p ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S.0084
Senate Committee on University Priorities
?
Memorandum
TO:
Senate ?
FROM:
John Waterhou_—>-\
Vice Preside, çethic
RE: External Review - Department of
?
DATE: ?
4 October 2000:
Geography
External Reviews of academic units are conducted under Guidelines' approved by
Senate. The review process is intended to ensure that the quality of the
department's academic programs and research is high, that members of the
department participate in the administration of departments, and that the
departmental environment is conducive to the department's objectives. Under
these Guidelines, Senate is expected to receive advice from the Senate Committee
on University Priorities and to provide feedback to the unit and the Dean.
The following materials are forwarded to Senate for consideration:
The External Review Report
The response to the External Review Report by the Department
The comments of the Dean
The comments of the Vice-President, Academic
The recommendations from the Senate Committee on University Priorities
The Department Chair, Dr. A. Gill will be available at Senate as a resource person.
Motion
That Senate concurs with the recommendation from the Senate Committee
on University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of Geography
on priority items resulting from the external review, as outlined in SCUP 00-
18b.
S
The Guidelines can be found at: http:/Iwww.reg.sfu.ca/Senate/SenateComms/SCUP-ExReview.html.
SCUP OO-18b
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
•
?
Senate Committee on University Priorities
Memorandum
TO:
Senate ?
FROM: John
Vice
RE: External Review - Department of
?
DATE:
?
4 Oct
Geography
The Senate Committee on University Priorities has reviewed the External Review
Report prepared on the Department of Geography in February 2000, together with
the response from the Department and comments from the Dean and the Vice
President, Academic.
SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department and Dean be advised to pursue
the following as priority items:
1.
The Department of Geography should be advised to develop a
comprehensive faculty renewal and retention plan that reflects changing
•
?
student preferences and emerging educational /research needs. This plan
should include a review of the present and emerging pedagogical strengths of
the Department and consider appropriate pedagogical reform.
2.
The Department of Geography should be encouraged to shift workload
allocations to ensure that graduate programming is adequately supported.
3.
As part of their 3-Year Academic Plan, the Department of Geography should
be requested to report on GIS and SIS programming in the Department. This
should include an assessment of curriculum; student enrolment and
demand; adequacy of facilities, equipment and infrastructure to support
existing programs; the relationship of GIS and SIS to other programs within
the Department and to other departments involved in GIS and/or SIS, to the
discipline of Geography, and to current and emerging research areas; and
whether expansion in GIS and/or SIS is one of the priorities of the
Department.
A. Gill
J .
Pierce
0
0^ -
uI-
uJ- I 4
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Office of the Vice President, Academic
?
MEMORANDUM
TO: Senate Committee on
?
FROM:
J.M. Munro,
University Priorities
?
Vice President, Academic
SUBJECT:
External Review, Department
?
DATE: August 31, 2000
of Geography
The report of the External Review Committee of the Department of Geography
was submitted on February 9, 2000 following the review visit on October 27-30, 1999.
The response of the Department was submitted on April 14, 2000 and the comments of
the Dean of Arts on April 26, 2000.
My comments on this external review and the submission from the School and
Dean are as follows.
1.
The tone of this review report is more negative than its assessment of the
Department. Perhaps the most negative comment is the statement that the previous
(1991) review "might just as well not have taken place." The review committee was
probably not in a good position to make this judgement and in any case they offer
little support for it. The reduction in resources that they believe has affected
Geography over the Last decade is in fact a reflection of what has happened to the
whole University in a period of frozen tuition fees, stagnant government grants, and
increased costs. Also, as the Chair and Dean note, there have been additional
resources provided to Geography in the last five years.
2.
It is easy to agree with the observation that planning and managing faculty renewal
will be a top priority for the period ahead. The Department and Dean are both aware
of this and it is encouraging that work is going forward on a plan. However, it is
important that this work be completed when it is needed; the appointment of three
new faculty this year (after the review) will address some of the reviewers' concerns
about faculty resources but it would be better to have the renewal plan in place
before new faculty appointments on this scale are made.
3.
The review report's harshest criticism is reserved for the Department's physical
facilities. Some of these shortcomings are common throughout the RCB building and
there are other departments that are badly served by its bunker-like design.
However, it might be possible to improve the quality of some of the rooms assigned to
Geography. The assistance of Facilities Management should be sought in preparing
plans for needed renovations. While the University's renovations funding is now very
3.
limited, it might be able to support a significant renovation directed at the
shortcomings of this building, given sufficient lead time..
4.
The report recognizes the issue of adequate teaching support for the graduate
program. This matter has apparently been under discussion in the Department for
some time. The provisions of the Faculty Workload Policy should be applied to arrange
proper teaching credit for faculty members who teach graduate courses and to give
some recognition for large supervisory responsibilities. A 60-student graduate program
is certainly Large enough to claim a reasonable share of the Department's teaching
resources.
5.
The altered position of physical geography in the decade in which the University
established a new Department of Earth Sciences might have received more focussed
attention in the review. Are there opportunities for interaction that are not being
addressed? Should there be a deep re-examination of the physical geography
curriculum? There are several indications throughout the report that physical
geography's situation needs fundamental attention.
"
k
6C
cc. J.T. Pierce ?
A.M. Gill
.
L
q.
w'
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
•
?
OFFICE OF THE DEAN
( ?
L
FACULTY OF ARTS
MEMORANDUM
To:
?
Jock Munro
?
From: ?
John T. Pierce
VP Academic ?
Dean of Arts
Subject: Response
to the Dept. of Geography's
?
Date:
?
April 26, 2000
External Review
Alison Gill has done an excellent job in responding to the concerns and
recommendation of the external review committee. This has been no small task
because the report is ambiguous if not misleading on a number of important issues
including the SIS program, financial support and progressive changes since the past
review. That said, the report does accurately identify issues requiring action and
. ?
leverage points as sources of solution. My comments will be brief and to the point
following Dr. Gill's four major sections.
Faculty Renewal /Retention: Given the tripartite structure of the Geography
program, perceived inequities in workload among these three and the impending
retirement of a number of faculty, a clear replacement plan is required which is
sensitive to changing student preferences and emerging educationl/research needs.
I believe the department has recognized the critical importance of this plan and is in
the process of responding. Identifying the present and emerging pedagogical
strengths of the Department will be an important part of this process.
In the last three years the department has hired five new faculty in key research
strength areas which bodes well for the future. In terms of retention, the reviewers
and Dr. Gill point to the inequities in workload between the Physical Geographers
and other natural scientists in the University. Pedagogical reform may assist in
reducing the average number of undergraduate courses taught by the Physical
Geographers.
Curriculum Revision and Workload Allocation: The reviewers laud the quality of
the undergraduate program but believe that in the absence of pedagogical reform it
will be at the expense of the graduate program. The department has already
completed a workload allocation review process. This involved revision to the
undergraduate curriculum and will be further extended based upon the comment of
5.
the reviewers. The department is currently considering the development of a
specialized Masters program in SIS. The Geography Department is well recognized
in this area and there is no shortage of demand for a graduate degree. The Dean
would be highly supportive of this if an adequate proposal can be articulated.
Resources: The lack of resources is a pervasive theme in the report. While
headway has been made in creating better lab space, new vehicles, creating facilities
for a SIS program, funding a co-op co-ordinator, major shortcomings still exist in
terms of recognizing the lab and field-based requirements of physical geography, the
ongoing investment costs to sustain an up-to-date SIS facility and more general
software and computing hardware needs of students, staff and faculty. Solutions to
these problems may be beyond the ability of the Faculty of Arts.
Governance: The department is very much run along the lines of a participatory
democracy with its attendant strengths and weaknesses. I believe Alison Gill has
improved the level of communication and consensus building in the department
but ultimately there must be a spirit of co-operation and a shared set of values if this
is going to succeed. The departments's retreat will address a number of these
governance issues.
9
scu 00-13
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
. ?
Department of Geography
MEMORANDUM
To:
John T. Pierce ?
From:
Alison M. Gill
Dean of Arts ?
Chair, Geography
Subject:
Departmental Response
?
Date:
14 April 2000
Geography External Review
Attached is the Department of Geography's response to the report of the
external reviewers. This response was put together from written comments
submitted by members of the Department and from discussions held at a
Department meeting on 16 March.
Please forward this response to the Office of the Vice-President, Academic.
I understand it should be in that office by April 24 (Easter Monday)<
Alison M. Gill
/hj
?
Chair, Geography
q.
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Department of Geography External Review
?
0
Departmental Response
April 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The External Review of the Department of Geography confirms the strengths and
challenges identified by the Department in the self-assessment documentation supplied to
the committee.
- • The overwhelming pervading theme of the review concentrates on funding, particularly
faculty resources, equipment needs and criticisms of the Department's physical facilities.
• The Department believes that addressing the tasks in the following three issues will be
helpful in responding to the closely inter-related problem areas identified in the external
review.
1.
Departmental Identity/Hiring Plan:
• identify areas of strength and gaps to be filled in order to produce a strategic plan
for faculty renewal.
• investigate the technical and/or lab instructor support required in all areas of the
?
Department, but particularly in the SIS and physical geography programs.
2.
Curriculum Review/Teaching Workload Allocation:
• integrate identified departmental strengths into a coherent undergraduate program,
particularly on the human side, and to ensure complementarity of the undergraduate
and graduate programs.
• establish a more equitable teaching load between members of the Department,
balancing large lower-division courses with smaller upper-level courses, and
ensuring a fair distribution of new course preparations amongst faculty members.
• establish a more balanced work load between undergraduate and graduate
programs.
• bring the teaching loads of physical geographers more into line with those of faculty
in other science-based disciplines in an effort to retain physical geography faculty in
a Faculty of Arts in which they feel at a competitive disadvantage.
3.
Equipment and Facilities/Improved Funding Mechanisms:
• encourage the Administration to provide a better mechanism for funding resource-
intensive programs within the Faculty of Arts.
• better acknowledge the role of the Department of Geography in the BSc program
• recognize the research/teaching equipment and space needs of geographers.
• facilitate faculty research by providing more institutional support.
• address the issues of neglected and shabby physical space.
All these issues will be discussed at the Department's forthcoming retreat and will form the
basis of its renewed three-year plan in Fall 2000.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The external review committee based
its
report on the analysis of a large body of packaged
information, together with a three-day site visit that included meetings with faculty, staff,
graduate and undergraduate students within the Department and with senior university
administrators. Information on the Department was then synthesized with reference to the
team's experience and knowledge of other departments of geography in Canada. As is
common with such reviews, the results reflect a certain unevenness in interpretation. On
the whole, the reviewers have clearly identified key issues and areas in which change is
needed.
The reviewers did an admirable job of incorporating in the report a range of views and
opinions held within the Department. There is a general sense that the review essentially
confirms the Department's self-assessment of its strengths and challenges. While the
review falls short of providing specific solutions, it does highlight issues the Department
and Administration need to address if the Department is to continue to maintain or enhance
its current "well-respected position among departments of Geography in Canada." Many
of the weaknesses identified relate to the persistent problems associated with funding and
resources. These problems are common throughout the institution and many are not readily
addressed at the departmental level.
It should be acknowledged that Geography's "well-respected position among departments
of geography in Canada" is the result of long-term investment of effort that reflects well on
past Chairs (Pierce, Hayter and Hickin). The reviewers note further that "[t]his reputation
can be maintained and improved in Canada and beyond with the hiring of about 4-5
academics of the calibre of recent appointments in the next 4 to
5
years. High quality
faculty are necessary to sustain a strong academic department." The three new
appointments concluded since the review was conducted offer promise that the
Department's reputation will continue to be enhanced. However, as the report states,
"[new appointments] must be supported by appropriate allocation of resources from the
University as a milieu where scholarly activities are valued and nurtured."
In response to the review the Department has already re-activated discussions on
curriculum revision and has planned a three-day retreat at the end of April. The Department
will deliberate about needs across the discipline, recognizing forthcoming retirements, the
• ?
need to sustain viable BA and BSc degree programs and the SIS Certificate, and to support
a high-quality graduate program. Deliberations will also include a needs assessment in
i]
terms of equipment and facilities. A three-year plan will be prepared for September 2000.
It will clearly identify areas of strength and priorities for new hiring.
This response is organized into the following four major sections:
• Faculty Renewal and Retention;
• Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching, Curriculum Revision and Faculty
Workload;
• ?
Resources, Funding and Facilities;
• Departmental Governance.
Each section highlights the Department's strengths, challenges and proposed actions.
FACULTY RENEWAL AND RETENTION
Overview
As the reviewers note, we have been successful in hiring several high quality scholars to
fill retirement and replacement positions. Several of these excellent scholars happen to
have been women which has moderated a perceived problem of gender imbalance within
the Department. The reviewers noted that "a continuing challenge is the Department's
ability to maintain its faculty complement in times and conditions of budgetary constraint."
The three new faculty hired since the review continue to build our strength. With a diverse
program that essentially falls into three streams - physical, human and SIS - the real
challenge is to maintain appropriate balance to adequately support the overall integrity of the
Geography program. Each of these streams has its own particular challenges. The
recommendation of the reviewers that the Department conduct an internal needs assessment
to examine all program needs for the curriculum in human, physical and methods streams is
sound and would follow completion of the curriculum revision process.
Physical Geography
Strengths
• The physical geographers' areas of expertise blend well to adequately cover a coherent
BSc program, while maintaining courses in physical geography for the Department's BA
students too.
• A new hire in Hydrology subsequent to the review has filled the gap in that area left by
the resignation of Dan Moore, who recently took up a prestigious position at IJBC.
.
/0
4
Challenges
• A major problem highlighted by the reviewers is the renewal and retention of physical
geographers. This problem is exacerbated by the diversion of physical geography faculty
to other programs (e.g. Earth Sciences, Biology, Environmental Science, and the SIS
program within Geography itself), the paucity of university-funded teaching and research
resources, and the demanding undergraduate teaching load in comparison to colleagues in
related disciplines elsewhere in the university with whom physical geography faculty
compete for research funds. All of this puts undue stress on physical geography faculty
and places them at a "competitive disadvantage" in the research arena. Geography's
participation in producing BSc graduates from SFU is only marginally recognized by the
Faculty of Science and the Department's only access to funding is through the Faculty of
Arts. The reviewers recommend both an increase in funding and resources for this
program and a decrease in the undergraduate teaching load.
• Many physical geographers are expressing the fact that they feel over-extended. One
initiative that could improve the working environment for physical geography faculty
would be the hiring of a Lab Instructor in physical geography. This should be debated in
• ?
the context of faculty hiring and of reviewing the department's three technical support
positions.
Action Steps
• The two reports "The Workload Allocation Committee Report - Discussion Paper" and
"Discussion Paper on Reorganizing Undergraduate Teaching of Physical Geography" (both
of which were provided as part of the review materials) documented the importance of re-
allocating the present work load in the Department and the importance of this re-allocation
to the vitality and competitiveness of the physical geography program in particular. The
report of the review committee appeared to be in full agreement with the main issues
identified in these documents. These documents provide a blueprint for addressing these
problems.
Human Geography
Strengths
• During the past few years there have been several high calibre faculty members appointed
in the area of Human Geography.
S
11
• Two recent hirings (one at the Assistant and one at the Associate Professor level) have
brought considerable support to the emerging major in Geography with an Environmental
Specialty.
• A new appointment unanticipated at the time of the review will add strength to areas of
political geography, geography of gender and international issues.
Challenges
• The challenge for human geographers is tied to broader pedagogical concerns identified
in the review as "the need to identify clearly the Department's areas of strength." As noted,
"emerging areas of specialization in environment, community development and critical
theory are among important avenues for the future."
Action Steps
• Preliminary identification of areas of strength within human geography will form the basis
for curriculum revision. This revision process has been recommenced. In addition to
streamlining course offerings, it will also bring the curriculum into line with the expertise
of current faculty and allow faculty to devote more energy to research and the graduate
program.
?
0
SIS
(Spatial Information Systems)
The reviewers do not make clear recommendations about strengthening the SIS program,
leaving that decision to the Department. There can be little argument that a modern
Geography Department must meet the demands of students in the growing area of
technology if it is to remain credible and competitive; however, university-level support is
crucial.
Strengths
The Department has an excellent undergraduate teaching laboratory for SIS.
• Subsequent to the review, a new faculty member (Nadine Schuurman) has been hired to
replace Tom Poiker.
Challenges
• In the last (1991) departmental review, there was a recommendation that an additional SIS
faculty member be hired. While a replacement for Tom Poiker has just been recommended,
there has been no growth in the SIS area despite increasing demand for the SIS certificate
/?
program and its importance to the Co-op program. Moreover, the resignation of Dan
Moore has left the Department with no faculty member available to teach Methods in Spatial
Analysis II, a required course for the SIS Certificate.
• The reviewers noted that "given student demand for GIS/SIS courses, and the assumed
need to avoid impediments to students' progress in programmes, the Department may wish
to enhance its SIS/GIS offerings. . . The Geography Department will need to make a
case to the senior administration for directed funding both for faculty to instruct in the
programme and for facilities to support this important direction." Currently the Department
does not have an adequate faculty complement to mount all the necessary courses for the
SIS Certificate. A minimum additional faculty member with expertise in spatial statistics is
required to support the program.
• The reviewers also emphasize the need for technical and Lab Instructor positions to
support an SIS program. Subsequent to the review, the permanent SIS lab technician left
to take up a position in Co-op Education. His position is currently occupied by a
temporary employee while the Department re-evaluates its needs in this area.
Action Steps
CFI start-up funds associated with Nadine Schuurman's position have been applied for
and would allow the development of well-equipped research facilities in GIS.
• The requirements for: (i) technical assistance in SIS including cartography and (ii)
justification for a laboratory instructor position, will be discussed in depth at the
forthcoming retreat at the end of April.
UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE PROGRAMS, CURRICULUM
REVISION AND WORKLOAD ALLOCATION
Strengths
• The reviewers note that the "quality of the undergraduate teaching programme is very
good;" also that "undergraduate students in the physical geography side of the program
appear to enjoy a well-structured program."
• Professional accreditation with the Association of Professional Engineers and
Geoscientists of British Columbia is available to students graduating with a BSc in physical
13
7
geography; this in part responds to "the growing pressures for professional certification"
noted in the review. ?
0
• In spite of the funding freeze on field trip fees, the Department has managed to maintain
field trips within a number of courses both on the physical and human geography side.
• The SIS Certificate clearly provides job training opportunities and an applied approach in
selected courses as recommended by the review. The Co-op program is seen as a definite
strength in this area.
Challenges
• The major pedagogical issue raised by the reviewers was "the need to identify clearly the
Department's areas of strength in order to inform the process of restructuring the
curriculum for the future." This is especially critical in the upper division BA courses
where "perhaps too many courses are listed."
• The level of commitment to the SIS program needs to be agreed upon at the Departmental,
Faculty and University levels.
• The Department appreciates the reviewers' encouragement for curriculum revision. The
reviewers raise many specific issues that need to be addressed in such a major revision, all
of which are currently under debate. These include concern for streamlining offerings
especially in the human geography courses; ensuring students can complete their programs
in an efficient and timely fashion; ensuring that undergraduates experience both the breadth
and depth that is the essence of the discipline; ensuring that wherever possible introductory
and upper-level courses are taught by full-time faculty, not sessionals; and, including
students in the planning process.
• Revision of the undergraduate curriculum reflects not only the desire of the Department to
up-date course offerings to reflect changes in modern geography curricula and the evolving
interests and expertise of current and new faculty members, but also to re-allocate teaching
resources to create a more equitable balance between the undergraduate and the graduate
program and between members of faculty in the Department. The reviewers call for a
revision of teaching credit allocation to include graduate courses: adjusting teaching loads
for physical geographers to bring them more in line with loads in other science Faculties at
SFU; full disclosure of accumulated credits; and a 1-2 year roll-over of teaching credit
/LL
8
points. The reviewers also stated that "The failure to develop, or obtain funding for, a
graduate programme with an adequate range of courses and proper course credits for
faculty teaching them, is alarming." They note that teaching workload re-allocation
requires immediate action.
• Some comments on the graduate program were interpreted to imply criticism of
institutional support. For example comments such as "encourage and enable graduate
students to travel to more distant field locations," "encourage attendance at meetings and
allow students to present their findings at conferences" do not account for the support
presently provided by the Department and from faculty research funds.
• The reviewers expressed "general concern about field work or field courses, and
exchanges in other parts of Canada and foreign areas" which they attribute to lack of
incentives and funding.
• The reviewers note that such resources as university site licenses for software are
essential. This requires commitment and coordination at the university level which the
• ?
Department is endeavouring to instigate, as exemplified by the recent acquisition of
university-wide Arclnfo site licences by the Library.
Action Steps
• As an outcome of the last Departmental retreat in May 1998, a workload allocation review
process was initiated. This evolved into a curriculum review process in which faculty in
the three main streams within the Department (physical, human and SIS) worked
independently to streamline their programs. The curriculum review will be reinvigorated
taking into account the observations of the reviewers. In response to their
recommendations the curriculum review will be a priority in the Department. Discussion
on curriculum revision at the forthcoming retreat will help accelerate the process.
• A streamlining of the undergraduate physical geography curriculum is well under way.
By varying the scheduling and frequency of offerings of courses, an undergraduate
teaching load of 3 courses appears viable without loss of service to students and would
enable faculty to complete their 4 course teaching load with graduate teaching and/or other
teaching-related activities. This proposal will be brought to the Department for approval
during the summer and scheduling changes will be phased in over the next two years.
/
Is
• The importance of re-allocation of faculty workload responsibilities to support the
graduate program is mentioned in several places in the review. The Department considers
that this is a high priority both for this goal and for faculty recruitment and retention,
overall morale and increased research productivity.
• As part of the curriculum review/workload allocation process, the Department is currently
re-organizing its graduate offerings and with the Administration's support should be able to
increase the number of core course offerings available to our future graduate students.
Among changes being considered are: increasing the number of credit hours required for
MA/MSc/PhDs; harmonizing upper-division undergraduate and graduate course numbering
to facilitate joint courses (in some instances only); and pooling resources with other
departments, especially in the Faculty of Arts, to mount larger graduate courses.
• Several members of the Department are interested in developing field courses (e.g. Hayter
in UK and Japan). As suggested by the reviewers the ways in which other institutions
finance such initiatives will be investigated. Some exchange programs do exist in
Geography, notably those with the University of Cologne and the University of Dundee.
Discussions are currently underway with the University of Salzburg to establish a graduate
exchange program.
?
0
• Opportunities for a university-wide site licence for IDRISI software are currently being
explored.
RESOURCES, FUNDING AND FACILITIES
There is one key theme that pervades the report - the issue of lack of resources. The
reviewers' harsh concluding comment that "the last Review might just as well not have
taken place" seems aimed specifically at this issue. However, a number of
resource/funding-related issues included in the recommendations of the 1991 review were
acted upon. These include the establishment of a Co-op Co-ordinator in Geography; the
establishment of an SIS laboratory; and the establishment of an environmental program
which included the hiring of a new faculty member with funding from the Academic
Enhancement Fund. However, in the last review the team noted that the Department
suffered from "what are probably the most severe space and resource constraints of any
graduate level department in Canada today." The current reviewers also note, particularly
in terms of resources for the undergraduate program, "we are unaware of any department in
I',
10
the country with such impoverished facilities at this level." The reviewers provided many
details on where resources are urgently needed.
Strengths
• The reviewers identify the well-equipped SIS laboratory that was established through the
efforts of the previous Chair in 1995. Additional hardware for this laboratory has recently
been acquired as a gift from the Alumni Association.
• The Department recognizes several strengths that the reviewers failed to note. These
include:
the Departmental vehicles, including a new truck acquired in 1999, and a 15-
passenger van (shared with Archaeology) acquired in 1998, to support research and
teaching (field trip activity).
several improved budget items such as on-going capital funding for the SIS lab
(computer leases and software licenses); an additional $5000 to our base operating
budget for the purchase of teaching materials (in response to loss of lab equipment
fees) and an increase
($5690)
to our operating budget from the Academic
I ?
Enhancement Fund in support of the new environmental program.
a dedicated university-owned aircraft to support Remote Sensing research and
teaching.
Challenges
• Resources and funding are lacking. The Department supports many of the views of the
reviewers on these issues but also recognizes that given government-imposed constraints
on university funding, solutions to all these problems are not easy or even possible.
• The reviewers recommend instituting a procedure for regular updating and consistent
maintenance of teaching equipment, materials and facilities; renovating and clearing out
broken and outdated equipment from research labs; requesting a cycle of renovations for
heavily used physical space; and, improving the seminar room.
• Some faculty members believe that workload allocation is the root cause of the problem
surrounding lack of resources and the neglect of existing resources. They believe that
excess allocation of workload to undergraduate teaching leaves little time to pursue
I ?
alternative mechanisms of obtaining resources or to simply lobby the administration and
make a compelling and well-documented case that our needs are not being met.
11
• The reviewers seem misinformed about the maintenance and updating of office
equipment. Staff have not been given "hand-me-down" computers from elsewhere in the
university, staff regularly update software and can comply with requests from senior
administration; and staff do undergo training especially with respect to software use. There
may have been an understandable confusion here between staff and graduate students.
• The Geography Graduate Association has provided the Department with a list of
computing equipment and space they believe are required to adequately equip graduate
students in Geography. The Department does not have the financial resources at this time
to meet these needs, but the requests are under ongoing consideration.
Action Steps
• With re-allocated workloads, some faculty time could be directed towards research
endeavours which in turn could enhance the Department's resources for graduate support
as well as the provision of physical resources that could contribute to teaching as well as
research needs.
The Department will be making a case to the Administration in the next 3-Year Plan that
?
I*
the situation in Geography, where labs, lab equipment, field courses and resource-intensive
research are an integral component of geographic education, especially in the physical and
techniques area of the discipline (e.g. Physical Geography, GIS, Remote Sensing), calls
for special and innovative budgetary considerations to bring Geography more in line with
other lab-based related disciplines in the Faculty of Science (Earth Sciences) and Applied
Sciences (REM). The Department would support the establishment of a committee within
the Faculty of Arts to re-assess and advise on the funding formula used to determine the
Faculty of Arts budget.
A needs assessment will be conducted, particularly in terms of equipment and facilities,
including:
• resource needs particularly for the undergraduate teaching program;
• a cycle of renovations, updating facilities for teaching, research and administration.
/1
12
DEPARTMENTAL GOVERNANCE
Strengths
Overall, the reviewers' remarks were positive concerning governance of the Department,
including the revised Constitution.
Challenges
• Suggestions concerning more effective communication received mixed responses from the
Department. While a few individuals feel that communication could be improved, most
were satisfied that they were adequately informed in advance of business at Departmental
Meetings and that strategic directions are adequately discussed.
• The workload review will hopefully result in a more equitable distribution of courses and
a more open system of calculating teaching loads.
• The reviewers suggest the creation of an Associate Chair position or an Executive
Committee. The Department recognizes that university policy would not allow for an
Associate Chair in a department of this size, and feels that the creation of an Executive
Committee might lead to an even more cumbersome committee structure.
• The Department feels that the balance between human and physical geographers in
departmental governance is adequately covered by committee membership, particularly on
the Undergraduate Studies Committee.
• The Departmental Constitution calls for three-year terms and overlap for Chairs of the
Undergraduate Studies and Graduate Studies Committees, which addresses the issue of
continuity in governance.
• The Department is taking steps to further improve the quality of academic life for its
graduate students, including a one-day conference at which all incoming Master's students
will be invited to present their research proposals to faculty and other students; and
providing information on scholarships and fellowships to incoming students.
• The reviewers recommend a formal student advising program, particularly with regard to
attracting international students as well as those from ethnic constituencies. The
.
?
Department recognizes the role of the Registrar's Office in student/international student
recruitment. Nevertheless there is a part here for the Department to play.
Iq
13
C
Action Steps
Suggestions to which the Department will give consideration include:
Orientation for new faculty.
Clarification of intellectual property policies for faculty and graduate students.
• Departmental publicity - newsletter, alumni program (to be taken on by a retired faculty
member or non-researcher).
Exploring outside funding possibilities.
• Examining marketing efforts, particularly in relation to student recruitment and the
possible role of a lab instructor in this area.
0
.,ur
vu-
i
S
S
^--1
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
- - ?
Department of Geography
Departmental Review
Report of the External Review Committee
Bryan H. Massam:
Chair,
York University
Dianne Draper: University of Calgary
Ken Hewitt: Wilfrid Laurier University
Tina Loo: Department of History,
Simon Fraser University
January 2000
'I.
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Preface ?
I
II.
Introduction ?
2
III.
Overview ?
4
1.
Faculty Renewal
4
2.
Governance
6
3.
Pedagogical Concerns
7
4.
Resources, Funding and Facilities
8
5.
Work Load and Teaching Loads
11
IV. Major issues ?
12
1.
Undergraduate and Graduate Programmes ?
12
2. GIS/SIS ?
12
3.
Laboratories, Field Work and Resources
?
14
V. Conclusions and Recommendations ?
15
Appendices
1.
Overview of Geography Departments in Canada
?
19
2.
Summary Data on Department of Geography, SFU
?
20
3.
Schedule for Site Visit
?
21
I
I. PREFACE
The Department of Geography at Simon Fraser University (SFU) is one of the largest
departments in Canada (Appendix 1). With approximately 20 FTE CFL positions (Appendix 2)
large numbers of undergraduates and graduates are taught and valuable contributions are made to
several centres and related academic units. In recent years a number of successful initiatives have
been launched at SFU with significant contributions from members of the Department of
Geography; for example, REM, CEDC, Earth Sciences Programme, SIS certificate, and Co-Op
programme. The recent hirings are of high quality and the Department is well-positioned to
move to the next stage in its development. The Department needs to set in place its emerging
vision for the coming decade and to prepare a detailed 3-year plan (2000-2003) with a less rigid
plan for the following three years (2004-2006).
There will be a number of retirements in the next six years (Appendix 2) and this provides a
significant
opportunity to convert visions into priority lists for new hirings. The 3-year plan of
the Faculty of Arts provided guidelines on the requirements for a department to secure new
hirings.
While we gained a positive sense of collegiality for much of the Department, there are some
issues of collective decision making, governance and equity that need urgent attention. Collective
decision-making, regarding a number of critical issues, is an area of key importance. Included
• ?
among the critical issues are: allocation of teaching credits among undergraduate and graduate
programmes, and re-organization of the undergraduate programme especially in the upper years
of the BA programme. Initiatives regarding GIS and SIS also will require some hard choices to be
made as investment of scarce resources (new positions, equipment and space, for example) in a
large-scale GIS/SIS programme can draw from other areas of the discipline much-needed
resources.
The current operating grant to the Department and capital grants of the size in recent years are
inadequate for existing programs and will be insufficient to support a large-scale GIS/SIS
enterprise and an expanded SIS programme. The latter currently requires significant
contributions from sessional appointments. The Department is severely 'resource-challenged' to
use the phrase reiterated by many.
The Department of Geography at SFU enjoys a well-respected position among departments of
geography in Canada. This reputation can be maintained and improved in Canada and beyond
with the hiring of about 4 to
5
academics, of the calibre of recent appointments, over the next 4 to
5
years. High quality faculty are necessary to sustain a strong academic department. They must
be supported by appropriate allocation of resources from the University as well as a milieu
where scholarly activities are valued and nurtured. In the near future strategic choices are needed
for the Department so that the next 3-year plan sets the scene for a longer term planning exercise.
Protracted debate on the naming of streams of courses in human geography, for example, may be
a healthy sign of intellectual engagement of colleagues, but planning requires some degree of
closure of debate and the reaching of a consensus. Maintaining and enhancing principles of
equity, openness/transparency and accountability also are essential for the development of
practices of governance in the process of reaching a consensus on difficult choices on a number of
issues.
Care is needed to ensure that core sustainable geography programmes leading to BA or BSc
degrees are maintained especially as the SIS/GIS initiative is pursued and the variety of
geography-related centres and programmes are supported.
II. INTRODUCTION
-
In preparation for the site visit by the External Review Committee on October 27-30, 1999, we were
provided with the following information:
?
-
• Self-Study material from the Department of Geography
• Senate Guidelines for External Review of Academic Units
• SFU Calendar
• Graduate Studies Data
• President's Agenda
• Faculty of Arts 3 Year Plan
• University Fact Book
We also consulted the Annual Directory of the Canadian Association of Geographers for each of
the last five years. This Directory lists publications of faculty members and provides names of
faculty members and basic data on enrollments. During the site visit a number of faculty
members provided us with memos and data regarding the Department.
The schedule for the site visit is included as Appendix 3. The Review Committee had many
meetings and limited time to meet alone during the site visit.
At the outset of this report we would like to acknowledge the support that has been provided to
the committee by many at Simon Fraser University. We appreciate the time and trouble that was
devoted to preparing material and for the opportunities to have face-to-face meetings during the
site visit. We commend SFU for undertaking external reviews of academic units and we thank the
Department of Geography for making available to us their views, opinions and suggestions to
complement the raw data on FTEs, enrollments, external grants/contracts, budgets etc. that were
provided to us.
The final section of the report includes a set of conclusions and recommendations. We
respectfully submit this report for consideration by the Department of Geography, the Dean of
3
Arts, the VP Academic, and the VP Research and Graduate Studies.
We are grateful for the opportunity to participate in this review and we thank SFU for inviting
US.
In the preparation of this report we have tried to keep in mind the Senate Guidelines for External
Reviews of Academic Units (March 4, 1996) as well as broad contextual documents, for example,
Challenge 2001, The President's Strategic Plan, and the Faculty of Arts 3 Year Plan (June 1998).
The overview provided by the Chair of the Department , together with the report of the recent
Department Retreat (1998) provide clear statements that some strategic choices for the
Department are called for at this time. Many we spoke to echoed this view. Principally the
choices focus on curriculum matters: how many courses should be offered, how will they be
connected into streams and sequences, and which areas of the discipline will be focal points for
attention, for example. Choices on these questions must take into account the availability of
faculty members, the total number of FTh CFLs, their areas of expertise, definitions of a normal
teaching load, the availability of support staff, equipment and space. The search for an
appropriate complementarity among the undergraduate and graduate programmes is a challenge
that requires a resolution as soon as possible, especially with respect to the allocation of teaching
resources to graduate courses and supervision within the 4 course norm at SFU.
• ?
Making the plan for the coming years clear and effective for the needs and requirements of
students is imperative. The Department should further articulate coherent, imaginative
programmes, job-training opportunities, certification and professional registration and, of course,
intellectual/personal stimulation and rewards from students' investments in higher education.
Furthermore, given that the basic source of funding for the university is from the public purse, it
is incumbent on the Department to have an active programme to highlight to the public the work
that is undertaken in the Department and the benefits to society of supporting the discipline of
geography. An attractive alumni programme can be useful in this regard, as can a newsletter
distributed widely and describing recent activities of the Department. Perhaps a colleague who is
not an active researcher or a recently retired colleague could assume the editorship of such a
newsletter. A fund-raising campaign of the Development Office at SFU working closely with the
priorities of the Department of geography is an initiative that needs to be considered. The recent
funding provided by the alumni for computing facilities in the GIS lab is a clear example of a
successful venture to secure extra resources outside the regular operating and capital grants to the
Department.
Following this Introduction we offer an Overview section of the Department and in this we focus
on selected topics:
1.
faculty renewal
2.
governance
3.
pedagogical concerns
C2 S/
4
4.
resources, funding and facilities
5.
work load and teaching loads
The following Major Issues section focuses on three issues:
1.
undergraduate and graduate programmes
2.
GIS/SIS
3.
laboratories, field work, and resources
The final section provides Conclusions and Recommendations.
III. OVERVIEW
1. Faculty Renewal
Embedded as it is within the issues of curriculum review and redesign, and decisions regarding the
Department's strategic direction, the issue of faculty renewal provides both challenges and
opportunities. A continuing challenge is the Department's ability to maintain its faculty
complement in times and conditions of budgetary constraint. This challenge partially may reflect
the effects of spin-off programmes initiated or staffed by geographers. As noted below, these
programmes may represent a diffusion of effort into appropriate specializations, but such
programmes still depend on the Geography department for much of their faculty resources.
Additional challenges involve addressing the issue of gender (im)balance and retaining geographers
(perhaps physical geographers in particular, but also 'good' instructors in general) who feel their
teaching loads and lack of resources place them at a 'competitive disadvantage' compared to their
colleagues in the Faculty of Science or elsewhere. The competition to retain faculty is a serious
issue that is likely to become more critical in the future given forthcoming demographic shifts.
To date, in spite of these challenges, the Department has been able to appoint several high-
quality scholars to tenure-track positions to replace recent retirements and resignations.
Although some of these new faculty members noted that they would have benefited from an
orientation procedure, they have contributed in important ways to Departmental deliberations
about future directions. It will be important to support their initiatives as they work
collaboratively to enhance the Department's function and attractiveness.
A challenge with forthcoming retirements is to ensure they are returned to the Department. The
importance of a Departmental vision and strategic plan by which future expertise needs and
demands are targeted collaboratively, is evident. Clearly, decisions regarding persons to be
appointed should be the Department's alone.
0
5
Given the existence of several successful initiatives (identified in the Preface) in which
• ?
geographers play a key role, it will be important that the Department consider how to maintain
the benefits that come to Geography from these programmes. While they 'compete' with the
Geography Department for students, there is a sense in which these programmes also provide
'client groups' for Geography. As part of determining its future direction, the Department might
consider a number of questions: Are these spin-off programmes of continuing value to the
Department? Could desired results be obtained by 'repatriating' some of the courses within the
Department? Would it be more appropriate for other faculties to support these programmes?
Should any of these programmes receive increased support? At minimum, communication and
liaison with the persons offering these programmes must be maintained and perhaps improved.
The Department also might consider the values of joint appointments (between industry and
academia, for instance, as well as between departments or faculties), adjunct positions or other
solutions to the recruitment and curriculum issues implied here.
With regard to the SIS/GIS portion of the geography programme, there is recognition of the
necessary role of these tools in the undergraduate curriculum, but concern about whether a
technical or applied approach would be most appropriate was expressed. Given that students
can obtain technical training in GIS software packages from other institutions, it may be
appropriate to send students elsewhere for these dimensions of their training. Such action might
help to reduce some costs of providing cutting-edge hardware/software and would permit faculty
members opportunity to focus on the applications of GIS. However, given student demand for
• ?
GIS/SIS courses, and the assumed need to avoid impediments to student progress in programmes,
the Department may wish to enhance its SIS/GIS offerings. If the decision is to support an
enhanced ('full-blown') GIS programme, with or without cooperation among other departments
or faculties, the Geography Department will need to make a case to the senior administration for
directed funding both for faculty to instruct in the programme and for facilities to support this
important direction. In addition, the need to establish a basis for ongoing funding to ensure that
'state of the art' computers, software and ancillary equipment are available consistently to
instruct students in the most current methods and with the most up-to-date technology (such as
laser surveying and differential GPS instruments) is critical. The importance of university-wide
site licences for necessary software also must be communicated in any dealings with university
administrators. Furthermore, the need for technical support and lab instructor positions to help
mount the labs and field trips that should be associated with GIS and other courses, needs to be
stressed in dealings with the senior administration.
Given this list of needs to be brought to the attention of the senior administration, it is suggested
that the Department conduct an internal needs assessment process. All programme needs for the
curriculum in human, physical and methods streams could be examined, areas of focus clarified,
priorities established, and so on. It would be helpful if the assessment were accompanied by a
timeline (over the next 6 years) that specified the order in which positions would be filled,
including, perhaps, those already identified through Departmental discussions, namely:
quantitative/spatial statistics; Asia; urban-transportation; geomorphology; and social
geography/gender/political. Equally important is an assessment of the costs of
not
getting the
required faculty positions, space and equipment, and funding support.
2.
Governance
Governance is concerned, inter alia, with the principles, practices, procedures and perceptions of
the ways the Department makes choices, deals with conflicting positions, promotes debate on
academic matters and provides opportunities for grievances to be dealt with fairly and
expeditiously. The Constitution of the Department of Geography (November 26, 1998) is a
clearly written document that reflects very positively on the Department on matters pertaining
to governance.
Complimentary comments came from all quarters—faculty, staff and graduate students—about
governance in the department. For example: "there exists a critical element of trust", "a very good
Department to work in", "uncommonly democratic", "dissent is handled with civility",
"collegiality is OK," and "a friendly co-operative department to work in". There were, however,
dissenting voices, and some highly critical ones expressed concern about the need for better
commumcation.
More effective communication of proposals for initiatives regarding resource allocations, teaching
allocations, new positions, curriculum revisions etc., prior to deliberation and action by the
Departmental Meeting, will help build a milieu within which hard choices can be made and
responsibility is shared by all voting members of the Department. The Department's Standing
Committees and the Departmental Meeting should be frilly apprised of proposed actions that.
will affect the academic life of the Department. While the Chair of the Department has primary
responsibility to keep all informed, it is incumbent on all to assist the Chair in this endeavour.
The Dean and VPs can play critical roles in this regard too.
We note the absence of an Executive Committee in the Department. Perhaps such a committee
comprising the Chair and Chairs of standing Committees a, b, c in the Constitution could be
established to improve communication and co-ordination of initiatives prior to deliberation by the
Departmental Meeting. We suggest that this be debated as part of the Periodic Review of the
Constitution (7.0).
Given the particular needs and concerns of both human geography and physical geography we
feel it is worth considering the appointment of an Associate Chair in Human Geography when
the Chair is a Physical Geographer and vice versa. Such an appointment probably is redundant if
an Executive Committee is established. Recognizing that the Department has only about 23
faculty members and in any year some are absent on leave etc. a too-cumbersome committee
structure is to be avoided.
One particular item was drawn to our attention concerning intellectual property (IP). Matters of
IP are not explicitly part of the Department's Constitution though we understand that SFU does
L
7
have specific policies and guidelines. We encourage the Chair to ensure that all (new) faculty and
. ?
all graduate students are apprised of the practices and procedures at SFU for dealing with matters
regarding IP, especially matters concerning publication rights.
3. Pedagogical Concerns
Key pedagogical concerns identified during the site visit and through the Department's self-study
material relate to the academic strengths faculty members bring to the Department and the
curriculum faculty members offer to meet the academic program needs of students. Interrelated
concerns—of resources, funding, facilities, and faculty work load and teaching loads—were
identified and, along with the issue of faculty renewal, considered elsewhere in this report.
One major pedagogical concern is the need to identify clearly the Department's areas of strength
in order to inform the process of restructuring the curriculum for the future (which itself is at
least partially a response to changing educational market demands). Traditional areas of strength
in the Department have included geomorphology and social-cultural geography but emerging areas
of specialization in environment, community development, and critical theory are among
important avenues for the future. Associated with the need to identify current and potential
areas of strength are issues of identifying where (in what fields) new appointments should be
made in order to meet future program requirements, and how to ensure those appointments are
• ?
returned to the Department. Other curriculum challenges that the Department already is aware of
and is attempting to address include: questions relating to how and where spatial analysis,
statistics and other research methods courses fit into the Department's program; concerns about
integration of human and physical streams within the discipline, including the role of field
work/research—or even field courses—in both streams; the value of including required physical
and
human geography courses in the core program for both Arts and Science students; concerns
about the ability of the Department to support fully the Co-op program over 3 semesters; and
the growing pressures for professional certification and accreditation. The Departmental
Undergraduate Studies Committee has been addressing some of these challenges and should be
commended for its efforts to help focus the Department's curriculum revision process.
A major issue identified is the need for effective organization of the undergraduate program,
particularly to ensure that introductory courses are taught by full-time faculty and that key
upper level courses in the BA program are offered frequently enough (and mostly by 'real'
professors, not sessional instructors) to enable students to complete degree requirements
expeditiously. While undergraduate students in the physical geography side of the program
appear to enjoy a well-structured program, undergraduates in the human geography program
enjoy a diverse but less well focused program. Both streams should continue to pursue clearly
defined and sustainable programmes if faculty resources are to be deployed efficiently. Physical
geographers in the Department appear to have achieved coherence in their portion of the
• ?
undergraduate program; the same is not yet true of the human geographers. Although they have
made some progress toward both streaming and streamlining their courses, human geographers
8
recognize that faculty changes over the past decade require a new rationale for course offerings
that will both attract students and permit faculty to have greater involvement in the upper level
undergraduate program as well as within the graduate program. As part of its continuing
deliberations, the Department needs to determine how undergraduates in both BSc and BA
programmes might best experience both the breadth and depth of the discipline.
Clearly, choices about how many courses will be offered and how such courses will be connected
into the streams and sequences within the
full
range of Departmental offerings depend on the
availability of faculty members. This point reinforces the need for faculty members to determine
their collective vision for the future of the Department so that the desired expertise of new
appointments can be identified and confirmed. This point also suggests that student needs and
requirements must be clarified prior to and during curriculum review and redesign. The need for a
formal undergraduate student-advising program also is evident, particularly with regard to
attracting international students as well as those from a number of local ethnic constituencies.
There is a need to address challenges associated with increased class sizes as well as regular
updating and consistent maintenance of teaching equipment, materials and facilities. Also,
physical (space) and equipment constraints imposed by machine-dependent and laboratory-
based courses must be resolved. The previously noted problem of university 'neglect' that
seems to be at the heart of these issues must be rectified, particularly in light of a possible
determination by the Department that pursuit of an expanded GIS/SIS endeavour is warranted.
The same is true of other academic initiatives linked to the Department; while current initiatives
may represent competition with Geography for students and resources, appropriate levels of
support and funding must be allocated to develop, enhance and promote the strengths of the
Department for the mutual benefit of students, faculty, the university and the larger community.
In part, attaining appropriate levels of support and funding, both internally within SFU and
externally, may rest on an improved understanding of the integrative and interdisciplinary nature
of the discipline of Geography. The Department might wish to examine its outreach (marketing)
efforts and to identify ways to energize and cultivate the existing demand for Geography.
In addition, if a renewed "identity" for Geography at Simon Fraser University is to be achieved
(given the competitive internal and regional contexts that exist, including new programs within
SFU as well as the attractions of departments of Geography at UBC, and several four-year
colleges), careful attention must be given to resolving curriculum matters and program
organizational issues. Departmental collaboration toward resolution of these and other issues
will be vital. Among the options the Department might consider is the value of an "applied" (vs.
theoretical) approach to selected courses and programs. Attention also needs to be paid to the
service functions of Geography Department courses.
4.
Resources, Funding and Facilities
Resources is an area about which we have some serious concerns, particularly in matters that
?
0
1 PA Irk
MOF
adversely impact on the core functions of the geography programme. The problems arise
•
?
especially in teaching and learning environments for undergraduates and graduate students. These
problems, that put unnecessary strain on staff and faculty, involve physical spaces and
furnishings badly in need of renovations, inadequate teaching resources, and the need to update
basic equipment and facilities for staff. These problems seem to be less a failure of the
Department of Geography, and more of an indication of the lack of University support and
adequate policies for:
• a reasonable system for renewal and updating of basic teaching resources and departmental
facilities,
a cycle of renovations for heavily used physical space.
From what we saw, and concerns expressed to us, the root cause is chronic under-funding or lack
of funding, at least since the last review.
Resources for
the undergraduate programme:
In some
major areas, undergraduates are being
taught with antiquated field and lab equipment, outdated and badly worn map sets, etc.
Equipment and supplies are generally insufficient in quantity for the numbers enrolled. The
kinds of methods and equipment that have been standard in many schools and agencies for years
are unavailable. Either students are not being prepared at all in newly emerging techniques, and
for employment areas they are likely to enter, or they depend upon contacts and energy of
individual faculty to keep up. We are unaware of any Department in the country with such
impoverished facilities at this level.
The graduate programme: As
far as we could tell, beyond physical space, provision of facilities
and equipment for graduate students-depends solely upon faculty research funds. We were not
made aware of any adequate arrangements or University incentives:
• to provide facilities and equipment for a core graduate course,
• to encourage and enable graduate students to travel to more distant field locations,
• to have even one field course available on a regular basis in other parts of Canada, let alone
overseas,
• to encourage attendance at meetings outside the Lower Mainland, or allow students close to
graduation to present their findings at conferences in their speciality areas.
SFU graduate students are unfairly disadvantaged by each of these, compared to other geography
departments with large graduate programmes. Again, we had no sense this was because faculty
lack interest, and graduate students made plain their dismay, but neither group seems optimistic
about support and incentives within the University.
Staff and department administration:
Maintenance and updating of office equipment and facilities
for staff seem to be on a purely
ad hoc
basis. Staff members have to get along with 'hand me
down' computers from elsewhere in the university. There is no provision for updating software
31
10
and keeping pace with ever-changing demands upon an efficiently run Department. We were
made aware of cases where requests from senior administration or other units in the University
could not be met because Geography did not have the necessary equipment, software and
training.
Physical space andfacilities:
Several of the laboratories, seminar and research spaces, and rooms
set aside for student activities are simply a disgrace. They are cluttered by dilapidated
furnishings, seemingly abandoned and broken equipment, dusty files or samples. As far as we
could tell, most had not been renovated in decades, or since they were built. The principal
seminar room (or 'bunker') where guest speakers come, and Departmental meetings are held,
could be an attractive space. We spent most of our time in it, and found that it certainly focuses
the mind. However, it is a dusty, tired and unhealthy room, surrounded by neglected books and
journals of 20 to 40 years ago—'remainders' gladly abandoned, one suspects, by retired faculty.
If of minor concern in itself, it serves to reinforce the Review Committee's sense of a wider
problem of neglect. Moreover, this is in singular contrast to the many bright, generously
appointed spaces and upbeat appearance we saw elsewhere in the University, notably in the
administration offices we visited. It suggests a lack of concern for what happens in the most
heavily used learning environment—where the 'bread and butter' of the University is earned!
For faculty, these conditions must create problems of attracting students, and giving them a
satisfying, higher learning experience in courses. There may well be issues of health for everyone
spending long periods in some of these rooms.
In sum, there seems to be a lack of concern and support for a reasonable system providing and
updating basic teaching equipment and facilities: Apparently, there is no provision for cycle of
necessary renovations and renewals of heavily used physical space; this does seem symptomatic
of a general neglect of the atmosphere and core spaces in which 'ordinary' students and faculty
must function.
We detected a legacy of frustration, and a sense of years of uphill battles to cope with under-
funding and administrative neglect. (In some areas of equipment and cross-disciplinary activity,
there has been too much dependence upon individual enterprise, if not luck, at the cost of a
broadly agreed upon and balanced development).
We suggest that the Department of Geography clearly establish, or reiterate for the senior
administration, what the Geography programme requirements are in terms of facilities and
equipment needs. The spectrum of faculty and courses at SFU involve and require facilities for:
physical and social science components,
a strong empirical, experimental and field work tradition in most areas,
• a range of newly emerging, high-profile problem fields and techniques, from the environment
to urban systems. These are involved in courses taught, students' preparation for
employment, graduate student and faculty research, and
?
is
• exposing students to methods, techniques and material-data sets, imageries, field experiences
etc. that are relevant to the rapid changing world beyond our borders, notably the Pacific Rim.
Each of these areas makes specific demands upon teaching spaces, materials and equipment. The
latter need to be provided, and renewed or updated on a regular basis. In most cases, that seems
not to have happened in Geography at SFU for a decade or more.
5. Work Load and Teaching Loads
The three primary responsibilities (research, teaching and service) which comprise the work load
of tenure-stream faculty are elaborated in SFU's Policies and Procedures document A30.30
(September 1, 1999). With respect to teaching, there are two areas that deserve attention at this
time: firstly, the allocation of credit to the graduate programme and secondly, the adjustment to
teaching loads for physical geographers to bring them more into line with teaching loads of
scientists in other faculties at SFU. Perhaps both can be addressed with a revised point
allocation system. The norm of 4 undergraduate courses per year is not out of step with patterns
in geography departments across Canada. Typically, however, credit is assigned for
contributions to the graduate programme (for teaching graduate courses and supervision).
Many faculty members expressed the view that the allocation of teaching responsibilities among
• ?
undergraduate and graduate courses within the 4-course norm of SFU needs to be revised in the
department. The graduate students echoed the view that the allocation of teaching credit to
graduate courses and supervision would enhance the graduate programme. There was modest
enthusiasm for the notion of graduate courses becoming add-ons to existing undergraduate
courses. This arrangement should be used as the exception. The positive consequences of such
an allocation could be a reduction in completion time of graduate degrees, an increase to research
productivity and external funding, and increased funds to support and attract high quality
graduate students. We concur with those who expressed the view that completion times are
generally too long. Also, we agree with the views expressed at the Retreat in May 1998, and
repeated by some human geographers, that research productivity on the human side of the
Department as defined by publications in top-notch international, refereed journals is not
occurring as often as some on the human side would like. It should be noted, however, that some
faculty members have publication records on a par with the best in Canada and elsewhere. The
negative side of re-allocation of teaching credit to the graduate programme relates to the
withdrawal of resources from the current broad and wide range of courses listed in the calendar.
The undergraduate curriculum in physical geography could probably be offered within a 3-course
undergraduate load for each physical geographer. The balance of the 4-course norm could be
accounted for by graduate course teaching/supervision and laboratory and field-based research
supported by external funding and some Departmental resources. However, such an arrangement
would impinge on non-physical geography course offerings, especially SIS/GIS related courses.
33
12
We note that in October, 1992, a point system for calculating wQrk loads was developed by the
Department and in a memo from the Chair on January 12, 1993, the system was elaborated. We
also note that this system
was due to be reviewed in October, 1995. Opinions varied on the
merits of a point system and
some were unaware of exactly how it functions or whether it was
still being used. This situation should be clarified without delay. We favour the formal allocation
of credit for teaching graduate courses with a minimum number of students. Some credit for
supervision of Masters students for up to 2 years
and
up to 3 years for a PhD student is
perhaps appropriate
with a total credit not to exceed a fixed amount. The mentoring system of
graduate supervision can work well if time is allocated and if credit is assigned as part
of the
normal work load. But, such a system is demanding in terms of faculty time. The full disclosure
and distribution of point allocations of all
faculty members to all members of the Department is a
practice used in some departments across the country. We commend this open approach. Points
- should not be accumulated over long periods of
time
as this
can complicate the year-to-year
planning in the Department. A I or 2 year roll over of
points is not unreasonable.
Faculty members participate actively in
administration
and service in the Department and
beyond,
and
engagement
with the discipline through research programmes is well-established. An
emphasis on BC-related topics from a policy perspective adds to the distinctive character of the
Department's identity.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES
1.
Undergraduate and Graduate Programmes
We have noted that curriculum issues are
critical ones for the Department and that aspects of
both the graduate and
undergraduate programmes require attention. Strategic choices
must be
made if the Department is to achieve a future where course offerings are aligned with relevant
streams
and
sequences, reflect carefully selected areas for
specialization
within the discipline,
take
student needs into account, and
where appropriate levels of effort are expended in
teaching
within
all programs. In support of these strategic choices, decisions must be made regarding
availability of support staff, teaching assistants
and
faculty as well as space and equipment,
and
the allocation of teaching loads. Faculty renewal is
part
of the interrelated complex of
curriculum
issues, all
of which require fairly rapid resolution.
2.
GIS/SIS
Analysis
and
cartographic representation of quantitative
and
qualitative data is an important part
of geographical work. A wide
variety
of techniques
and methods, including formal GIS/SIS, are
available
and
a first-rate undergraduate curriculum should include instruction in analytical
and
descriptive applications of GIS/SIS. Similarly, at the graduate level, the opportunity to learn and
use GIS/SIS should be available to students. The debate continues at SFU, as elsewhere, as to
?
is
whether GIS/SIS should be taught within the context of specific substantive courses or as stand-
3^
13
alone methods and techniques courses. Within the context of a university-based curriculum we
• ?
feel it is important that highly qualified instructors teach the courses on a continuing basis, rather
than relying on too many sessional appointments, albeit ones with fine technical skills to
manipulate data. The contents of the courses should be substantially more analytical than a
techniques-based approach per Se. There is a place for such a course in the curriculum, but it is
very important that students have exposure to debates on data types, forms of geographical
questions to be answered by GIS/SIS and some understanding of the philosophical questions on
GIS/SIS. Currently there is a rich debate on "GIS as science" and the use of GIS and RS to tackle
multi-criteria decision making problems and policy questions through linkages among GIS and
computer-based Decision Support Systems. In this regard IDRISI is highly recommended. At
both the undergraduate and graduate level we feel some of this work should be included in the
curriculum, as well as a course on qualitative methods in geography.
A fully-equipped laboratory with high-quality hardware, a variety of GIS/SIS and site licenses, as
well as peripheral devices that are readily accessible (printers and scanners, for example) and
qualified technical assistance, requires a major capital expenditure and significant continuing
operating grants with periodic capital investments to update equipment and software. Currently
the Department's budget is stretched to the limit to support the existing laboratory.
Students with skills in GIS/SIS, especially with analytical expertise to complement technical
competence, are in a strong position in the current job market.
The laboratory that was established in 1995 is well-equipped and the SIS Certificate is a good
initiative that deserves to be sustained within the Department of Geography. Very useful
contacts have been established with a number of agencies to-share data and technical assistance.
This is to be encouraged, as is a link to the Canadian Institute of Geomatics. Considerable
enthusiasm was expressed for the SIS Certificate especially when combined with the Co-op
programme. However, there are some issues that deserve to be addressed, namely: (1) the
extensive use of sessional appointments, (2) the lack of courses in the summer session to allow
students a reasonable choice of options to complete the SIS Certificate and Co-op programme in
4 years, and (3) matters of securing site licenses to ensure compliance with regulations on
intellectual property.
With respect to GIS it is critical that students obtain exposure to raster-based GIS, particularly
for performing spatial analysis and modelling. There is a close linkage in this regard to remote
sensing data and analysis. This can only be achieved with ESRI products to some extent. There
appears to be a strong reliance on ESRI products in the laboratory. Arclnfo has a GRID module
that handles raster data and performs limited types of analysis. Also, there is a module (Spatial
Analyst) which is based on a raster model and it can be used for performing analytical functions
suited to the raster model. Another module (3-D analyst) also supports the raster model as does
Image Analyst. All are modules of ArcView. ESRI products tend to rely on vector based
models.
3s'
14
IDRISI is an excellent teaching and research GIS that handles both raster and vector models and
performs certain types of image processing as well. It is a cost-effective product with growing
importance in tackling policy questions using multi-criteria analysis and decision support
systems.
MapFactory is used in some departments for the introductory course in GIS to demonstrate the
raster-based approach.
Mapinfo is a vector-based GIS. It is very popular for dealing with census and municipal data as
well as providing relatively good map output. Its statistical analysis is on the weak side. It is
one of the industry's leading products and is a competitor to ArcView.
MapFactory and Mapinfo are two products that are quite different functionally.
The selection of an appropriate mix of products relies to a large extent on the professional
knowledge and expertise of faculty who specialise in this area, and keep abreast of the rapidly
changing state of the art. The new appointment to replace T. Poiker will bear a heavy
responsibility to guide the Department in making decisions regarding GIS products to
complement those currently used. Overall, we believe it is important that students learn about
raster- and vector-based approaches as well as the broader questions of data and analysis
mentioned earlier.
Many disciplines and centres/units at SFU have an interest in access to GIS/SIS facilities, and the
Department has to ensure that first and foremost its own students are well served. A GIS
facility to serve the larger community at SFU can only be housed in the Department of
Geography if capital and operating grants are secured beyond those currently allocated to the
Department. The STARS initiative seeks to find such funding, and we encourage this project be
supported if guarantees are secured to the satisfaction of the Department that a shortfall in the
funding search will not require funds to be taken from the Department's allocations, and so reduce
the support for the ongoing activities. The first call on budgets is to sustain ongoing activities.
If the Department wishes to raise the profile of the SIS Certificate, then support for assigning a
high priority to making a second appointment after the T. Poiker replacement will be required
from the Department as a whole. Whether this appointment is a GIS person per Se, or a qualified
academic who uses GIS in her/his teaching and research, is a decision to be taken by the
Department after deliberations about needs across the discipline, recognizing the forthcoming set
of retirements, the need to sustain viable BA and BSc degree programmes and the SIS Certificate,
as well as to support a high-quality graduate programme.
3.
Laboratories and Field Work Resources
On the one hand, laboratories and places for equipment storage seemed fairly adequate in terms
?
0
36
15
of numbers and square footage. It is clear that many of the faculty devote a considerable amount
S
?
of time to field work, and are conscious of the value of preparing undergraduate and graduate
students in field and laboratory methods. We were made aware of the considerable scope of
faculty research projects and some success, over the years, in obtaining relevant research
equipment. The physical geography and remote sensing laboratories are heavily used, and reflect
a range of important research initiatives. The new space for the GIS/SIS laboratory and set of
PCs is attractive, but unduly congested.
On the other hand, there is an alarming level of clutter and neglect in most labs. There has been a
serious failure, over the years, to renovate these areas and adequately provision to store or clear
out broken and outdated equipment or the remnants of old research projects.
There was a general sense of inadequate base funding, of over-worked faculty. People seemed
too busy with the next demand on their time to bother about the general state of the laboratories.
Yet, students must get a questionable sense of what modern lab settings and practices should be
Re from their experience with the facilities in SFU's Geography Department.
Returning to the two well-appointed, new GIS laboratories and PCs: this is a much-needed
facility, and will surely have benefits in many areas of study and research, as discussed elsewhere
in the report. Yet, it cannot substitute for the needs in other areas, notably field work, and other
types of physical and human laboratory investigations. Without due attention to them, as we
S
?
argue elsewhere, the SIS/GIS initiative may become a 'money pit', undermining rather than
supporting other key areas of training and research.
We have already emphasized our general concern about field work or field courses, and exchanges
in other parts of Canada and foreign areas. The lack of incentives and funding here has adverse
impacts upon training, the intellectual environment in the Department, and research motivation.
We cannot accept the suggestion of some, that this is mainly due to the relative poverty of SFU
students themselves. The apparent failure to explore and find continuing support in these areas
is unfortunate. We are conscious of a very different situation in other places where combinations
of internal funds, donations, incentives for faculty and student initiatives, maintain such
programmes.
V.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall the Department compares favourably with departments of similar size in Canadian
universities. To join the ranks of the very best departments in Canada will require concerted
efforts to develop collaborative, long-term research programmes with high levels of external
funding, that engage faculty members, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and academic
visitors. A steady stream of high quality books and articles should result, and recognition via
awards, scholarships, fellowships and the like should follow. It is noted that in 1999 Professor
Hayter was given an award by the CAG. This brings credit to him and the Department.
31
16
Investment in resources for laboratories and equipment is required, and the reorganization of the
undergraduate curriculum and teaching programme to focus on fewer courses in a structured BA
programme. This should allow a re-allocation of work loads to permit high-quality graduate
courses to be taught for teaching credit. A couple of core courses in the graduate programme
would be appreciated by the graduate students and strengthen the programme. Completion times
for graduate degrees are long and should be reduced. The mentoring system of supervision is
costly: is it the most effective use of scarce faculty time and energy?
Appointments to the tenure stream in the next few years can bring renewed energy and ideas to
the Department. Care will be needed to nurture the environment for the new junior faculty
members, to encourage and reward them for high quality teaching and research. It would be a
missed opportunity to divert their energies into protracted debates on curriculum and
administrative matters. These affairs can take inordinate amounts of time and be debilitating to
creative and innovative teaching and research.
The quality of the undergraduate teaching programme is very good. A wide variety of degree
programmes is available as well as a large set of courses. Perhaps too many courses are listed in
the calendar and expectations of students are raised too high regarding the availability of the
courses. Changes to the curriculum are called for, especially in the upper years of the BA
programme, and this should use faculty resources more effectively overall. Scheduling of courses
needs adjustment to ensure that a reasonable set of options is available to allow students to
graduate in four years. The use of sessional instructors, especially in the SIS Certificate
Programme, has to be monitored closely.
With the major focus of attention on the teaching of undergraduates, and without formal
allocation of teaching/supervision of graduate students as part of the work load, the research
potential of faculty is not fully realized. While a number of external grants and contracts are held
by faculty members, and a very high proportion of physical geographers hold NSERC awards, it
is noted that the levels of the NSERC awards are generally low. The overall level of research
output as measured by the number of publications, and especially those papers in high quality,
internationally-recognized refereed journals is fairly good and varies from excellent to
satisfactory. A few faculty members have excellent publication records of books.
We would emphasize the need to address the following issues in future plans and budgetary
arrangements:
1. Faculty renewal:
A whole series of developments make this a key area of urgent concern.
There has been a spate of retirements over the past several years, a remarkable commitment
of senior geography faculty to administrative duties elsewhere in the university, a high level
of cross appointments or faculty commitments in other programmes, and individual career
choices. These have resulted in:
• putting undue and, we feel, poorly planned and recognized stresses upon remaining faculty,
especially those committed to teaching, research and publishing in the core areas of the
17
Geography programme,
•
?
• duties and outreach which benefit the university community but which have not been
adequately constrained or balanced in compensation, lines and other commitments to the
Department.
2.
Departmental teaching and learning environment:
Chronic problems of under-funding and
lack of other supports were identified in relation to the core programme in Geography, for
staff equipment, and for activities and courses in the graduate programme. Moreover, existing
equipment must be updated and new initiatives pursued, both of which will require
university support.
3.
Field work:
In spite of the great demands in time and energy required, we highlight the
importance of field work in the surrounding region and in other parts of the world.
Unfortunately, field work at SFU is not adequately appreciated or provided with funds,
equipment and incentives compared to many other universities.
4.
The graduate programme:
The failure to develop, or obtain funding for, a graduate
programme with an adequate range of courses and proper course credits for faculty teaching
them, is alarming. Alternatively, if the 'mentoring system' is to remain central, then faculty
should receive credit and course release time in accordance with the number of students
taught. In the same area, although no problems were voiced at present, there ought to be a
•
?
clear protocol and system of accountability, to ensure all faculty will give the requisite time
and attention to their students.
5.
Overextendedfaculty:
The above problems lie behind a widespread feeling that faculty are
being asked to do too much, or too many things, for insufficient recognition or credit,
especially junior and middle level faculty. Their energies are fully tied up with undergraduate
classes; getting existing research projects, publications and graduate student theses finished;
and trying to obtain funds and students. Many were sceptical of seeing results from
investments of time in the kinds of general Departmental planning, restructuring and upgrades
emphasized here.
6.
The University administration:
The senior administration needs to develop a reasonable
schedule of renovations, renewal and update of basic work spaces, furnishings and
facilities—at least for this Department. Its absence is at odds with the actual levels of usage
in the Department, the educational and research demands made upon it, the number of
students taught and faculty performance.
These problems adversely affect core teaching needs and programmes; this gives us all the more
reason to emphasize the energy and enthusiasm of the students we met, our high regard for most
faculty and staff, and what they have managed to achieve. Their relative cheerfulness and good
will is remarkable. Obviously, there is more to a successful programme than funds, facilities and
equipment.
3q
18
We think there is a very talented, hard working and brave faculty in Geography, with some
excellent recent appointments and the opportunity to add to them. There is an excellent support
staff. There are emerging benefits from the careful, sensitive and balanced leadership of the
current Chair. In particular, preparations for this Review, and the Faculty Retreat Process, seem
to have restored momentum; a commitment to rethinking curriculum in light of present realities
and opportunities; to Departmental dialogue, and reassessing the openness of, and procedures
for, its governance. All of this, we would say, was much needed and had, perhaps, fallen by the
wayside since the last Review. But, these changes also need much clearer support of all senior
faculty. Effecting change requires equivalent concern, funding and incentives from senior
administration. Otherwise, it is unlikely to outlast the present process, as faculty and staff again
become buried in day-to-day commitments in a chronically under-funded and dispersed set of
commitments.
It is our sense we are making the case for response to two Review periods, our own and the one
for the previous seven years. On the evidence, the last Review might just as well not have taken
place. In other words, we see the need for a concerted response to more than a decade of growing
neglect, reduced real faculty and staff resources, especially affecting the core of the programme,
and balancing its needs against other options and opportunities.
.
.
1710
C
(5
0
(U
0
(5
C)
E
t
(U
CL
C)
>
(5
I-
C)
0
a)
C!,
0
a)
C)
0
>
CL
CL
a)
4
>1
CL
(U
C)
0
C)
0
a)
E
t
(5
CL
C)
0
0
CL
CU
C)
CU
I-
C)
0
C)
0
0
(5
C.)
0
Co
U)
4
(U
co
C
0
CU
.
F-.
CO U)
000(0 N
N
co
(V)
•
?
0) C.J ('1
i-
N
i-
i-
i-
N N
(0
co
qq
N
0 0
i-
0)
N N
N
C.)
C)
N N
C)
i-
N
N
i-
i-
N
N
-
0)
0)
N
CV)
U)
N CV)
N i-0
i-i- N
0
Ni—N
0
NO)
N
N
U)
N N
(0
U) CON'—
1—
CD
CV)
U)
1-
U)
i-
U)
CV)
ON
- -
U)
00(0(0
U)
C
V )
U)
CV)
CO
N
(0
CV)
CD
U)
1
CD
U)
0)
(5 0)
;-
-;-;-;-
0)
C)
CV)
CO
CV)
N
CON
U)
0)
(0
COO) N.
CV)
U) COO
U) N N
N.
Ni—N
U)
N
CD
CV)
C)
(0(0
U)
CD
CV)
U)
CV)
N
U)
CV)
N-
CV)
0)
COO N
ON
0
ON
Ni—ON
(0(V)
N
(0
0)
0)
CD
U)
U)
0
1-
CV)
CV)
N
N
N
CO
It)
0)0)0
CV)
ODi-
C)
i—i—CO
U)
U) 0(0
CV)
CV)
C)
0)
U)
U)
U)
CV)
CV)
N
N
O
0
(0
(0
(5 0) U)
0
(5
(5
- - -- -
o
(0
0)
Ni—CO
(0
0
.
N
U)
C)
i-
i-
CV)
C
i-
U)
N
co
0
CS
N
0)
CV)
It)
(5
C)
CO
NON
CV)
U)
i-i-
i-
C)
i-i-
i — CO
0
N
CO
N i-0
C)
N.
N
U)
i-i-i-
CV)
CV) CV)CV)
CV)
CO
U)
0(0
N
N
- -- -
o
co
N
CV)
N
0)0)
IC)
(0
0)
It)
CO
N N
U)
i-
It)
i-
C O
C)
N
CV)
CV)
Ni—
0)
U)
IC)
CON
U)
CO
It)
CV)
C)
C)
0)
U)
CO
CV)
N
CV)
U)
N
N
i-
CV)
CD
N
U)
U)
N
i-0
U) CV)
U)
N
i — N- N
CV)
i-N
N.
0)
(Di—
(Di
—
CO
U)
i-
i-
0)
N
i-
(V)
N
-
I-
- -
-
-
i-
C
o
N
_
CO
NO)
0
CO
N
(00i—O(0
i-
N (0
°C)
CV)
N
U)
(N
1-
i-
(DO)
U)
CV)
(00)0)0(0
C)
CV)
CV)
i-
CO
CD
It)
r--
C 1 4
C)
N
1
N
N
C
-
o
(5
U
C
i_
0—
0._-
C
o
0
C
-
C
-
o
0
o
0
(5
>-
ctDO
OO
O
'V
'S
U
V
C
U
C
'S
U
'S
C
V
C
E
'V
0.)
I)
E
2.
0)
U
C
*
171/
>
I-
G)
U)
(5
U-
C
0
E
CO)
C
C,
E
(5
CL
C,
CL
0
>
(5
I-
0
C,
C
0
0
(5
(5
E
E
(I)
ili
-C
C
C)
0.
0.
(5
,
a)O)
I()
2o'
oof
1 ?
-
Q)
.0
C4
'
I
)
a) . ')
Q•
.=
0
(Dcv)
In
CD,.
Cv)0
(DC)
OIOI()
Lt)CO
U)U)
I-
U,
•
1'
Cv)O)
C)C'I
C14 (D
=
(5
?
.
E
Q.
04
04
04
C) C
U)
00 W T
C'l
0
w
-
'-
Cv)CO
(DC')
C1C1
cm
C'1C1
cv)
5Q)O
C'IC'J
C4i
CD
N.
IC)
•
•
a)
a)
a) ?
C
U)0
IC)
csJ.c'.l
o
C.) ?
•
U)
i-
-
00
cv)0
0
(0
M LL
.
(0
V)
co
in tn
0(S)
5).
üi
NN
(S)C'4
C4
LO
0_
U.
c4
N
c'i N
(4 '-
H
U
0
U. 4
co w
.
OF
(D
:2
U) ?
Cl)
cr
o<
0
C .0
.0
CS ?
- CS
C
-
U)
— ?
c
O
(D-3
C
w22.
o0o
1011 ?
o
zaOa.
a. m
I-
I
)
(0
I
N-
I
(0
I
C)
I
I
i-
I
04
C')
IT
19
•
()
in
0)
C) 0)
0)
(DC)
0
0) 0
0
0
-
000
C'l
C')
0
0
1-
>-
0)0)
0)0)
0)0)0
C'J
0
04
(N
000
(N (N
(N
00
04
0
(N
.
8
1 ?
is
•0
a)
E
U,
4)
*
a.)
a)
I-.
a.)
C
K.
4)
Appendix 3: Schedule for Site Visit
Department of Geography
Itinerary for Site Visit of Review Committee
.
27-30 October
1999
Wednesday 27 October
Date
Event
Location
8:00 - 8:45
Mtg. Dr. Munro, VP Academic, Dr. Pierce, Dean, Fac. of Arts, Dr.
PCR
Clayman, VP Research & Dean of Grad. Studies, Mrs. Alison Watt
8:45 - 9:45
Meeting of committee members
PCR
9:30 - 10:20
Tour of Facilities & Mtg with Chair, Dr. Alison Gill
CC6206
10:30 - 11:30
Meeting with Undergraduate Studies Committee, Dr. Bob Horsfall,
CC6206
Chair
12:00 - 1:15
Open lunch in Halpen Centre Lounge
Rm 114
1:30 - 2:30
Meeting with undergraduate students
CC6206
3:00 - 5:00
Meeting with faculty (see reverse for schedule)
CC6206
Thursday 28
October
8:30 - 9:15
Meeting with VP Research & Dean of Graduate Studies
CC6206
9:30 - 10:00
Meeting with Dr. Ted Hickin, Chair, Earth Sciences
CC6206
10:00- 11:30
Meeting with faculty (see reverse for schedule)
CC6206
11:30 - 12:30
Meeting with graduate students
CC6206
12:30 - 1:30
Lunch meeting with Graduate Studies Committee, Dr. Mike Hayes,
DUC
Chair
1:45 - 2:15
Meeting with Dr. Mark Roseland, C.E.O.
CC6206
2:15 - 2:45
Meeting with faculty (see reverse for schedule)
CC6206
. ?
3:00 - 3:45
Meeting with Co-op reps
?
Mall Ferguson
CC6206
4:00 - 4:30
Meeting re SIS Certificate & Labs with: A. Roberts, P. DeGrace
AQ2I 11
4:30 - 5:00
Meeting re Urban Studies with: Warren Gill, Nick Blomley
CC6206
5:15 - 6:30
Reception
Friday 29 October
8:30 - 9:00
Meeting with Technical Staff: Ray, Gary, Paul
CC6206
9:00 - 9:30
Meeting with Support Staff: Ravinder, Marcia, Dianne
CC6206
9:30 - 10:00
Meeting with Department Assistant, Hilary Jones
CC6206
10:00 - 11:45
Meeting with faculty (see reverse for schedule)
CC6206
12:00 - 1:00
Lunch meeting of committee (without guests)
CC6206
1:00- 1:30
Meeting with Library Committee & Reps.
DUC
1:30- 2:00
Meeting with faculty (see reverse for schedule)
CC6206
2:00 - 2:45
Meeting with Resources Committee, Dr. Lance Lesack, Chair
CC6206
3:00 - 4:00
Meeting with Chair, Alison Gill
CC6206
Saturday 30 October
10:00 - 11:00 ?
Meeting with Ors. Munro, Pierce, Clayman and Mrs. Watt
?
HC1 500
11:00 ...
?
Working on draft report
?
HC1 500
PCR - President's Conference Room, 3 Floor, Strand Hall
CC - Classroom Complex aka Robert C. Brown Hall
HC - Harbour Centre
L3
Individual Faculty Meetings
?
With the Department Review Committee
?
(Third Revision)
Date
Time
Faculty Member
Wednesday
27 October
3:00
I. Hutchinson
3:15
P.M. Koroscil
4:00
W.G. Bailey
4:15
MV. Hayes
4:30
C.B. Crampton
Thursday
28
October
10:00
J.A.C. Brohman
10:15
N.K. Blomley
10:30
I. Winton
11:00
M. Roberts
11:15
R.C.Brown
1:45
M. Roseland
2:15
T.A. Brennard [sic]
2:30
M.G. Schmidt
2:45
L. Lesack
Friday
29
October
10:00
N. Schuurman
10:15
B. Bradshaw
10:30
L. Evenden
10:45
R.B. Horsfall
11:00
A. Clapp
11:15
A. Roberts
?
1:30 ?
R. Hayter
?
1:45 ?
B. Pittman
r
0
