SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S.02-64
Senate Committee on University Priorities
Memorandum
TO: Senate
?
FROM: John Waterh94fJ9
Chair, SCUI7 )l$b7cZ
Vice Presid)fAcademic
RE: Department of Psychology
?
DATE:
?
August 2ij'02
External Review
The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External
Review Report on the Department of Psychology together with the response from the
Department 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 Psychology on
priority items resulting from the external review as outlined in
The report of the External Review Committee for the Department of Psychology was
submitted on June 5, 2001 following the review site visit April 17— 19, 2001. The
response of the Acting Department Chair was received on March 8, 2002 followed by
that of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts on May 3, 2002.
SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department of Psychology and the Dean of Arts
be advised to pursue the following as priority items:
1.
Faculty Hiring
The Department of Psychology is encouraged to continue to seek opportunities to
increase the complement of CFL faculty members appointed at a senior level within the
Clinical Program. Hiring practices should continue to emphasize the pursuit of
candidates who would contribute to the development of academically strong collegial
subgroups across disciplines and who would have significant potential for research and
scholarship.
2.
Faculty Research
Faculty members are urged to proactively pursue additional funding opportunities from
the granting councils, particularly the CIHR. Continued collaborative efforts with the
Institute for Health Research and Education should be considered by all appropriate
research areas within the Department. The concerns about inadequate funding and
housing provided for the animal-based research within the Department should be
addressed without delay.
3.
Faculty Teaching
The Department needs to address workload issues and their impact on teaching within
the constraints of existing resources. Any selective changes to an individual faculty
member's workload must be done equitably and with the application of clear criteria so
as not to adversely impact enrolments or the departmental budget.
4.
Academic Programs
With respect to the Clinical Program, the Department should examine and address
concerns raised by the External Review Team around issues such as the number of
practicum hours available to students, the feasibility of increasing the clinical case
training opportunities, the assignment of teaching credit and the over-reliance on
external community-based supervisors.
In terms of new program development, the Department is advised to continue its
examination of potential opportunities with respect to the introduction of a Doctor of
Psychology degree program (Psy.D.) as well as a B.Sc. degree offering.
5.
Administrative Structure
The Department is urged to continue its use of the 5X2 administrative model which has
served it so well, but also to be flexible in order to take advantage of opportunities that
can arise in the areas of faculty hiring, research and program development.
6. Resources
?
0
The Department is advised to comprehensively survey its existing space inventory, rank
its needs and priority areas, and develop a strategic plan with which to incrementally
address the issue as space becomes available.
end.
c: R. Blackman, Acting Dean of Arts
K. Bartholomew, Acting Chair, Department of Psychology
D. Weeks, Chair Elect, Department of Psychology
.
2
SCUP 02-98
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSU]
Office of the Dean,
Faculty of Arts
MEMORANDUM
To:
?
Laurie Summers
?
From: John T. Pierce
Dean of Arts
Subject: Psychology External Review
?
Date:
?
April 23, 2002
Overview
Psychology is the largest and most complex department within the Facult
y
of
Arts. Since the last review, and most notably during the past five years, it has
undergone substantial administrative, organizational and pedagogical change
as well as a significant renewal of its faculty complement.
The external review has identified a number of real strengths which are the
product of many of these changes, but it also identifies a number of initiatives
and strategies that must be pursued to enhance quality if the department is
not to fall short in its quest to be "one of the most prestigious psychology
departments in Canada".
• The review team is laudatory regarding the strengths of both the
undergraduate and graduate programs, the high level of research
productivity, the collaborative and integrated character of the clinical and
experimental programs and the good morale within the department. The
previous Chair, Bill Krane, has been instrumental in facilitating these
strengths and improving overall morale.
5 x 2 Model
The core of the external review report is taken up with a review of the
departmental reorganization or the 5 x 2 Model.
While the Committee saw great heuristic value in this organizational
structure, they were concerned that it might be too rigidly applied, which
could sacrifice interaction and innovative response to changing needs. I
believe that Kim Bartholomew has effectively countered these criticisms in
her response.
In the area of Cognitive/ Biological, the Department is well aware of problems
with respect to critical mass in the experimental field. )J
I
rere are
infrastructure and space needs which are being addressed by
ongoing basis. The cost of the animal care facility to member o
. ?
received special attention. It is hoped that funds from In rect
?
S
no ?
tvtOO2
d 3° o
support
Research
the
will
Facility.alleviate
the pressure on scarce NSERC resource
?
vice President
3
The Law and Forensic Psychology area is currently searching for a
replacement for James Ogloff, at a senior level. Moreover, there is agreement
within this unit and the department that this area needs to better integrate its
functions with IHRE.
The Developmental Psychology area is considered to be strong and well
functioning in both the clinical and experimental sides. The Social
Psychology area is in the process of searching for a replacement for Neal
Roese, the first Tier II CRC appointment to the University.
The Theory and Methods area has a very specific identity and role to play in
both the teaching and research components of Psychology. It is the view of
Psychology that department members of this group should retain their
distinctive identity and not have it diluted by hiring individuals with
specializations other than solely theory and methods. I support this position.
Clinical Program
The Clinical program with its 'scientist-practitioner model' was seen as a
successful component of psychology. The program is accredited by both the
CPA and APA. I believe that Kim Bartholomew has responded to the six
concerns identified by the review team. I might add that the department will
re-examine the relatively low clinical practicum hours, and is prepared to
accommodate new clinical areas such as psychopathology, personality
disorders and adult treatment. And lastly, the department will examine the
efficacy/ desirability of the heavy reliance upon external, community-based
supervisors.
Specific Recommendations/Concerns
1.
The review team proposed a reduction in teaching load from a
standard of four to three courses per year in order to promote a
more research-intensive environment and to bring it into line with
comparable programs in Canada. While I support the necessity to
adjust teaching loads to remain competitive, I do not support a
change in the standard course load from four to three. The standard
course load should remain at four with selective changes made to
faculty workloads based upon clear criteria. The department has the
authority to make workload changes but these must be neutral with
respect to enrollments and demands upon the TI budget.
2.
More grant money per faculty member should be generated from
the granting councils, particularly the CIHR. The department
recognizes the necessity of this change for the furtherance of its
research mission. Marlene Moretti in the spring of 2002 won a $1.2
million CIHR NET grant.
3.
Closer ties to IHRE must be developed not only by the Institute for
Mental Health, Law and Policy, but also by other research areas of
Psychology such as the Cognitive and Biological area.
1/
171
.
• ?
4. ?
There should be more senior faculty in the Clinical side of the
. ?
program. This will correct itself over the next five years through
demographic change.
5.
Space constraints are identified as a serious problem. As previously
mentioned, this office will continue to work in an incremental way
to improve and redesign existing space resources and where
possible to find additional space.
6.
The review team recommended against pursuing a Psychology D.
program. The department has decided to explore the idea further,
which I support.
7.
On the other hand, the review team supported the development of
a B.Sc. program. The department is examining the feasability of this
proposal.
f
john Pierce'
Cc: ?
T. Perry, Associate Dean, Arts
K. Bartholomew, Chair, Psychology
SCUP 02-98
Simon Fraser University
?
Kim Bartholomew
Department of Psychology
?
Acting Department Chair
ROB 5245
?
604-291-3094
MEMORANDUM
To: ?
Laurie Summers, Director, Academic Planning
Date: ?
March 8, 2002
Topic: ?
Departmental Response to External Review
Please find attached our Departmental response to the 2001 External Review.
Kim Bartholomew, Ph.D.
Acting Department Chair
C.C.
1]
?
John Pierce, Dean of Arts
14
PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT
?
RESPONSE TO EXTERNAL REVIEW
Overall, we were encouraged by the positive tenor of the External Review. With only a few
exceptions, we felt that the review team formed accurate impressions of our department and we
found their feedback to be constructive and thought provoking. Our response will follow the
organization of the External Review, with particular attention given to areas of concern and to
specific suggestions for improvement.
GENERAL IMPRESSIONS
The reviewers commented on the solid qualities" of our educational and research programs.
Size and growth of the Psychology Department.
The reviewers noted the relative youthfulness
of our group and commended us on our hiring practices for new faculty.
Academic stature of the psychology faculty.
The reviewers noted the relatively small
proportion of full professors in our faculty group. We agree with their assessment that the recent
and future hires will likely be faculty with productive research careers who will eventually be
promoted to full professor. Thus, over the next ten years or so we expect that a much higher
proportion of our faculty will attain full professor status.
Although the committee acknowledged the high levels of funded research activity of many of our
faculty, they also indicated that there is room for improvement. In particular, it was noted that
one third of faculty are not externally funded and that no faculty are supported through CIHR. In
terms of research funding, as pointed out the proportion of funded faculty will increase with
continued retirements and new hires. We would like to add that we have some faculty with
active research programs which do not require major grant support. Nonetheless, we agree that
we could do better in accessing various grant programs such as CIHR. In the past year, a number
of faculty have actively pursued major funding from sources other than SSHRC and NSERC.
For example, Thornton is a co-investigator on a CIHR grant under the Community Alliance for
Health Research program (award
$1.35
million) and a CIHR New Emerging Team Grant, and
Mistlberger has obtained a grant from the Workers' Compensation Board (award $101,000). A
number of additional applications are still in progress. For example, Mistlberger has resubmitted
an application to CIHR. Moretti has applied to CIHR for a New Emerging Team Grants (NET).
and Carpendale has applied for a health-related grant from HELP (Human Early Learning
Partnership) a provincially funded partnership concerned with research on early child
development and social policy implications.
Organizational features.
The reviewers pointed out a number of departmental efforts that have
increased productivity and morale (faculty recruitments, departmental restructuring, development
of Optimal Working Environment Committee. etc.).
Ô ?
Educational success.
The reviewers described the graduate program as "quite strong." They
commented favorably on our successful efforts to reduce the amount of time graduate students
take to complete their programs. On the undergraduate side, they concurred with our self-
evaluation as "one of the largest and most successful educational units at SFU."
Specific indices of scholarly success.
The reviewers noted our teaching efficiency (as indicated
in our high weighted FTE enrollments), in particular noting the effectiveness of our Introductory
Psychology course offerings. Finally, they commented positively on our record of research
productivity.
DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES
Basic finances.
We agree strongly with the conclusion of the committee that although our
budget has been adequate to meet basic needs, larger allocations would facilitate departmental
teaching and research.
Staffing.
The committee commented favorably on the competence and dedication of our clerical
staff, technical staff, and senior lecturers and lab instructors.
Space allocation.
Departmental concerns about lack of space were noted in the review, and the
idea of an independent psychology building was suggested. However, we don't feel that the
.
?
external review gives sufficient attention to this critical issue. The department can operate
adequately in our current allotment of space—assuming that lab renovation money continues to
be forthcoming in the next couple years. However, none of the next group of four retirees have
any lab space, and we will be hard pressed to find space for replacement CFL's. We have
converted much of our graduate student office space into research labs. After we provide lab
space for this year's faculty recruits. we will run out of options. Appropriate space and funding
for renovations are critical if we are to be successful in our recruiting process.
The committee only noted in passing our need for better animal care facilities. This issue is
taken up in more detail in the section on the Cognitive and Biological area.
Library resources.
As expected, the committee noted that we could use larger library holdings,
though they also commented on the conscientious efforts of the librarians to most effectively
allocate library resources.
Y
A REVIEW OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES IN PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAMS
THE DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION (5 x 2 MODEL)
Intellectual life.
The reviewers commended the heuristic value of the area reorganization and
the value of the organization in encouraging integration of research and clinical practice within
the department.
They strongly endorsed the department's efforts to reduce faculty teaching loads from four to
three courses per year, pointing out that the three-course level is standard in top-flight, research-
intensive programs. We would like to emphasize the importance of this move for fostering the
development of a top quality psychology department. Since completion of the external review,
the department has experienced its first year in which most faculty are teaching three rather than
four courses. This move has led to noticeably improved faculty morale. It is a concrete
acknowledgement of the faculty's substantial contributions in the supervision (of graduate
students, honours students, directed studies, etc.) and research domains. It is also clear from the
5 faculty searches that are currently underway that attaining a three course load for faculty with
active research programs will directly impact on our ability to attract top new faculty.
Program development.
Althou g
h the reviewers acknowledged the value of the reorganization
in providing coherence and direction for the department in a period of change, they also
expressed concerns that the organization could constrain development if it is imposed inflexibly.
We are very aware of this potential drawback and believe we have, for the most part, been able
to avoid such inflexibility. However, it is clear from various comments in the external review
that the flexibility of the area structure was not effectively communicated to the review
committee. For example, a number of faculty members (and students) participate in more than
one area, areas have routinely cooperated in mounting courses and talks, and (as described
below) areas have cooperated in hiring decisions.
Hiring.
The reviewers urged us to take advantage of windows of opportunity that may arise in
hiring exceptional candidates rather than adhering rigidly to job searches in particular areas. In
fact, we have already shown such flexibility. For example, we had a potential opportunity to hire
Dr. Ulrich Muller, an exceptional developmental psychologist with interests in theoretical
psychology. To take advantage of this possibility, the Theory and Methods area agreed to
postpone a position in favour of a developmental position. (Unfortunately. we were not able to
recruit Dr. Muller.)
Effects of the reorganization on the experimental program.
The reviewers noted the
rejuvenating impact of the reorganization on the experimental program. They encouraged the
use of new hires to strengthen experimental areas, even if such hires do not develop strength in
the clinical stream. We are already taking such an approach. though we have tried to balance the
needs of the experimental and clinical areas in our hiring plan.
Effects of the reorganization on the clinical program.
The reviewers noted the value of the
area structure for enriching the training of clinical students. but also noted potential tradeoffs
such as restriction of coverage. These issues are dealt with in the section on the clinical program.
4
SPECIALTY AREAS
The Cognitive and Biological Area
This area encompasses two of the foundational areas of psychology. cognitive psychology and
bio-psychology (or behavioral neuroscience). The reviewers note that although the experimental
side of this area is able to offer sound research and graduate training, it does not yet have the
critical mass needed "to create and sustain highly visible and influential research units." At
present, there are
3
faculty with active labs in cognition and 2 faculty maintaining active labs in
behavioral neuroscience. Since the review, we have undertaken a search for a junior faculty
member in cognition/perception. We also will be undertaking a search for a Tier 2 CRC in
cognitive-neuroscience later in the spring. We look forward to these new positions greatly
strengthening the cognitive side of the area. However, additional positions are required in
behavioral neuroscience to establish a strong research program.
On the clinical side, we are developing a program in clinical neuropsychology. The reviewers
strongly supported the development of such a program, pointing out there is likely to be
considerable student demand for such training. Since the review we have hired a part-time
limited-term faculty in this area (a joint appointment with Riverview Hospital). It is essential
that we gain at least one more faculty appointment to ensure the viability of this program.
Comments on infrastructure constraints.
The reviewers pointed out the serious problems with
.
?
the laboratory resources for the departmental animal researchers and the animal care costs. The
Animal Care Facility is grossly inadequate; it is too small to accommodate the university's
current needs and does not provide any dedicated lab or testing space. The exorbitant costs have
never been justified, and they are a major impediment to these researchers being able to maintain
competitive research programs. For instance, on average Watson has paid about 70% of his
NSERC operating funds to the Animal Care Facility, even though he does not keep many
animals. We have attempted to bring these concerns to the administration's attention for years,
with no success. Relief from these charges would dramatically strength the research programs of
our faculty in this area.
More generally, Cognitive and Biological Psychology are "hard" science disciplines, with
heavier technological and infrastructure requirements than other domains of psychology. There
is a serious need for more infrastructure support.
The Law and Forensic Psychology Area
The reviewers pointed out the strength, uniqueness, and international reputation of the Law and
Forensic Psychology program. As recommended by the reviewers, we are currently conducting
a search for a senior faculty member in the area of Experimental Psychology and Law to replace
Dr. Ogloffl More generally, the reviewers encourage the protection and promotion of this
program. as well as the encouragement of collaborations with the developing Institute for Health
Research and Education (IHRE). Since the external review. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Roesch have
become active members of the IHRE.
/0
)
The Developmental Psychology Area
The reviewers consider both the experimental developmental and child-clinical streams to be
strong and well functioning. They point Out that the departmental reorganization has worked
especially well in the developmental area.
The Social Psychology Area
The reviewers saw the experimental stream of social psychology as generally strong, especially
given the hiring of Dr. Roese as a Tier 2 CRC. Unfortunately, Dr. Roese will be leaving the
department. However, we are in the process of a search for a new Tier 2 CRC in this area.
The reviewers raised concerns about the viability of the social-clinical stream, given that only
one faculty member clearly falls within this stream (see also comments in the section on the
Clinical Program). In particular, they recommend that next clinical hiring, which is designated
as falling within the social-clinical stream, consider individuals with expertise in topics outside
of social psychology. The social area and department as a whole strongly agree with this
recommendation. Our plan for the next position in this area is to advertise for a clinical
psychologist with expertise in any area of clinical psychology.
The Theory and Methods Area
The members of the Theory and Methods area took exception to the reviewers' characterization
of the area as an artificial union of domains (history, theory, and psychometrics) and as lacking a
graduate program. They argue that Theory and Methods represents a natural union of sub-areas
concerned with the fundamentals of scholarly activity in psychology. The area of Theory and
Methods concerns itself with the legitimacy of the methodologies and practices employed in the
various content areas ofpsychology. In terms of a graduate program, the area has only existed
since 1998 and, therefore, it is premature to pass judgment on the degree of success of the
graduate program. It is also important to point out that members of this area make very
significant contributions to graduate training through teaching a number of core methods
courses, research consulting, and committee work.
The reviewers suggested that the two new positions allocated to Theory and Methods (in 2003
and 2004) should be used to hire individuals with good quantitative skills, but research interests
in one of the other areas. Area members feel that the many required Theory and Methods
courses that comprise the core of the undergraduate and graduate programs cannot be adequately
covered by individuals working primarily within other areas. They believe that only specialists
in Theory and Methods are competent to teach such courses and to cover the statistical
consulting load in the department.
Although there is some variability among faculty in their vision for the Theory and Methods area
and in their conception of competence to teach methods courses, the department as a whole has
clearl
y
indicated their support for the maintenance of a fully functioning Theory and Methods
area. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that the loss of Dr. Krane, one of three
quantitative specialists in the department, has put an incredible strain on the Theory and Methods
1!
' area. Currently. area faculty are unable to meet the area's teaching obligations. This problem
will be compounded when a second quantitative specialist (Koopman) retires in a couple years.
If Dr. Krane does not return to the Psychology Department. it will be essential for us to replace
him as soon as possible. As well, the area will require the immediate replacement of Koopman.
Clinical Program
Strengths.
The reviewers noted a number of strengths of the clinical program: its strong
reputation for training in clinical practice. its accreditation by the Canadian Psychological
Association and the American Psychological Association, the number of graduate students
served with limited clinical faculty. the services of the Clinical Psychology Centre, the
availability of supervision by local practitioners, the research supervision of clinical students
being shared by clinical and non-clinical faculty, its endorsement of the "Scientist-Practitioner
Model" of clinician training (especially as supported by the
5
X 2 model), strong leadership,
ample funding of graduate students, attention to the basics of professional training, and strong
students with a good success rate in the program. The reviewers note that the clinical faculty
graduate supervision workload appears to be disproportionately heavy within the department,
with just 11 full-time clinical faculty servicing
63%
of the graduate students in the graduate
program.
Previous and current concerns with the clinical program
.
?
(1) The reviewers found that previous allegations about impropriety which had resulted in low
morale of department members (and especially clinical students) have been effectively dealt
with.
(2)
Only
3
of 11 clinical faculty are full professors. Though the younger group of clinical
faculty were seen as promising, the reviewers emphasized the importance of supporting and
mentoring these faculty.
(3)
A large proportion of students' clinical supervision is done by external community-based
supervisors. The reviewers felt that it was important that students be exposed to faculty
supervisors who are able to blend the research and practitioner roles. Given the current
heavy workloads of clinical faculty, it is not feasible for their supervisory loads to increase
substantially (while maintaining research productivity) without some compensating decrease
in workload. Therefore. we plan to revisit the question of how teaching credit may be
assigned for clinical supervision hours.
(4)
The reviewers noted that our students accumulate relatively low numbers of clinical
practicum hours. They suggest closely monitoring these hours to ensure that students are
not disadvantaged in the search for quality internships. Although our students have not yet
encountered any problem in being accepted into high-quality APA-accredited internships in
either Canada or the US. we agree this is a matter that would benefit from more attention.
Further, our stream in Clinical Neuropsychology represents a very competitive international
career stream where more practicum hours will be needed in order for our students to
compete successfully for Clinical NeuropsychOlogY internships. To enhance the earning of
I?'
practicum training hours, we have recently proposed a wa
y
ot'giving course credit to
students accumulating additional practicum hours through doing well-supervised off-campus
clinical work.
(5)
The reviewers relayed the concerns of some older clinical students who found themselves
placed in the social-clinical area by default when the 2 X 5 model was initiated (because
they did not fit any other area). These placements were for administrative purposes and no
students already in the program at the time of the change were required to change their
programs. However, we are well aware of these students' concerns and we have worked
with each student individually to allow them to develop an individualized program of study.
By having students indicate their area of interest when they apply to the clinical program,
this problem should no longer arise. We are monitoring the consolidation of the social-
clinical area and have initiated course offerings that will meet the needs of students. For
example, Dr. Bartholomew offered a course in interpersonal relations last year and this was
well received by clinical students in the social area. Similarly, we have plans underway to
mount a cognitive-behavior therapy course in 2002-3.
(6)
The reviewers were concerned that a number of important topics in clinical psychology may
not be well-served by the new area structure, such as adult psychopathology, personality
disorders, and treatment research. In terms of hiring new faculty, we are in agreement that
future positions in the clinical area will not be constrained by the area structure (see Social
area above). Moreover, the clinical faculty feels that our program can accommodate the
topics noted by the reviewers within the area structure as follows:
Adult Psychoathologv: For the major mental disorders, this topic fits well within the
Clinical Neuropsychology stream. For example, our most recent addition to this stream
(Tones) studies schizophrenia. Anxiety and mood disorders of a less severe nature may be
studied within the neuropsychological model, or within the cognitive-behavioral model that
is consistent with adult clinical research which we hope to cover within the Clinical-Social
stream. The graduate course in adult psychopathology will continue to be offered as a
foundation course in the program.
Personalit y
Disorders: Research in this topic is already well-represented in the work of Steve
Hart within the Law and Psychology Area, and it seems that student research in this topic
falls within this Area in a rational way. Depending on the research approach it could also be
studied within the Clinical Neuropsychology stream or in the Social stream.
Adult treatment: theor
y
and outcome research falls within the Clinical-Social stream. The
clinical program sees such topics as adult treatment using cognitive—behavioural and other
approaches in a research-oriented model as a significant research and training gap that needs
filling in our next search. As noted above, we will be mounting a course in cognitive-
behavior therapy this fall.
.
13
8
ÔDEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
The review team was asked to comment on the potential role of the Psychology Department in
the Institute for Health Research and Education (IHRE). They concluded that the IHRE
initiative is a good fit with interests in Psychology and will likely attract considerable
involvement from our department. Many faculty members have already become involved in
various IHRE initiatives (e.g.. Carpendale, Bowman, Kimball, Cox, Moretti, larocci, Beyerstein,
Hart, Thornton, Watson), and this involvement will only increase over time. For example,
Department members with an interest in child development (Carpendale. Connolly, larocci,
Moretti. Turnbull, Young) have formed the Centre for the Advancement of Child Health
(CACH) which will be funded by THRE and HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership).
THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
The reviewers were generally impressed with our undergraduate program. In particular, they
commended the extensive curriculum revisions which have given the undergraduate offerings a
logical structure. They also commented favorably on the introductory psychology courses, the
tutorial system, and the honours program.
Potential B.Sc. degree.
The reviewers advocated that we consider establishing a B.Sc. degree in
psychology, although they question whether we have sufficient faculty in the Cognitive and
Biological area to cover the required courses. The department is generally supportive of this idea
and the Cognitive and Biological area will be putting forth a proposal for such a degree.
Interactions with the undergraduate community.
The reviewers were impressed by the
department's Undergraduate Information and Resource Guide and by the representatives of the
undergraduate Psychology Students Association (PSA). They recommended that the PSA be
provided with an undergraduate lounge and office. We have had no luck obtaining such space
from the administration. We will continue to support the PSA in the search for improved space.
0
[L,^
CONCLUSION
Strengths
The major strengths of the department were summarized: a good administrative structure, the
reorganization of areas within the department, a number of strong areas with active faculty,
successfulgraduate students, a strong clinical program, the quality of undergraduate teaching,
our commitment to the undergraduate program, the excellent staff, and our promising recently-
hired faculty.
Areas needing improvement
Throughout the report the reviewers emphasized the need for us to work toward a higher
proportion of full professors through actively supporting the research aspirations of more junior
faculty. They also felt we need increased grants and better research resources (especially in the
animal care domain). We are in complete agreement with these assessments.
The reviewers suggested building on areas of potential strength to obtain a critical mass, for
instance, in the Cognitive and Biological area. Again, we agree. On the other hand, they
recommended hiring researchers with strong quantitative skills and substantive research interests
rather than hiring methodologists to future positions in the Theory and Methods area. As
previously discussed, there is not general agreement with this point of view.
Also as previously discussed, we are committed to recruiting a clinical faculty member with
research interests in some area of adult psychopathology or treatment. Although we have never
had any intention to create a clinical-theory and methods stream, we are not yet sure how to
handle the clinical-social stream. Over the next year, we will be evaluating how the clinical-
social experiment has worked and considering whether we wish to continue with this
organization.
We appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful discussion of the advantages and potential
disadvantages of the 5 X 2 model. Although the model is considerably more flexible than
understood by the reviewers, their concern that it could become inflexible and constraining is
valid.
We couldn't agree more enthusiastically with the reviewers' recommendation that the
department's infrastructure needs be reviewed.
Initiatives on the SFU horizon
In addition to reiterating their support for the planned teaching reduction, a B.Sc. degree in
Psychology, and the IHRE, the reviewers addressed the question of whether we should consider
developing a Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) degree. Whereas the reviewers were quite strongly
opposed to this proposition, psychology faculty are open to further exploration of the idea.
Therefore.. the clinical committee has obtained an internal IHRE grant to assess the feasibility of
developing a Psy.D. degree. A review committee has been established and will undertake an
assessment of the relative benefits and potential liabilities in mounting such a program.
0
145^
Department of Psychology
Faculty of Arts
University of Waterloo
200 University avenue
West
Waterloo, Ontario. CanaOa
N2L3G1
5193884567. ext. 2813
Fax 5197403631
SCUP 02-98
University of
o Waterloo
.Th
JL1N 0 6 2001
June
5,
2001
Dr. John Waterhouse
Vice-President, Academic
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, BC V5A1S6
Dear Dr. Waterhouse:
.
?
?
On the behalf of the members of our "External Review Committee", I am pleased
to submit the report detailing our review of the Psychology Department. As you will
quickly see, there is a positive tone to our impressions of the work ethic and the morale of
this unit, with only a few recommendations for change to fine-tune this group's scholarly
efforts. Professors Jim Olson (from Western), Jane Stewart (from Concordia) and I (from
Waterloo), along with internal member Larry Dill, send thanks for inviting us to assist
your review process. We all enjoyed the opportunity to meet your people and to learn of
their work.
Sincerely yours,
Richard A. Steffy, Ph.D., C. Psych.,
Professor and Director of Clinical Training
lb
S
Report of an External Review
?
Of The Psychology Department
?
at Simon Fraser University
?
Submitted on June
5,
2001 by the committee of:
Larry
Jim Olson
Dill
(UWO)
(SPU) Inter
nal
Representative ?
5
Richard A. Steffy (UW) - Committee Chair
Jane Stewart (Concordia U)
1]
iTl-
o
?
EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
(SFU) PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Submitted on June 5, 2001
OVERVIEW
As a part of its quality control procedures, administrators of Simon Fraser
University arrange an "external review" of each department on a seven-year cycle. To
accommodate this requirement for a review of the Psychology Department in 2001, the
Vice-President of Academic
Affairs
John H. Waterhouse assembled a site visit team
includin g
three psychology professors from other Canadian universities and one faculty
member from another SFU department. Representing the diversity of specialties within
the psychology discipline, our team includes James Olson (a social psychologist from the
University of Western Ontario), Jane Stewart (a behavioural neuroscientist from
Concordia University), and Committee Chair Richard Steffy (a clinical psychologist from
the University of Waterloo). The "internal" SFU member is Larry Dill, a behavioural
ecologist from their Biology Sciences Department.
Our committee based its opinions on independent reviews of paper documents
submitted to us by the Psychology Department, the Arts Faculty, the academic vice-
president's office, and other university agents. Of particular use were the Department
Self-Study, the three-year plans from the Department and the Arts Faculty, progress notes
summarizing activities over the past seven years, curriculum vitae of each faculty
member, and administrative statistics. The committee also conducted a three-day site
visit extending from April
17dm
through 19
th
, 2001.
The committee wishes to express its appreciation to Vice-President Waterhouse,
his staff (with special thanks to Academic Planning and Resources Director Sue Roppel),
Dean of Arts John T. Pierce, and the many members of the Psychology Department
(faculty and staff, under the direction of Chairman William Krane) who hosted us and
gave freely of their time and energies to ensure our accommodations and a smooth review
process. In our time on campus, meetings were arranged to allow us to hear the
experiences and opinions of many individuals, including:
- university administrators;
- subsets of Psychology Department faculty members (for example, the most
newly appointed faculty, faculty area groupings, members of the Psychology
Department Senate, special services representatives [the department assistant,
support and technical staff, as well as lecture/lab instructors]);
• ?
- representatives from the university library;
- representatives from the Clinical Psychology Centre (CPC);
2
- individuals at their post in various facilities (the Psychology Clinic, the Forensic
Centre, special teachin
g
facilities, animal laboratories);
- student representatives from both graduate and undergraduate programs of
study.
A full roster of the meetings conducted over our three days at SFU is attached in
the appendix.
THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
To ensure a clear focus in our review, we were provided a set of guides as
described in the "Terms of Reference" (attached in the Appendix) and received
instructions from Vice-President Waterhouse and Dean of Arts Pierce at an opening
meeting.
In brief, our group was instructed to assess the quality of the Psychology
Department's teaching, research, administration, and general work climate. We were
asked, too, to forecast the department's long range development and to address a set of
particular concerns arising from: recent changes in Psychology Department procedures,
turnover in faculty, and the occurrence of various unfortunate incidents in the
department's recent history. A number of these matters had surfaced in the previous
review of the Psychology Department and therefore required follow-up. In this report,
we give particular emphasis to:
- the success of the 2 X
5
model organization of the department, originating in
1998;
- curriculum reforms in the undergraduate program;
- a review of each of the five specialty areas and the clinical program;
- the extent to which the department might invest in the newly-initiated,
university-wide Institute For Health Research and Education (IHRE);
- indices of productivity, such as faculty progress through ranks, grants, student
completion and the like;
- the Department members' work satisfaction, given the demoralizing incidents in
the previous years.
With these particular issues in mind -- over-riding distractions imposed by the
magnificent scenery surrounding SFU buildings -- our committee went to work to
provide its impressions from the review document and a three-day visitation.
3
S
GENERAL IMPRESSIONS
Our site visit team saw solid qualities in the SFU Psychology Department's
educational and research programs. They have a curriculum that gives students (both
undergraduate and
g
raduate) a solid understanding of the field and that prepares students
well for employment opportunities (with data available indicating that undergraduates
rapidly access jobs). They have a number of admirable features, including solid levels of
research productivity (papers and grants), a relatively large number of professional (Ph.D.
level) clinical psychologists to enable the skill training goals, and identifiable areas of
academic excellence. The psychology group at SFU may be characterized as a young
and vital group of scholars, who pursue their initiatives and are capable of hard work and
creative solutions. One sees youthfulness in the university at large. Figural in its history
(reported on page 2 of the University Calendar), SFU accepted its first class of 2500
students in the fall term of
1965
and grew steadily over the next 34 years to an enrollment
of more than 18,000 students; approximately 3700 degrees were conferred in 1999. As a
part of its growth, SFU has opened a downtown Vancouver campus to which the various
departments contribute.
Size and Growth of the Psychology Department. Althou
g
h we have seen no exact
history of the Psychology Department's growth, its current size and activity give the
impression that it has kept pace with other campus developments. Indeed, the Psychology
Department is now one of the largest academic units on the SFU campus, carrying an
established faculty complement of 33.5 F.T.E. (noting that this level has shrunk over the
past few years from a previous high of 35.0 F.T.E., because of university-wide budgetary
constraints). An exact count of the Psychology Department faculty membership is hard
to estimate because of the uncertainty of new hirings, part-time appointments, collateral
faculty (e.g., an unfilled position funded by Riverview Hospital), and pending
retirements.' Our count of contributors indicates that there are currently 38 individuals in
positions (two of whom have half-time appointments). Adding to the count, one new
person is due to arrive this summer (Arlene Young), and five other individuals hold
adjunct positions (Postdoc Salmon, two part-time clinic staff [Bradley and Foster], a full-
time lecturer [Russell Day], and a visiting faculty member [Doreen Kimura]).
Collectively, 44 individuals assist the SFU Psychology Department's research, teaching,
and clinical service/supervisory roles. With current recruitment underway to fill a CRC
and a joint SFU-Riverview position, there is promise of two more individuals soon
available to enrich the Department's scholarship and to share its teaching and supervisory
needs, although some losses resulting from imminent retirement/resignations will alter
these estimates.
Comments. In our interviews, we repeatedly heard that the
department's hiring practices focus on the selection
of
individuals who show the
most scholarly promise and who are most able to
fulfill
potential areas
of
growth, independently
of
areas
of
specialization. Hiring decisions sometimes
•
?
lead to competition across units, but our team found that department leaders
Several individuals (accounting for
3.5 F.T.E.)
are slated for either retirement or resignation by August of
2001
4
(the chair, the associate chairs, the department senate) have evolved a sound
decision
have had
process,
a good track
are not
record
especially
in filling
fierce
recent
in their
appointments.
territorial behaviour,
In our view,
andtheir
?
is
manner
of
operating deserves commendation.
Academic stature of the Ps
y
chology Facult
y
. Although the average age of
Psychology faculty members is
50.4
years, this faculty group is still "young" in its
progress through the levels of academic rank; in fact, only 44% of the faculty group in
1999-2000 have achieved full professor status. Given the recent and upcoming
retirements (four in the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, and 10 more are planned over the
next four years), replacement faculty could introduce as many as nine new faculty plus
the six who have recently arrived or will soon arrive. These new hires will hopefully
establish research careers that merit eventual promotion to full professor.
Comments. In our view, the department has a distance to travel in
?
achieving the goal of having a group that has a high proportion of its members
with full professorship status.
Pursuin g
further the impression of a "youthful" department, many of this group
show high levels of activity and versatility. For example, 22 of its current faculty
members are now receiving external grants, for a total annual funding of over $400,000
(estimates provided by Vice-President of Research Bruce Clayman indicated that external
grants in 1999-2000 netted $407,200, or
$556,600
if external and SFU operating research
funds are combined).
Although Psychology Department faculty have been awarded a respectable
amount of grant income, there is room for growth. Approximately one-third of the
psychology faculty do not hold external research grants. Also, we have the impression
from a cursory inspection of CVs and from our discussions during the visit that there is
unevenness in the grant support generated by members of the psychology faculty,
perhaps because of the bulge of individuals facing retirement in the next few years.
Whatever its cause, this variation represents a pattern that requires future monitoring,
especially since the five-year trends (on page 12 of a statistical package we were given)
show that the total grant intake declined by
35%
over the four years from 1995-96 to
1998-99 (starting at $522,000 and ending at $341,000). As noted earlier, however,
support reached $407,200 in 1999-2000, suggesting some recent recovery.
Comments. In considering the SFU Psychology Department's
productivity, our team concludes that this group is solid and shows promise, but
there is room for improvement. Although many
of
the faculty have active
research programs with research funding from federal agencies, it does not
appear that any of the group are finded through CIHR, an agency that clearly
supports research in both the experimental and clinical behavioural sciences.
In order to maintain the viability of specific areas
of
research and to further
develop present areas of strength, it will be necessary to achieve additional
sources offunding. New faculty in both clinical and experimental streams
5
should be encouraged to develop projects-- independently and in collaboration
-- capable
of
attracting strong support and given help to apply forfundingfrom
as many sources as possible.
Organizational features. Signs of the vigor and versatility of the Psychology
Department are seen in recent departmental programming revisions. Within recent years,
the Psychology Department has offered creative solutions to its problems and has thereby
increased its productivity. Among its efforts:
- faculty recruitments have been successful in acquiring new faculty who appear
particularly promising;
- the departmental restructuring (the shift to the
2
X
5
model to be described
below) has many merits, and department members endorse the re-structuring
(e.g., reducing the number of departmental committees by shifting much of the
workload to members of the departmental senate);
- the morale of the department now seems excellent;
- special initiatives have been pursued to develop an Optimal Working
Environment Committee (OWEC), an ethics committee, and to maintain an
• ?
active colloquium series (at both the area and departmental levels);
- new facilities have been funded, particularly notable in the Law-Forensic
Psychology area and in the undergraduate teaching domain;
- a healthy teaching assistantship program (with an enviably large
$900,000
per
year budget for TAs) is available to maintain tutorial services to undergraduate
students.
These and other features reflect the level of energy and the relatively high morale
found throughout our visit.
Educational success. There are many sound features of the Psychology
Department's educational training programs. We found that the number of
undergraduate, M.A., and Ph.D. degrees has been stable over the years. In this past year,
SFU conferred
269
Honours/Majors undergraduate degrees in psychology (with a range
of
264
to 333 over the past five years); there were 12 M.A.s and 13 Ph.D.s awarded in
psychology (with previous ranges of
9
to
15
and 8 to 21, respectively).
The graduate training pro
g
ram is quite strong. It is of interest to note that the
number of graduates per year has remained constant despite the fact that the absolute
number of graduate students in the program has dropped steadily over the past five years
• (from 114 in
1995/96
to a low of 87 enrolled in
1999-00).
This 24% drop (steady in
decline across those years) could be a cause of some concern. However, department
officials tell us that this was a planned reduction, mainly reflecting a shift in the amount
of time that students linger in their graduate programs -- reducing an average of seven
years in residence to five years. In fact, the intake of graduate students has been stable
0
over previous years and so has the graduation rate (about 17% of the graduate degrees
conferred at SFU). Recent
g
raduation ceremonies also gave witness to a number of gold
and silver medalists from the ranks of psychology students.
Comments. Shifts in the numbers of graduate students currently
enrolled seems to reflect an improvement in the quality of graduate education,
occurring as part
of
a "belt-tightening exercise ".
Trends within undergraduate education (as will be described in greater detail in a
later section) also show stability, despite the fact that there has been substantial tightening
in the undergraduate curriculum. In contrasting the Psychology Department with the rest
of the Arts Faculty, it can be seen that nearly 19% of the Arts Faculty HonourslMajors
B .A. degrees have been conferred in psychology (representing 11% of the total university
undergraduate degrees conferred). As has been documented by the most recent
Psychology Department self-evaluation, it is one of the largest and most successful
educational units at SFU.
Specific indices of scholarly success. Our impressions of the Psychology
Department's vitality derive in part from its overall teaching efficiency. Twenty-one
percent of the faculty's weighted F.T.E. enrollment is contributed by Psychology faculty,
who constitute only 9.7% of the faculty's teaching resources.' Moreover, the labs
associated with the Introductory Psychology course offer an ideal educational operation,
with very good computer facilities and a rich tutorial system. In addition, the
department's co-op program and its investment in the Continuing Studies Program reflect
the department's good citizenship within the SFU community.
The Psychology Department takes great pride in its members' research record,
citing 21 books and more than 300 journal articles, chapters, and presentations in the past
three years. In brief, the SFU Psychology Department faculty are an energetic, maturing,
and self-critical group.
DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES
Several aspects of the Psychology Department administration deserve special
comment and/or commendation.
Basic finances. From a meeting with the Department Assistant, Beverly Davino,
we learned that the SFU Psychology Department is provided an operating budget each
year of $180,000 and a sizeable teaching assistantship budget of $900,000 (allowing 80
TAs for each of the fall and winter terms and 20 more for the spring term.
Although there may be some question about whether the use of a "weighted" FTE count (described in the
department's "Three Year Plan" document) is appropriate (an exercise that tallies psychology course efforts
on the same base as the science faculty's courses with laboratories), it is nevertheless a safe indication of
the workload assumed by this department.
7
Comment. This budget has been adequate to meet the basic
requirements of the departments but larger allocations in the future would
facilitate both teaching and research in the department.
Staffin g
.
We met with the secretarial and technical
staff
teams and found they
have a high level of morale and are dedicated to their work. It is a mature group with
readily apparent technical skills. They report a stron
g
allegiance to the department, to
Departmental Assistant Beverly Davino, as well as to Dr. Krane, the Department Chair.
They proudly report that the campus Human Resources Department gives Psychology
high marks for the quality of its work environment. In words echoing this view, one of
the staff stated
" ...workin
g
here is a pleasure and I enjoy interactions with the faculty.
We have great morale".
Our group was very impressed with the level of technology that the technical
workers bring. The leader of this group, Stephen Stewart, a Ph.D.-level electrical
engineer, and his technical support team are capable of equipping labs with hardwiring as
well as software developments. Larger jobs, however, are contracted to other agencies on
the campus.
A similar impression of strength arises from talking with the lecturers and lab
• ?
instructors (particularly Dr. Day) who manage the Introductory Psychology courses.
Once again, a mature and highly professional set of workers showed an obvious love of
their job and the university.
Space allocations. As one might expect from a group this large and ambitious, we
heard complaints about space. Although some faculty are satisfied with their
accommodations, a few of the new faculty have not yet been assi
g
ned their own offices,
and new hiring will only worsen the space problems. Given the overall mass of this
group, a case could be made for an independent psychology building, although we
understand that such a goal might be a distant one.
Librar y
resourc es
. With respect to library holdings, our interview with the
librarian revealed a conscientious effort to cope with the rising costs of books and
journals. The librarians forge direct relationships with each department and try to give a
thoughtful dispersion of funds to the various areas and periodic evaluations of the journal
holdings. We are also aware, however, that the size of SFU's holdings is smaller than
many other equal-sized schools, so it is comforting to know that there are library loan
arrangements with UBC and Calgary.
Comments. Although no administrator likes to hear requests for yet
more money, it is important to put into the record that this department would
make good use of greater space, better animal care facilities and a wealthier set
•
?
of library holdings. Nevertheless, despite the restrictions, SFU faculty and staff
get very good marks for what has been accomplished, even though "more would
be better".
dq
8
A REVIEW OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES N PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAMS
?
0
To provide a more extensive analysis of the Psycholo
g
y Department's
functionin
g
, the following sections give in-depth reviews of the department's
administrative structure, the undergraduate education model, and the multifaceted
graduate areas of study in both experimental and clinical program domains.
THE DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION
(5
X 2 MODEL
Shortly after its last "external" review, the SFU Psychology Department
underwent a major reorganization in an effort to better integrate faculty and graduate
students into areas of research and teaching. Five academic content areas were created,
viz., Cognition and Biological Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Social
Psychology, Law and Forensic Psychology, and Theory and Methods. Two programs of
faculty and student participation were also defined, viz., the Experimental and Clinical
Programs.
The committee was asked to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of
this organization. In this section, we share our observations about the value of these new
structures for the intellectual life in the department, for program development, for future
hiring, and for the functioning of the experimental and clinical programs.
Intellectual life. Although the area divisions in the
5
X 2 model at times appear to
be artificial and forced, the committee recognizes the enormous heuristic value that this
reorganization has had; we commend Dr. Krane and his administrative team for their role
in developing this approach. It has led to a notable boon in the establishment of area
seminars, bringing together graduate students and faculty interests in both theory and
practice.
Comments. The integration of experimental and clinical programs
afforded by the S X 2 model has helped to demonstrate the interrelationships
between research and practice, and has helped to foster the integration of these
activities within the department. These are admirable achievements that should
be encouraged and protected.
In continuing the department's efforts to enrich scholarly opportunities
for faculty and students, our committee strongly endorses the department's
interest in reducing faculty teaching loads from four to three courses per year.
A three-course level is regularly achieved in top-flight, research-intensive
psychology departments and is a credible goal for SFU faculty.
Program Development. It needs to be recognized that new program emphases may
arise from changes in the field of psychology, requiring priorities to be reoriented on
relatively short notice. For example, the addition of a single new faculty member may
allow for the unanticipated emergence of a new research area. A case in point derives
0
from the recent addition of a neuropsychologiSt to the department and the clear impact
that this hiring has had on the clinical program. This development, combined with the
emergence of the Institute-for Health Research and Education, may provide far-reaching
collaborations and additional initiatives to strengthen the overall research capacity of
department.
Comments. Our committee believes that the organization of the
department into its five 'areas
of
strength' provides coherence and direction for
the department through a period of rapid change. However, it may also
constrain development in the future
if
its structure is imposed inflexibly and
without the benefit
of
periodic review. It is to be hoped that the department will
expand and divide emerging groups in ways that will take advantage of new
research opportunities as they arise. Extending our caution, the committee
warns against any policy aimed at developing or bolstering clinical or
experimental themes within each of the five areas, for the mere reason of having
every area represented or made equal in size. Some areas may naturally
develop a theme that should be expanded, and other areas may need to be
reduced or split. Some of our ideas concerning these possibilities and limits
will
emerge from the discussions of the individual areas.
One of the consequences of dividing the experimental and clinical programs into
• ?
five areas is the natural tendency of areas to wish to expand -- adding more courses and
stn.igglin
g
to make their programs appear truly specialized and comprehensive.
Unfortunately, this tendency works against the goal of trying to give
graduate students as
broad and well-integrated an education as possible. Using rotating slots for seminars that
cut across the boundaries of defined areas (or programs) would not only provide a means
to expose students to a broader array of the discipline, but might also help to forge new
research alliances.
Hirin
g
. It is clear to the committee that the Department of Psychology at SFU is
in a remarkable position to build and renew its faculty and to increase its research depth
and capacity over the next few years. A plan has been drawn up for replacements and
several excellent appointments have been made in both 2000 and 2001. In view of the
comments made in the above paragraphs, the committee was encouraged to note that SFU
faculty seem committed to policies of hiring the best individuals who can be found,
keeping the divisions between areas and themes as flexible as possible.
Comments. Our committee recommends against rigidly restricting any
job searches to positions in particular areas, even though an equitable
distribution might favour some areas over others. Windows
of
opportunity in
finding "winners" need to be exploited whenever they arise in order to ensure
the most advantageous hiring decisions.
.
?
?
Effects of the reorganization on the experimental program. As already noted, the?
reorganization has injected a new vitality into the experimental areas' seminars and
programs. Over the next few years, several of these areas are slotted to hire new people
10
to strengthen, or rebuild, their experimental programs. We support these hires in the
experimental areas.
Comments. It is the view of the committee that experimental areas
should be allowed to hire even
if
they do not develop strength in the clinical
stream. A major factor in the success of any program is its critical mass. The
energy that is generated from the presence ofa few, especially talented new
faculty can increase remarkably both the visibility and the productivity of an
experimental program.
Effects of the reorganization on the clinical program. Although the new
departmental organizational structure is enriching the basic science and research training
of students within the clinical program, it may be placing a heavy load on the shoulders
of the clinical faculty and restricting the breadth of coverage available in the clinical
program. In particular, it was noted that programmatic work in experimental (adult)
psychopathology is underrepresented in the program. This is a field that is undergoing
major development. It will remain to be seen whether the hiring in these areas can be
made within current structures or whether the splitting of current areas (or the addition of
a new areas of concentration) will be required in this program's pursuit of excellence.
We elaborate these issues in our detailed discussion of the Clinical Psychology Program.
SPECIALTY AREAS
The SFU Psycholo
g
y Department contains five specialties that serve as the bases
for graduate student work. We comment on each area in the following sections.
The Cognitive And Biological Area
Cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and behavioural neuroscience (or
psychobiology) are core areas of the discipline of psychology, witnessing rapidly
expanding research horizons. These areas of scholarship contribute widely to other
domains of psychology. Because of the growing multidisciplinary nature of the research
in these areas, they also contribute to, and gain from, related fields such as computer
science, brain imaging, robotics, animal behaviour, developmental biology, and the broad
fields of neuroscience and medicine.
Although this group within the department appears to contain the largest number
of faculty, the count may be somewhat misleading. At present, there are nine individuals
listed in the cognitive and biological area within the experimental program, and two full-
time and two half-time individuals serving within the clinical program. Of the nine in the
experimental stream, Drs. Modigliani and Crawford will retire in 2001 and 2002
respectively; Dr. Blackman, who is now serving as a university administrator, will retire
in 2003. Of the remaining six, Drs. Mistiberger and Watson (both behavioural
neuroscientists funded by NSERC for the study of basic processes in laboratory animals)
are publishing actively in their respective fields. Dr. Beyerstein has a strong background
in psychopharmacology and brain behaviour relationships, but is no longer conducting
MA
S ?
laboratory research. Drs. McDonald, Whittlesea and Wright work in the fields of
cognition and perception, although in somewhat different areas. Although Drs.
McDonald and Wright appear to have common research interests, Dr. Whittlesea works
in a different domain. These individuals hold NSERC grants and publish regularly.
Comments. Although the experimental stream in this area has a sound
basis for graduate studies and research in both the cognitive and biological
fields, there is not yet a critical mass of research expertise to create and sustain
highly visible and influential research units.
The clinical stream of the cognition and biological area has until very recently
been made up of Dr. Bowman, who has a wide background in both cognitive impairments
and emotional disorders. The hiring of Drs. Allan Thornton and Wendy Thornton (half-
time) plus the additional half-time position now advertised has made possible the
establishment of the clinical program in neuropsychology. In the view of our committee,
this program is likely in the future to attract much student interest, increasing the
demands for teaching as well as clinical and research supervision on the part of these
individuals. The new knowledge, skills, and approaches to clinical work that these
people bring to the clinical program are very valuable.
Comments on infrastructure contraints. Laboratory resources for the
animal researchers in biopsychology are limited. There are problems with the
adequacy of animal housing facilities for the circadian rhythm work of Dr.
Mistiberger, an area of research requiring housing that is well insulated from
external lights and sounds so that ambient stimulation does not disrupt daily
schedules. In addition, Dr. Watson requires a wet laboratory facility with work
space for graduate students, as well as animal housing. From our visit to the
animal laboratory and housing areas, we see that there is need to separate the
experimental laboratories from the holding facility.
We note, too, that the animal researchers appear to be paying the
university a considerable portion of their research grants for animal care costs.
We were surprised to learn that the university was not making greater efforts to
provide more infrastructure support for these researchers.
The Law and Forensic Psychology Area
The area of law and forensic psychology is a relatively new field of psychology,
one that rarely is found in the core program of other psychology departments. Within the
SFU department, however, it appears to be one of the strongest and best integrated of the
five. It has few faculty members, but the research and clinical interests of the faculty
have common goals. The intensity and enthusiasm expressed by the members for what
they are doing and what they have accomplished was an exciting moment of our visit.
The SFU program is unique in Canada and is well recognized internationally.
on
12
In the experimental stream, there are presently two faculty members, Drs. Ogloff
and Connolly. Dr. Ogloff unfortunately will be leaving soon, and his departure will be a
great loss to the program. Dr. Connolly is a new faculty member with degrees in both law
and psychology. She is highly suited for her role, but will need at least one more
colleague to meet the department's commitments to this area of education.
Drs. Hart and Roesch both work in the clinical stream and have strong records of
publication and research. The establishment of the Mental Health, Law and Policy
Institute has created a rich network of correctional, forensic services and provincial
mental health systems, thus providing excellent opportunities for both research and
practical clinical experience. The fact that the SFU group has made formal arrangements
to work with the law school at UBC and to share courses with IJBC students and faculty
makes the program all the more attractive.
Comment: The major emphasis of this group on mental health and
crime should make them prime candidates for collaborations within the
developing Institute for Health Research and Education. Our committee urges
that the Law and Forensic Psychology area should be protected and promoted
by the university. One
of
the first steps we foresee is the replacement
of
Dr.
Ogloff with a relatively senior appointment.
The Developmental Ps
ychology Area
The Developmental Psychology Area consists of four faculty members in the
experimental stream (Drs. Bartholomew, Carpendale, Kimball, and Strayer), four faculty
members in the child clinical stream (Drs. larocci, Ley, Marcia, and Moretti), and one
faculty member who will join the child clinical stream in 2001-2002 (Dr. Young). Some
of the
g
roup have other major duties and interests; for example, Dr. Bartholomew is a
member of the Social Area, and Dr. Kimball's responsibilities are split equally between
the Psychology Department and the Women's Studies Department (where she is the
Chair).
The experimental stream in developmental psychology is solid. Drs.
Bartholomew and Carpendale are active scholars, and Drs. Kimball and Strayer are well-
respected senior members of the Department. Members of the area are engaged in
research collaborations with members of other departments (e.g., Education) and with
developmental researchers at the University of British Columbia. Graduate students in
the program are satisfied and active; at the undergraduate level, courses in developmental
psychology have excellent reputations among the students. In the child clinical stream,
Dr. Moretti is a particularly productive researcher, and the new members (Drs. larocci
and Young) are good hires who will further strengthen the group's research base.
Clinical training is thorough, as we discuss in the section on the Clinical Psychology
Program.
The Developmental Area is one area where the departmental reorganization
(5
x 2
framework) has worked very well. Within it, the interests of the experimental faculty
aq
13
?
I ?
members mesh nicely with those of the clinical faculty members, and the biweekly
research seminars have provided a venue for cross-talk and intellectual stimulation.
The Social Ps
y cholog y
Area
The Social Psychology Area consists of five faculty members in the experimental
stream (Drs. Bartholomew, Krebs, McFarland, Roese, and Turnbull); one faculty member
resides in the applied/clinical stream (Dr. Cox), and one new faculty member will join the
experimental stream in 2001-2002 (Dr. Campbell). Dr. Bartholomew also belongs to the
Developmental Area, and Dr. Turnbull's research interests align him with the
Developmental Area as well. It should be noted that faculty in the Social Area have
made important administrative contributions to the Department; for example, Dr.
Turnbull is currently the Associate Chair of Undergraduate Studies, and Dr.
Bartholomew is the Associate Chair of Graduate Studies.
The experimental stream in social psychology is generally strong. Drs.
Bartholomew, McFarland, and Roese regularly publish in the best journals in social
psycholo g
y. Although there are some interpersonal difficulties between certain of the
older members of the group, basic duties are well attended, as reflected by the biweekly
research seminar and the smooth running of the undergraduate program. The hiring of
Dr. Roese as a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair significantly enhanced the research profile
of the area for he is an emerging star in the field. The addition of Dr. Campbell, a newly
appointedAssistant Professor, will further strengthen the area in 2001-2002. It is
essential that these young faculty members receive the support they need from the
University to achieve their research potential.
In the social psychology group, Dr. Cox is the sole representative of the clinical
stream, owing to his interest in clinical service as well as in applied social psychology,
with expertise in both health and sports psychology domains. Moreover, his interests
seem compatible with the newly formed Institute for Health Research and Education
(IHRE). As we note later in this report, the IHRE appears to offer excellent opportunities
for psychology researchers, and the department seems to be encouraging such
connections.
Comments on future developments in the clinical/social stream. As
"expressed in our previous comments about the Departmental reorganization (5
x 2 framework). and again in our subsequent discussion of the Clinical
Psychology Program, we think that the department's plan to build a
"clinical/social" stream maybe shortsighted. We recommend that new hiring
efforts within the clinical program consider individuals with expertise in other
clinical topics (e.
0
a.,
adult psychopathology and psychotherapy research). Of
course, scholarly research accomplishments should constitute a major criterion
in any clinical hiring decision.
?
?
9 ?
The Theor
y
and Methods Area
30
14
The Theory and Methods Area consists only of an experimental stream, which
includes the services of five full-time faculty members (Drs. Alexander, Coles,
Koopman, Krane, and Maraun), as well as one faculty member who is retiring in 2001
(Dr. Paranjpe). Dr. Krane is also the Chair of the Psycholo
g
y Department.
The area brings together scholars interested in history, theory, and psychometrics
in an unusual mix and varying markedly in their contributions. The publication records of
members in this area are mixed; although some members have been particularly
productive, others have modest research records. The members of this group feel that
their area is functioning well, in the sense that its biweekly seminars have been lively and
its undergraduate program has been running smoothly. There is currently only one
graduate student in the area, so it does not really have a graduate program.
The quantitative specialists (Drs. Koopman, Krane, and Maraun) are hard worked
-- often called upon for statistical advice and to serve on thesis committees; these
consulting duties must be taken into account when assessing their performance and
workload.
Comments on future developments in the Theor
y
and Methods Area.
The hiring plan that has been developed by the Psychology Department calls for
two new faculty members in Theory and Methods, one in 2003 and one in 2004.
We recommend that, rather than looking for people active in general theory and
methods domains (which seem to us to form an artificial union), searches
should focus on individuals with good quantitative skills who also have
substantive research interests in one
of
the other experimental areas. The
relevance
of
particular quantitative methods varies across research domains, so
it makes sense to have statisticians who are specialists in techniques that are
used primarily in one or two areas
of
research. In a psychology department the
size
of
Simon Fraser's, we do not think that there are enough resources to
dedicate seven full-time faculty members exclusively to this area. Our
suggested hiring plan would also serve to direct needed resources (faculty
positions) to the other experimental areas
of
the department that have stronger
research records.
Clinical Program
Like most applied psychology training programs in North America, Clinical
Psychology training at SFU is a robust enterprise with substantial numbers of students,
faculty, and adjunctive supervisory staff, who collectively provide seminars, research
apprenticeships and clinical skill training opportunities. Like graduate students in the
experimental domains, clinical students are expected to complete an M.A. and a Ph.D.
research project, but also to devote considerable time and effort to develop applied
(practitioner) skills from coursework and from supervised work with clients in service
settings. Consistent with the Psychology Department's "5 X 2" administrative structure,
the clinical program offers education in parallel with the experimental program across
31
15
four of the five basic content areas (excepting the Theory and Methods Area, which is
now dedicated to training solely within the experimental stream).
Strenths. SFU's clinical program is widely recognized to be successful and
popular. It has a solid reputation for training applied practice skills. Its students acquire
credible (and generally accredited) internship placements, obtain strong commendation
for their skills (from placement a
g
encies), and consistently gain post-degree employment.
Attesting to its value, the SFU clinical program has been recognized by both the
Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and the American Psychological Association
(APA) Accreditation Panels, who conferred joint accreditation to this program in 1987,
after independent certification had been obtained in 1984 (APA) and in 1985 (CPA).
Accreditation practice requires reviews to be updated every year, and an extensive review
of credentials (with a site visit) on a five year cycle. SFU's most recent full review and
approval occurred in 1998. Insofar as SFU's clinical training effort had only begun in
1978, this is a fast rise to a respectable plane and deserves commendation.
There are many noteworthy features to this program. It now serves 63% of the
graduate students of the department, despite the fact that only 11 of the total department
faculty complement are now devoted exclusively to the clinical pro
gram
(a twelfth
member, Dr. Young, will join the group this summer). Typical of clinical training
programs elsewhere, Ph.D.-level assistants (Drs. Bradley and Foster, each with half-time
appointments) administer the Clinical Psychology Centre (CPC) services. Moreover,
approximately twenty local practitioners in practice within the Vancouver community
volunteer their time and energy to supervise students' work with clients. These
practitioners collectively offer a large proportion of the load of graduate student
supervision.
As is common to professional training programs elsewhere, the SFU clinical
program requires its graduate students to enroll in a large set of courses pertinent to the
understanding and remediation of client adjustment problems. Students also enroll in
courses covering diverse practice issues (for example, courses in ethics, personality
theory, psychopathology, assessment, and intervention topics). In servicing
55
graduate
students' academic and research training needs, these faculty shoulder a heavy teaching
and research responsibility. Clinical students' research can also be supervised by faculty
working primarily within the experimental program, so the load of research supervision
can be more evenly distributed. This arrangement brings benefits to all, i.e., by
broadening students' training choices, relieving the research supervision duties of the
dozen clinical faculty, and also enriching the work in the labs of the experimental
program faculty.
Another strength of the SFU program is its endorsement of the widely accepted --
virtually an industry standard -- "Scientist-Practitioner (Boulder, Colorado Conference)
• Model" of clinician training. This model emphasizes the development and interplay of
both research and practitioner skills in Ph.D. clinicians. The department's
5 X
2 model
easily permits scientist-practitioner cross-fertilization to occur, by giving opportunity for
clinical students with interests in developmental social, law/forensic, or
cognitive/biological areas to participate in the theoretical and experimental aspects of
?
is
those areas, as well as to establish practice skills. This is a clever arrangement that
enables clinical students to have ready access to both the research and the practice
components of their areas of scholarly interest.
SFU Clinical Program Accreditation Status. Our endorsement of the overall
quality of the clinical skill training offered by this department reflects the 1998
CPAJAPA site visit report authored by Dobson, Mayo, and Sandler (with a site visit in
March and April of that year). Their report identified the various strengths of leadership
in this program (including not only an established Director of Clinical Training [the
DCT], a job now resting in the able hands of Marilyn Bowman, but also a CPC director
and a Practicum Internship Coordinator). The 1998 evaluation noted that SFU training is
enabled by:
- a well-equipped Clinical Psychology Centre for students to develop their
practice skills;
- ample funding of graduate students (in 1998 estimated to be $13,500 per year
per student);
- a sensible track through the coursework and skill training experiences;
- attention to the basics of professional training (including a course in ethics, a
background in the history and systems of psychology, and breadth courses --
although there was some uncertainty in the 1998 report about exactly how
breadth training was to be ensured);
- an energetic pursuit of quality control strategies.
The training philosophy of this group offers students exposure to a range of
diverse theoretical orientations; it is no longer a program known for adherence to one
single school of thought (according to the Dobson et al. [1998] report, the SFU group
previously was known to have primarily a psychoanalytic orientation). It has now
matured to encompass cognitive-behavioural approaches and exposes its students to other
orientations as well.
In summary, this clinical training program has many features to
recommend it:
1)
We are impressed that it has been stable for a long period of time;
2)
It has an excellent set of leaders and a sensible distribution of labour;
3)
It has a sufficiently large set offaculty to run itself,
33
17
S ?
4 it has adequate budget and community resources to ensure students'
exposure to a variety
of
cases and to diverse supervisors;
5)
Supervisors are available from the ranks
of
the faculty as well as from
the community pool
of
practitioners;
6)
We find the coursework and skill training opportunities laid out in the
curriculum to be sensible, extending from fundamental to complex
skills;
7)
Students enrolled in this program are talented; they enter with quite
good grades and succeed in the program with a low withdrawal rate;
8)
Although earlier evaluations indicated that clinical students were slow
to finish their programs (approximately seven years in enrollment), it
is clear that this group has worked hard to reduce that level to a five-
year average by urging students to manage their program with greater
dispatch.
Previous and current concerns with the clinical progrIrk
(1) In the previous reviews (both the SFU effort conducted seven years ago
and the 1998 CPA/APA assessment), references were made to low morale in the
clinical group that derived from allegations of impropriety, some of which surfaced in
legal proceedings. Those events apparently had a long-lasting demoralizing effect on
many members of the department (faculty, students, and staff), and we understand
that the clinical students felt particularly compromised at the time these events
became known. Our team was alerted to this history in order to ensure that our "ears
were open" to understand any signs of lingering bitterness or turmoil. Indeed, we
found those events have not been completely forgotten although the sense of distress
seems to be much reduced in intensity from the levels that other reviewers
encountered. Contributing to an improvement in morale are the active interchanges
of faculty and students in Departmental Senate meetings. Furthermore, the
approachable quality of the department leadership and the energetic efforts of the
Optimal Working Environment Committee (OWEC, as guided by Professor Cox)
have helped to cope with tensions arising from those past events and serves as a
watchdog to prevent future improprieties.
Comments. Our ream believes these concerns are best regarded as
"old scars", and we believe that the department can now take pride in its efforts
to have recovered from those previously bleak moments.
(2) A concern that arises from a review of the clinical faculty listin
g
s is
that only three of the group of 11 current clinical faculty have achieved Professor
status, so it is still a young-in-ranks group. Although several in the group have
18
forged strong research programs, the group cannot yet be considered to have
is
made its mark on Canadian scholarship.
Comments. Our team feels that this group has distinct promise, but
efforts to nurture its development should continue to be a priority in hiring, in
workload considerations, and in mentoring efforts, e.g., arranging visiting
professorships from esteemed clinical researchers (much like the
Cognitive/Biological group has attracted Dr. Kimura).
(3)
A third concern pertains to standards of clinical skill training. In this
program, a large proportion of the supervision of students' work with clients is
conducted voluntarily by community-based supervisors who provide services. We
were pleased to find a solid network of communications between community
supervisors and the faculty. However, we learned that the external supervisors
carry the largest portion of the one-to-one training of clinical skills, with most of
the clinical faculty (except Dr. Ley's heavy supervisory load) carrying only a few
case supervisions. Accordingly, there is an imbalance in the load carried by the
internal and external groups, bearing in mind that many programs aspire to a
50-
50 balance.
Comments. Student exposure to faculty supervisors of clinical cases
better ensures that students' experience in working with clients will reflect the
theoretical and research orientations of the faculty responsible for the program.
Implicit in the conventional Boulder Model
of
"scientist-practitioner training"
is
the idea that students will apprentice with faculty who are able to blend both
research and practitioner roles. If a large proportion of students' practicum
hours reflect the work offull-time practitioners who are not on the frontier of
research, the training will fall short of this ideal.
(4)
The average number of "practicum hours" available to SFU clinical
students is substantial (estimated to ran
g
e in 1998 between 900 and 1300 hours of
experience), but we note that these numbers nevertheless fall toward the low end
of clinical psychology programs, many of which report student totals in the 2000
to 3000 practicum hour range.
Comments. Program faculty may wish to closely monitor these hours so
that SFU clinical students remain competitive in achieving their most favoured
internship placements.
(5)
From conversations with the clinical graduate students, we learned
that some of the older clinical program students who were in the program at the
time the 2 X
5
model was initiated inadvertently found themselves placed in the
Social Psychology Area, because their interests in the clinical program did not fit
any of the other areas of scholarship that were available. In a sense, these
students were located in the clinical-social cell of the model as a default decision.
Although all students have the same clinical program training, 12 of the group
VGJ
(approximately 22% of the clinical students at present) felt pressed into an area
that had little personal interest to them and only one faculty member in it (Dr.
Cox). It was clear to us during discussions with graduate students that a number
of them felt that they had to "sleep in a Procrustean bed".
Comments. Insofar as the Social Psychology Area remains the expected
location for clinical students (interested in adult work) who do not have another
area focus. clinical student assignment will continue to require monitoring and
negotiated placements until these unfortunate assignments are a thing
of
the
past; we are told that students entering today are located in harmony with their
academic interests.
(6)
As noted in other sections of this report, the
5 X
2 model may
undercut program developments, particularly in the clinical domain. We note that
there are areas of active interest in the clinical academic spectrum that are not
well-represented in the SFU curriculum and research portfolios.
_Comments. Hiring
of
new clinical faculty dedicated to bolster particular
pre-existing areas may constrain the clinical (adult) program from advancing in
areas currently emerging in scientific clinical psychology, such as experimental
psychopathology and treatment research. Prestigious journals devoted to these
• topics -- such as The Journal of Abnormal Pcholog
y
, Cognition and Emoiim
and Cognitive Therap
y
and Research -- as well as scholarly organizations (e.g..
the "Society for Research in Psychopathology") and the availability
of
research
grants reflect "hot topic" interests in schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and
personality disorders. These, along with investigative efforts to study both the
efficacy and efficiency
of
various therapy modalities, are growing in quality and
quantity
of
research effort, so we caution SFU 's group to be sensitive to these
trends when they review future appointment decisions.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION
With the enthusiastic leadership of the administration, SFU has embarked on a
major interdisciplinary project to advance health studies, featuring research, teaching, and
service goals. Its multi-disciplinary appeal will accommodate a wide range of scholarly
issues ranging from the well-being of individuals to population health issues. An
ambitious plan for an SFU Institute of Health Research and Education (IRRE) has been
drafted, and directors recruited to foster this fresh initiative. This effort will recruit talent
from across the campus and also in various partnerships with the Vancouver community.
In the minds of SFU leaders, members of the Psychology Department would be
important players in this enterprise. The department already has pro
g
ram areas that train
• ?
IHRE-relevant professional skills (clinical psychology, social psychology, biological
perspectives, and statistical technologies) and a subdiscipline of health psychology. As
part of our site visit mandate, we were asked specifically whether we felt this idea had a
20
good fit to the interests and needs of psychology. Our review of this question leads to a
resounding "yes". Although the practical details have yet to be addressed. members of
the department enthusiastically endorse this development.
Comments. From all signs, this initiative seems an excellent venture that will
attract psychology faculty and graduate students' interest and cooperation. If
successfully pursued, this project could enhance scholarship at SFU and bring new
excitement to the campus.
THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM IN PSYCHOLOGY
SF1.5 has always prided itself on its undergraduate programs. The University has a
reputation for providing excellent instruction, abundant small-group tutorial and
laboratory opportunities, and a broad liberal arts education. In all of these respects, the
Psychology Department conforms to the University's teaching mission.
The committee was generally impressed by the undergraduate program in
psychology. The curriculum has undergone extensive examination and revisions over the
last few years; its structure is logical and comprehensive. In addition to an introductory
psychology course, students majoring in psychology must take courses that cover
research, the history of psychology, and data analysis. These courses provide the
fundamental knowledge that is necessary for advanced work in psychology, as well as
training in critical analysis and writing.
The introductory psychology courses are well organized and well taught. The
approximately 1400 students in the introductory psychology courses participate in
computer labs with maximum enrollments of only 17 per tutorial section. It is unusual
for introductory students elsewhere to have such intensive small-group opportunities. For
their further benefit, the new computer laboratory facility is outstanding and utilizes a
variety of computer-based instructional technologies.
Advanced courses in psychology are organized into five broad areas: biological
psychology, perception/cognition, developmental psychology, social psychology, and
personality/abnormal/clinical psychology. In each of these areas, there is a second-year
course that introduces students to the field, and there are numerous third- and fourth-year
courses in specialized topics. The offerings provide wide choice for students. Students
majoring in psychology must take at least one course from the biological or
perception/co
g
nition areas (the NSERC side of psychology) and at least one course from
the developmental, social, or personality/abnormal/clini
cal
areas (the SSHRC - CIHR
side of psychology). This breadth requirement is rather minimal - other universities
often require two or three courses in each group of areas. Nevertheless, the structure of
the program is defensible. All of the second- and third-year courses have associated with
them labs or tutorials (again, with a maximum enrollment of 17) that permit students to
discuss issues in a small-group format.
37
21
To enter the Honours pro
g
ram, students must achieve a high CPA in their lower
level courses, complete a third-year course on research methods and data analysis, and
attend an Honours Information Session where the goals and benefits of the Honours
program are discussed. These prerequisites are appropriate and have produced an
acceptable enrollment level in the program. Students from SFU's undergraduate program
have gone on to be successful graduate students at many universities in Canada and the
United States. It is widely recognized at Canadian universities that an undergraduate
degree in psychology from Simon Fraser is good preparation for graduate training.
Comments re a potential B.Sc. degree. Some psychology faculty
members suggested that a B.Sc. degree in psychology should be offered. We
think that such a prospect is an excellent idea that deserves consideration.
Because students would need to complete a variety
of
science courses in
addition to their psychology courses, consultation with the Faculty of Science
would obviously be necessary. Our only concern about introducing a B.Sc.
program is that there must be a sufficient mass offaculty members with relevant
expertise to teach the required courses. The faculty in the Cognitive and
Biological Area are already extended in teaching and supervision, so additional
faculty members would be necessary. There are two new positions envisioned
in the Cognitive and Biological psychology area, but an additional one or two
might be necessary
if
a B.Sc. degree is introduced.
The Psychology Department's interactions with the undergraduate communi.
We were favorably impressed by the Psychology Department's Undergraduate
Information and Resource Guide, which provides extensive information about the
curriculum, the discipline of psychology, careers as a professional psychologist, and
many other issues relevant to psychology majors. We were also impressed by the clear
and mature understanding expressed by the representative from the undergraduate
Psychology Students Association (PSA), who told us about the various activities
sponsored by the association.
Comment. We hope that the Psychology Department will continue to
offer any support it can to the PSA. In particular, that group should have
available an undergraduate lounge and office. Insofar as an ideal location has
been found in a hallway corner, our committee gives a resounding endorsement
of this goal, feeling that the space is available and cinder block walls could
satisfy the demand quite handily, giving the students a much-needed facility
comparable to those of other campuses.
CONCLUSION
In order to comment on the Psychology Department's programming, facilities,
personnel, visions, and concerns, this report was presented in several major sections. We
•
?
reviewed its administrative structure, its undergraduate and graduate programs
(5
areas
plus special attention to the clinical progr
a
m), as well as many collateral features that
make up the life of such a complex organization. Our report described the strengths and
22
weaknesses as we see them on these major and many minor features, with evaluative
comments sprinkled throughout (generally titled as "comments" indented and italicized
for ease of reading). However, our team has compassion for the reader in recognizing
that our opinions are distributed widely and appear in a piecemeal fashion, since each of
these particular units of action is discussed separately. This section, therefore, draws
to
g
ether, in a brief summary, the various strengths, weaknesses, and new initiatives that
we detected.
Strengths
The SFU Psychology Department has a very good administrative structure. The
1998 experiment of the
5
x 2 model seems to have worked well and served its purposes.
We give special credit as well to efforts the department has made to overcome weak
morale, with much credit
g
oing to its leadership and to the reformulation of a
"workhorse" Departmental Senate that has obviously had a positive impact.
In our view, this department is blessed with a number of strong areas, composed
of many faculty with great promise who have achieved a satisfactory research and grant
record. The area seminars seem vital and stimulating.
Students show many signs of educational success. The graduate program has
produced successful academics and successful applied practitioners. The clinical
program seems to deserve fully the continent-wide recognition that is conferred by its
CPA and APA accreditation. Our committee was struck with the quality of
undergraduate teaching and notes that SFU's educational philosophy and investments in
the undergraduate program have led to students who are successful in applying to
graduate school and/or in obtaining employment.
Finally, we give special credit to the high level of staff who work in harmony with
faculty to cobble together a good working environment and a solid level of productivity.
The SFU future looks good to us in that its department members appear vigorous and
energetic. There is hope for further recruitment of young researchers as retirements
occur, and the hiring practices seem to be succeeding on all fronts. Recently-hired
faculty look energetic and creative. Although our detailed review gave note of other
strengths in this program, we conclude with these particular highlights as the primary
impressions of the assets of the Psychology Department.
Areas needing improvement
For example, the percentage of full professors within the group is somewhat light.
Our group saw need for increased grants and better resources for research (particularly in
the animal care domain) that would foster a yet brighter and more vigorous academic
climate. New hiring will help, especially if it is judiciously directed to building on
strengths and creating good working teams. For example, our report highlighted the need
for a critical mass of cognitive and biological scientists, and we also recommended that
planned hiring in the Theory and Methods domain should be directed at individuals with
39,
23
• ?
strong quantitative skills who also have substantive research interests in one of the other
experimental areas.
Within the adult clinical domain, some students who were placed into the clinical-
social cell do not have their heart in the topics of that area. In our view, the department
should consider recruitment in newly-emerging areas of clinical psychology in North
America (particularly studies of psychopatholo
g
y and therapy outcomes), rather than
attempting to artificially create clinical-social or clinical-theory/methods pro-rams.
In our view, the benefits of the
5
X 2 model (most notably, the integration across
experimental and clinical areas) may, in the future, be outweighed by the costs of
restricting faculty collaborations, versatility of graduate student programming, and
research. If narrowly applied, the model may become a set of cells rather than a simple
administrative convenience. This is the question for the future. At present, the
advantages are substantial; hardening of lines is the worry for the future.
Our thoughts about this department's needs extend to some of the infrastructure
issues (office space for new faculty, the animal lab facilities, the heavy per diem rate for
animal care, a small piece of territory for the undergraduates' office or lounge, and
various other space needs). We realize these are much constrained by the budgetary
nightmares that universities face these days, but we feel that the items we highlighted are
worthy of administrative review.
Initiatives on the SFU horizon
These include a planned reduction from a teaching load of four to three courses
per year, an Honours B.Sc. Degree, and an Institute of Health Research and Education
(IHRE). These all would be excellent developments, and everything we heard about
them is encouraging.
One initiative suggested by Vice-President Waterhouse, however, is the
development of a Doctor of Psychology (Psy. D.) degree program to be affixed to the
11-IRE. Our cornniittee has a fairly strong prejudice against that approach. Although the
Psy. D. is upon us (it is already a big player in U.S. professional training, and there have
been recent efforts to franchise Psy. D. education across the U.S.-Canada border), the
idea of reducin
g
or eliminating the research commitment at this state in the development
of our discipline strikes us as misguided. This prejudice grows from our personal
experiences with the dilution of standards that often occurs in Psy. D. programs. Added
to our concern is a recent (1997) review summarizing the EPPP registration exam results
across North America, which found graduates of Psy. D. programs consistently fell in a
below-median range of scores, suggesting that the educational products of Ph.D. and
Psy.D. programs vary considerably. As such, we fall to endorse this development. On
the other hand, our committee feels that it is fair to point out that there are many other
psychologists on the continent who feel that this is a reasonable direction to follow, and
there are instances of high quality Psy. D. training programs that would serve as models
for such a development. Much to its advantage is the fact that the rather expensive
24
research apprenticeship costs would be shorn from the budget and make the training
potentially much less expensive than the average, research-based Ph.D. training Program.
Our point is to make clear that a Psy. D. development (proposed to us by Vice-President
Waterhouse) is a controversial topic and would need to be reviewed carefully before any
steps were to be made in that direction.
.
41
25
9 ?
RECOMMENDATIONS
The opinions distributed throughout the report (in italicized "comments") are
summarized and emphasized in this "recommendations" section. We respectively submit
this summary (with relevant pages of the report noted in bold) to the SFU Administration
and hope that our comments will assist the Psychology Department to extend its already
very good work. Our list first of all identifies special strengths that need to be protected,
and then gives a prioritized set of concerns that may be targeted for change.
I. Assets To Be Vigorously Protected
1.
This department currently enjoys very good morale. Its committee structure, its
energetic leadership, and its harmonious relationships among areas and programs are
to be commended. Our committee could not tell whether this department profits
mainly from the administrative structure, the personal qualities of those in charge or a
combination of structure and people. Whatever its source, we consider the high
morale of the department leaders and members to be a praiseworthy achievement, and
we recommend a public commendation.
(See Pages 4, 8 and
22.)
2.
Continue full support for the elegant undergraduate training program at SFU. We are
particularly impressed with the tutorial programs and the excellent teaching
assistantship arrangement for graduate students.
(See Pages 6 and 20.)
3.
Continue the support of the first-rate teaching facilities, including the undergraduate
labs, the CPC, and the Law/Forensic area centre.
(See Page
7.)
4.
Continue to enforce limitations in graduate students' time in program. Even though
this effort has reduced the graduate student census, it is a worthwhile effort to tighten
the educational standards.
(See Pages
5
and 6.)
II. Support of New Initiatives Being Considered
The university's IHRE plan is an excellent project. Our committee and many of the
SFU faculty we interviewed are intrigued by this program and feel that it could be a
real winner.
(See Pages 19 and 20)
2.
An undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree makes good sense, given the
department's commitment to the "experimental stream" of investigations, particularly
in the cognitive/biological areas.
(See Page 21.)
III. Quality Aspirations
As noted in the text, the SFU Psychology Department has a keenly developed
sense of excellence and is well-esteemed amon
g
SFU departments. However, it falls
short of being one of the most prestigious psychology departments in Canada. One area
of need is for a hi
g
her proportion of its faculty members to achieve full professor rank,
LN
M.
thus reflecting international recognition of its members' research accomplishments.
(See
Page 4.)
To help achieve this goal, the following actions (given in rank-order of
0
importance) need to be pursued:
1)
Hiring priorities should emphasize the development of academically strong
collegial subgroups, rather than attempting to give equal coverage to all areas
in the department's
5
X 2 model of subdisciplines. We recommend building
on strengths.
(See Pages 9 and 10.)
For example, the law/forensic area offers
one of the most valuable and well-known programs to this campus. The loss
of Professor Ogloff needs to be filled by an appointment of a senior member
in this area, so that the department does not let this vital subgroup wither
because of a reduction in its critical mass.
(See Pages 11 and 12.)
2)
Hiring practices need to emphasize candidates' potential for research and
scholarship. Furthermore, the research commitment of all faculty should be
fostered by departmental leaders. The department's interest in reducing its
members' teaching load from a standard of four to three courses per year
would go a long way in making research time more available.
(See Page 8.)
Systematic mentoring efforts would also be useful. We assume, for
example, that the presence of retired Professor Kimura enriches the
cognitive/biological area such an enriching influence, and the enthusiastic
broad-ranging scholarship of Crawford has been a department-wide asset.
However, senior faculty members or visiting professors need not be the sole
property of any one subdiscipline area, but may instead stretch their scholarly
influence as mentors across the department.
3)
More grant support per faculty member is needed. Although the department
has an adequate level of grant support, it is not exemplary. The variation in
grant awards reflects an uneven distribution across faculty members.
(See
Page 4.)
4)
The department infrastructure needs more support for animal labs and care.
We feel that the animal research facilities are inadequate, and we found it
particularly unfortunate that the faculty members active in animal lab work
assumed the burden of the animal care costs. That expense needs to be
augmented by university support.
(See Page 11.)
5)
The department needs to solve its faculty office space problems. Lack of
office space will likely discourage recruitment of new topfli
g
ht faculty
members. (See Page 23.)
6)
Our visiting team feels that the department should not pursue the development
of a Psy.D. program. Even though such a program would likely attract many
graduate student applications, Psy.D. programs (relative to Ph.D. programs)
0
413
27
. ?
tend to undervalue research training. In our experience, they often drift
toward mediocre academic standards. (See Page 23
and
24.)
7) Within the clinical domain our
g
roup noticed that the number of "practicum
hours" achieved by clinical students mi
g
ht be beneath the levels expected in
Canadian clinical programs and may hazard students' internship placements.
(See Page 18.)
8)
We were concerned that within the clinical training program, community-
based supervisors carry a larger proportion of the case supervision load than
do full-time faculty, thus risking a departure from the Boulder Model
standard. The clinical group should strive to increase the proportion of each
clinical case training experience with full-time faculty members in order to
better ensure students' exposure to the research/theoretical orientation that
represents the "scientist" pole of the scientist-practitioner model.
(See Page
18.)
IV. Concerns With The Current Administrative Structure
The department's
5 X
2 model has served well in bringing coherence to the
program. It has prompted an enviable level of interaction between members (faculty and
students) with both applied and theoretical interests. However, our team was concerned
that the model might be pursued in an inflexible manner. In our view the departmental
leaders should not feel obliged to fill all cells of the model with an equal faculty
complement. Instead, we feel that the department should build upon strengths in its
hiring policy. Some areas need to achieve excellence, even though other possible
specialty interests mi g
ht not prosper.
(See Pages 11, 12, 13 and 23.)
For example:
a)
within the cognitive/biological domain, there are a wide number of areas
represented and it may be better that some concentration is allowed to evolve.
b)
in the clinical domain, our group felt that the empty social psychology/clinical
cell should be regarded only as a candidate for a new position, rather than a
necessity. If treated as a necessity, that decision would overlook a number of
other domains that are currently being given emphasis in many clinical
programs (for instance, the experimental psychopathology domain and the
therapy research domain). Although the idea of having a social psychologist
with clinical interests has merit, hiring practices should not overlook other
alternatives that have currency in today's clinical research and service
literatures, and are basic to a well-balanced program.
(See Pages 18 and 19.)
c)
Hiring faculty directly into the Theor
y
and Methods domain places an
unnecessary constraint on the department's need for statistical expertise.
Instead, we suggest that hiring individuals with quantitative skills and
interests, who also have companion interests in an existing content domain,
should be given priority. Having a statistical specialist in each content area is
rim
lii
28
attractive because the data analysis problems areas encounter are often
specific to each research domain. We can see some advantage in
quantitatively-skilled individuals continuing an association with a "Theory
and Methods" group (as a means of mutual enrichment and enjoyment);
however, because this group does not successfully attract graduate students,
and has such a remarkable diversity of interests (some of them qualitative
rather than quantitative), new appointments holding statistical competence
should be hinged to other areas for their primary affiliation.
(See Page 14.)
We trust that our suggestions will be of benefit to the future development of this
very good academic group.
1$
29
.
APPENDIX
4
-'
?
Department of Psychology-!
Simon Fraser Un
1 verity
?
,..
Site
?
+ ?
i
A 1
?
'
?
...............
ie Visit
?
-'J ?
;.
April 2001 ?
- .-
Note: All meetings to be held in RCB 5202 unless other isehotteL
Tuesday
April 17
8'00 - 8•45
?
Breakfast meeting with VP Academic, VP Research/Acting Dean" GracL StudieDeari c
Arts, & Director, Academic Planning & Resources in
President's Conference 4p6m..
....
8:45
.
- 9:00
........................
?
Meeting of committee members in
President's
.....................
Conference Room - ;..
9
00-
10 15
?
Tour of facilities and meeting with Department Chair
-C.. ?
-.
1030- 1130
?
Meeting with Department Senate
11:
30
- 12:15
?
Meeting with Department
? -
12:15 - 1:30
?
Open lunch in Department
1:30 -
2 30 ?
Meeting with new faculty members
?
- -
2:30 - 3:30
?
Meeting with graduate students
?
-
3:30 -
4 30 ?
Meeting with undergraduate students
?
.-
430-
500
?
Meeting with Department Chair
Wednesda
y
April 18
?
-.'-' --
............................................................. . '.
8:00 -
9 00 ?
Breakfast meeting with VP Research in
President's Conference Room - -
9 00 -10 00
Meeting with Dejpmen
?
'
a
members ?
-
iO:f 5- 11:15
?
.
11:15 - 12:15
?
Meeting with E_
aLArea members
12:15 -
1:30
?
Lunch with Department Senate at
Diamond University
Centre
?
1:30- 2:30
?
Meeting with rhry &I
2
{ethods Aa members
?
2:30 - 3:30 ?
Meeting with' Cognitive & Biological Area members
?
3:45- 4:45
?
Meeting witDofArt>
?
4:45 -
5:15 ?
Meeting with Dertment Chair
?
5:15 -
6:30
.-
?
Reception at
Diamond University Centre
?
.•
Thursda y
, April 19
?
.--........
?
8:30 - 9:00 ?
Meeting with Department Assistant
• ?
9:00 - 9:30
?
Meeting with Support staff'
?
. .
?
9:30 - 10:00 ?
Meeting with Technical Staff ?
.
?
. .
10:15 -
10:45
?
Meeting with Lecturers and Lab Instructors in
Introductory P.syc Lab - A
312
7
10:45 - 11:45 ?
Meeting with"Clinical
faEul
,.CPC Director & Associate Directors ?
. .
11:45 - 12:15
?
Meeting with Department Chair
12:15 -
1:15
?
Lunch meeting of external review committee at
Diamond University Centre-Members'
Lounge
1:15 -
?
1:45
?
Meeting with Head, Collections Management and Subject Librarian
?
.
1:45 - 2:30
?
Meeting with VP Academic, VP Research/Acting Dean of Grad. Studies, Dean of Arts, &
Director, Academic Planning & Resources in
President's Conference Room
?
41
I
Department of Psychology
External Review Committee 2000/01 - Terms of Reference
The purpose of the external review process is to provide the University with assurances that:
a)
The quality of the unit's teaching programs are high and there are measures in place
to ensure their evaluation and revision.
b)
The quality of faculty research is high and faculty collaboration and interaction
provides a stimulating academic environment.
c)
The Department members participate in the governance of the unit and take an
active role in the dissemination of knowledge.
d)
The environment is condve to the attainment of the objectives of the Department.
The Review Committee will assess the Department and comment on its strengths and
weaknesses, on opportunities for change and/or improvement
s
and on quality and
effectiveness. The Review Committee should make essential, formal, prioritized
recommendations that address its major concerns, with reference to the resources available to
the Department and the objectives described in its three-year plans.
Issues of particular
.
interest
.
to the University and/or the Department that we would like the
review team to consider during the review are:
a)
The effectiveness of the Department's new organization and faculty renewal plan in
enhancing its programs of research and teaching.
b)
The advantages and disadvantages of the Department's participation in the
University's new Institute for Health Research and Education
01t1.
c)
The impact of the Department's enrollments and faculty workload on its research
and teaching missions.
?
-
Other areas of the Department to be considered by the review team include:
1.
Programs
• size, structure, breadth, orientation and integration of the undergraduate programs
including the cooperative education program.
• size, structure, breadth, depth, requirements and reputation of the graduate programs.
• graduate student progress, completion timeframes, and financial support.
• enrolment management issues at the undergraduate and graduate levels including, for
the former, numbers of majors and the amount of service teaching.
2.
Faculty
• size and quality of the faculty complement in relation to the Department's
responsibilities and workload.
• teaching, research and service contributions of faculty members, including the level of
external research support.
3.
Administration
• ?
• size of the administrative and support staff complement, and the effectiveness of the
administration of the Department.
March 16, 2001
• adequacy of resources and facilities provided to support teaching and research,
including library resources, laboratory space and equipment, computing resources,
office space, and faculty and staff complements.
4. Connection of the Department within and outside the University
•
the Department's concept and plan for teaching and research and relationship
with the
other units within the University.
• relationship between the Department and the community.
• relationship with aluinni/ae.
S.
Future Directions
• the plans of the Department are appropriate and manageable.
.
.
March 16, 2001
