Culture.

7-.

SCUP 02-93

/ o

FEB29 2000

Vice President

ACADEMIC

REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW

COMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF

HUMANITIES, SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

12-14 January, 2000

Committee Chair:

Professor John O'Neill

York University

Members:

Professor Jacqueline Murray

University of Windsor

Professor Christopher McDonough

University of Toronto

•

Professor David Maclntyre

Simon Fraser University

Report of the External Review Committee

for the Department of Humanities, Simon

Fraser University, Burnbay, B.C.

The following report is indebted to the work of those who supplied

supporting documents and to the students, instructors, faculty and staff who came to

our meetings with thoughtful and constructive observations. We would also like to

thank Professor David Maclntyre, School for the Contemporary Arts who worked

with our committee each day. Quite beyond the call of duty, he also joined us for

two-hour evening review sessions each day. We should also thank Sue Roppel.

The hospitality we received also contributed to getting through an arduous schedule

of meetings, discussion and review.

The aim of our report is modest. The committee believes that our visit

precipitated a process of rethinking within the Department of Humanities that

gathered momentum each day. We are persuaded that it is in the Department's best

interest to continue this process --some of it articulated in our report-- and to

replace its External review Self - Study document with a new strategic plan to

situate itself within the Faculty of Arts short-term and longer vision of

development.

Introduction

In the thirty years of its existence, SFU has established a distinctive profile among

Canadian universities and has won public recognition for its commitment to strong

academic values and to the wider community that it serves. As SFU continues to

evaluate the course it has set for itself and to ask whether adjustments are necessary,

we are honoured to have been asked to participate in the process of reviewing the

newly-created Department of Humanities. Behind the creation of the Department

lies a complex history, full of tensions and compromise, as emerges from the

External Review Self-Study Document, undertaken by the Department in December

0 ?

1999. Required to absorb various academic units, the result is a Department of

Humanities with distinctive features, a strange hybrid with an amalgam of elements

that depends on complex arrangements and affiliations whose durability rehiains to

be seen. In light of its tortuous development, the Review Committee was forced to

pose a number of fundamental questions. Would the Humanities flourish best at

SFU if they were supported by a variety of perspectives that being a multi-

departmental program permits? Was the move towards the creation of a

Department a productive one? Is the present organisation of Department sound

and responsible? Does it work?

0 ?

Despite an initial concern that the External Review Committee may have

/0.

been struck prematurely, our general impression of the Department is a positive

one. Since the terms of our mandate are principally academic, we should state at

the outset that good work is being done in the Department, with some of it being of

high academic calibre. As a unit that has developed a fine reputation for the quality

of its teaching and a rising profile of academic excellence, it can make a cogent

claim to be preserved and strengthened. Moreover, the Department teaches subjects

(Latin, Greek, Medieval Studies, Comparative Religion, Religious Studies,

language instruction in Chinese and Japanese) that are taught nowhere else at

Simon Fraser, subjects that should be maintained in any university that claims to be

comprehensive. Its most immediate challenge will be to present a well-argued case

to the Adminitration for renewal of faculty with the best people currently availabe.

This task is and will continue to be complicated by the need for the Departfnent to

negotiate with its affiliated programs in order to reach mutual agreement on a list of

priorities regarding new appointments. This latter point raises another issue that

will need to be montitored. It is too early to say with confidence that the present

confiuration of the Department will turn out to be the most effective one. At the

moment, the arrangements with the affiliated programs appear to be working. But

within the next five years the Department, the Insitute of Humanities and the Asia

Canada program will have to negotiate the intricate task of managing the shift from

/1.

one generation to another in a way that best serves all their interest. If this

transition is not effected smoothly, the Department runs the risk of fragmentation.

The Humanities Department is a major success story at Simon Fraser, the

more so in light of its checkered and circuitous history. Its faculty are committed,

and innovative, as their ability to absorb new colleagues from disparate disciplines

attests. Nevertheless, in order to accommodate the Faculty of Arts administrave

concerns, the Humanities Department has not been master of its own destiny. This

history weighs heavily on the department and it is essential that members of the

department make peace with their past and turn their attention and considerable

talents on the future to build a strong and coherent deparment. In order to do this,

however, the deparment must also have the assurance that it will be granted the

same autonomy as other Deparments.

One of the hallmarks of this deparment is the collegiality and good will of all

its members. Members of the department have clearly gone to great lengths to get

to know each other and to develop an identity and approach to the humanities that

serves to unite apparently disparate people and disciplines. This unit's success is

attested to by the enthusiastic endorsenment of students, sessional instructors, and

support staff groups that are often disaffected in less congenial configurations.

The students are a credit to the program and their crowning achievement.

They are smart critical thinkers who are deeply committed to the openness and

interdisplinarity that characterize humanities courses. One stated that his

experience in one of his HUM courses was his "most positive life experience." All

were committed to the humanities while fully realizing its value was not

immediately practical or marketable. Faculty were universally praised as accessible

and challenging, and for creating a positive atmosphere in their classrooms.

The Sessional instructors are enthusiastic supporters of the Department and

its mission. They, too, believe profoundly in the interdisciplinary mission of the

department. Moreover, they are happy and contented with their working

conditions, and the warmth with

which they were welcomed and integrated into the

department's communal life.

The administrative and support staff were equally happy in the depatiment.

Overall, it gave the impression of being a well-run, collegial and cogenial

organization.

The faculty are clearly excellent teachers who lavish care and attention on

their students. The curriculum, though limited, shows creativity and imagination

channeled through intellectual rigor.

Humanites faculty, too, prove to be highly engaged and successful

researchers. They have won an impressive number of SSHRC grants given the size

/3'

of the department. All faculty are actively engaged in funded and unfunded

research and publish their results with respected presses or in journals of record.

General Observations

A number of general issues emerged from our discussions with faculty and

students. The most pressing is planning the future shape and size of its faculty

complement in light of the imminent retirements in the Department. Failure to

replace at least some of these will inevitably mean increased presssure on

Humanities' teaching resources. An increased faculty complement will mean that

the programs offered by the Department can be consolidated and to some degree

diversified. It goes without saying that the quality of research and teaching depends

on the appointment of outstanding scholar-teachers. It is important that the

Deparment continues to coordinate its efforts to find good junior appointeë. In this

respect, the recent appointment in the area of Classical Studies is encouraging. It is

equally important, however, to ensure that junior faculty are supported and

developed before they are subjected to the rigorous process of tenure and assuming

departmental responsibilities.

The current resources allocated for administrative staff are quite adequate to

support the academic enterprise. We are favourably impressed by the energy and

0 ?

efficiency of the Departmental Assistant and-the Chairs's Secretary and the extent

of their cooperative efforts to ensure that their wide-ranging responsibilities are

ably discharged to the benefit of both faculty and students.

The Department has already to some extent realized its great promise to be

collaborative. It has established a history of commendable cooperation with other

Departments, as is evident in the number of joint majors it sponsors with English,

French, History and Philosophy. With the appointment in Classics, we fully expect

that links with the Departments of History and Philosophy will be further

strengthened, because the remit of History did not originally include the ancient

history of Greece and Rome. To forge more productive links with the other

Departments, we urge that future courses offered by Humanities be recognised by

other Departments by means of cross-listing or through credits. The nature of the

Humanities enterprise is such that it can only be strengthened by participatfng in

other programs and by building supportive relationships with other academic units.

To facilitate this growth, it is advisable to review the regulations governing joint

appointment to identify areas of common concern.

The Review Committee was impressed by the energy and capacities of the

current Chair, who has succeeded in creating a positive atmosphere of collegiality

and optimism among faculty, staff and students. We observe, however, that he is

currently obliged to play many parts because of the Department's multi-layered

composition. With this comes the risk of diluting the energies available for the core

mission of the Department which we believe it set on a sensible and creative course.

Curriculum

In order for students to flourish, particularly as Majors and Joint Majors, the

Department should consider implementing a new capstone upper division course.

This course should be offered annually, perhaps in the fall semester, and be

required of every Major and Joint Major in one of the last three semesters of her/his

program. The seminar should be of an integrative nature, perhaps having a

methodological orientation or be linked to a senior graduating essay/project. Such a

0 ?

course would serve to foster identity as humanities majors, provide a goal and focus

for the curriculum, and enhance loyalty among alumni.

The Department should consider providing each Major and Joint Major and,

upon request, Minor and Extended Minor, with a letter upon graduation. This letter

will provide a narrative explanation of the program, an overview of the generic

skills and accomplishments of graduates and an explanation of the individual

student's program, its strengths and coherence. The student could use this letter as

part of job applications or in application dossiers to graduate programmes,

especially those discipline-based programmes that might not admit or might require

qualifying work from Humanities graduates because they do not appear to meet

formal requirements. These students might nevertheless actually have a strong

10.

background that is masked by the interdisciplinary nature of their degree.

At this time, and in the course of the next three year planning cycle, the

department needs to focus its energies on becoming an integrated and functioning

department with an enhanced and coherent curriculum. It needs to develop

recruitment strategies that will attract entering students to select the program,

perhaps by developing a brochure website contacting high school guidance

counsellors or participating in high school recruitment and information visits.

As well, the department should begin tracking the post graduation

educational and career paths of its Majors and Joint Majors in order to demonstrate

the "usefulness" of their degree.

Given the nascent stage of Humanities as a department and Major, this

planning cycle should be focused on consolidation and developing a strong

undergraduate curriculum. Any question of a graduate program, should be left for

some time.

Facult y

Renewal

One of the most pressing issues facing this new department is the greying of its

faculty. With the impending retirements of Professor Zaslove (2000), Kitching

(2002), and Gomez-Morana (2002), the department will lose it critical mass in the

/7.

area of modern European thought. Consequently the department has rightly

identified this as a hiring priority. Ideally the appointment should be made effective

July 2001 in order to replace Prof. Zaslove and bridge the two subsequent

retirements. This position is of critical importance and is essential for the

Department to maintain its coherence and balance between ancient, medieval, and

modem cultures.

Religious Studies appears to be a central area for the program and extremely

popular with students. This area holds potential for significant enrolment increases.

It would appear that the department's long term planning would benefit from an

appointment in Religious Studies to bridge into retirement of Dr. Grayston. It

would be well if the incumbent were able to strengthen the modem European

thought area as well.

Asia-Canada Program

The incorporation of the Asia-Canada Program into the Humanities Department has

a demonstrable logic and the two entities complement each other in terms of

commitment to the interdisciplinary study of culture and ideas. Initial experiments

with developing Humanities courses which focus on Asian culture (HUM 203,

Great Texts in the Humanities III) and a course that bridges East and West "Trans

0 ?

Pacific Cultural Ecology: Humanism East and West" are good examples. It is

significant that faculty from both the Western tradition and the Asia-Canada

program stressed that the study of language and the study of culture are inseparable.

The Department should be protected from lapsing into elementary language

instruction. Sufficient teaching resources --permanent or sessional-- should be

made available to ensure that courses on the culture and ideas of Europe and Asia

always balance those on language instruction.

J. S. Woodsworth Chair

The J. S. Woodsworth Endowed Chair proved to be a matter of concern to

several parties. Its eventual disposition clearly has a bearing on future plans for the

Department as well as the Institute. We observe that the various endeavours

•

supported by the Institute of the Humanities, within which the Woodsworth Chair is

presently located, are sufficiently diverse to justify its placement in a number of

other Departments with the Faculty of Arts. We do not recommend a transfer. But

we urge that, whatever decisions are eventually reached about the funding and the

length of the Chair's tenure, it is desirable that the mandate of the Chair, and some

portion of its programming, be defined in such a way as to align its activities more

closely with the programmatic needs of the Department's curriculum. The funding

currently available to the Chair realizes its potential utility to Humanities only on a

temporary basis. The University should explore ways to increase and stabilize

. ?

funding for the Chair. We understand the Institute of Humanities and the J. S.

Woodsworth Chair to be separately funded entities with broader mandates than are

usual for any Faculty of Arts Department. We therefore think the future of these

institutions lies with their administration at the Faculty level (a committee of

relevant Departments), especially in the case of the Institute of the Humanities as

presently constituted. We think that it would be proper for the J. S. Woodstworth

Chair to continue its close links with The Department, although we see

opportunities in the future for candidates to be proposed from a number of Arts

departments.

Our reaction to the Institute for Humanities was mixed. It has flourished up

to now chiefly as a result of the dedicated and thoughtful leadership of its Director

and the Program Assistant. As part of the outreach mission of SFU, it has brought-

credit and recognition to the University as a whole. It has sponsored and organised

a number of conferences that have enriched the academic life both within and

outside the University.

Graduate Liberal Studies

It is difficult to see how GLS can be made a net contributor to the Department of

Humanities. It is an autonomous unit with its own mandate.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES

The future development of the Department of Humanities will need to

address some organizational imbalances that are peculiar to it:

I. ?

The Chair's leadership of a presently small department is limited by

three and possibly four relatively independent (however presently

cooperative) Directors of Programs:

a. ?

Asia - Canada Program

Graduate Liberal Studies

C. ?

Institute for the Humanities (J. S. Woodsworth Chair)

Scottish Studies

Prague Field School

II. ?

The Chair of the new department is also a Program Director of

(d) and has been Director of (b).

III. Only five faculty members are presently full time appointments.

All other appointments (eight) are cross-appointments (English,

History, Political Science) or Sessional Instructors.

IV. The Department has only recently created a Major Program for

cR1.

its students but most students are.

joint majors (English, French, History, Philosophy)

extended minor program

post baccalaureate diploma

The Department has no single location

its present space in AQ is inadequate

Cross appointments, retirees, staff and student needs will put

great pressure on space resources

C. ?

The Department operates on the main campus, Harbour Centre

and other venues determined by events directed from the

Institute from the Humanities, Asian Canada and Scottish

Studies programs.

VI. In the past these arrangements have worked because the principal

individuals involved have been/are masters of virtual structures. These

have been necessary, innovative and successful operations with a very

high degree of intellectual vision, academic success and community

enhancement. They represent the very best in academic

entrepreneurship and survivance.

a. ?

Initially, these flexible institutions constitute an enabling legacy

ii;

to the Department of Humanities;

b. ?

The Department, however, inherits a collection of persons with

considerable autonomy from the chair.

C. ?

Because the founders are not far from retirement, the

Department also inherits a sizeable recruitment task.

The Department will also need a new Chair for the same

reasons.

Future Chairs of the Department may not be able to sustain the

Past organization structures vis a vis other Departments and may

themselves become routine, alternating and short term (3 year)

appointments.

VII. What all of this means in terms of organization is that the Department

of humanities will need to learn to become a Department, to combine

the arts of routine and innovation in practices that accommodate

younger recruits to the faculty and growing numbers of student majors.

The Departments will need to set up a committee structure

Research Information, Conference Travel, etc.

VIII. The composition of Committees must be considered; faculty, cross-

appointment, students, Sessional Instructors.

IX. It might be better to use the terms (depending on University usage)

Chair of the Department

Undergraduate Co-ordinator rather than Undergraduate Chair

Graduate Program Director

Director of Institute........

X. ?

The Department has excellent, experienced and enthusiastic support

staff (Christine Prisland, Wendy Sjolin, Trish Graham) who look

forward to expansion. They will be a major source of Departmental

continuity, especially whenever a new Chair comes in and when

Chairs serve shorter terms than in the pase. They are happy with the

resources for their work; presumably resources will expand as the

department grows.

Conclusion

We wish to re-iterate our confidence in the core faculty of the Department of

Humanities and in the viability of its academic programmes. We have explored the

Department's organizational advantages and possible limitations. We urge the

O18

University Administration to find balance between ennabling and evaluating the

Department's operations in the next three years which are crucial to its successful

membership in the Faculty of Arts. The Department of Humanities certainly

expands the educational mission of the Faculty of Arts and is in step with the

development of interdisciplinary studies in Canada.