S.96-72
Simon Fraser University
Memorandum
TO: ?
Senate
FROM: ?
Alison Watt, Director, Secretariat Services
DATE: ?
November 13, 1996
SUBJECT: External Review - School of Criminology
FOR INFORMATION
Attached is an Executive Summary of the report of the School of Criminology
External Review Committee, and the responses prepared by the School commenting
on the External Review Report.
Any Senator wishing to consult the full report of the External Review committee
should contact Bobbie Grant, Senate Assistant at 291-3168 or e-mail bgrant@sfu.ca
.
0
External Review - School of Criminology
?
Executive Summary
Site visit: ?
May 1995
Report submitted: ?
July, 1995
School's response: ?
September, 1996
The members of the External Review Committee were:
Professor Tony Doob
?
Chair
Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto
Professor Constance Backhouse
?
Member
Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario
Professor John McLaren ?
Member
Faculty of Law, University of Victoria
Dr. Noel Dyck
?
Internal Member
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University
Comments and Recommendations:
1.
The School of Criminology is widely recognized for its excellent faculty who span a very
broad range of allied disciplines. The faculty contribute extensively to knowledge and
appear to seek out challenges in their teaching and research programs. The faculty, on
the whole, are very productive and in some cases the level of productivity is
extraordinary.
2.
The variation in backgrounds, approach to the fields and the focus of their scholarly work
contributes to a certain amount of tension about the vision of the School and the
distribution of resources to its various areas.
The External Review Committee suggested that:
• ?
The School does not appear to have a vision of itself for the future. It needs a broadly
based vision so that a standard exists against which to evaluate decisions.
• ?
The School's vision should include a clear plan for its role at Harbour Centre.
• ?
The faculty in the School might be spreading itself too thinly; Harbour Centre and
Kamloops offerings take faculty away from the School and its activities.
•
?
The School might have an unusually large number of specialized research institutes,
which while serving the special interests of some, might not serve the best interests of the
School as a whole.
•
?
Funding from SSHRC does not appear to be a major source of funding for faculty, and
?
graduate students, particularly doctoral students, may be missing out on support
. ?
opportunities from SSHRC. In the committee's view, much work is apparently carried
out independent of the university, some of which might be more appropriately channelled
through the University.
I.
Senior undergraduate students are experiencing difficulty in getting upper division
courses; some undergraduates who intend to major in Criminology are unable to do so
because of enrollment limitations.
Plans in development for the Legal Studies program show a lack of evidence of careful
consideration of priorities and resource implications.
Students in graduate programs appear to be taking too long to complete their programs,
and the withdrawal rate is high. The course requirements for both graduate degrees
should be reviewed and tailored to the particular degree.
The issue of teaching credit for graduate student supervision should be revisited.
The School should consider instituting a graduate student/faculty seminar series to assist
the development of informal discussion and interaction which appears to be lacking at the
present time.
The School will have hiring challenges in the future which could be exacerbated by
differing priorities. The Committee recommended against naming of specific areas which
might reduce the likelihood of finding an excellent candidate.
On the issue of resources, the committee noted that in every institution resources were
scarce, but encouraged the administration to develop plans to reallocation resources in
support of the total academic enterprise.
Executive Summary prepared by A.J. Watt
November 13, 1996
2.
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
The external review committee (Professor Tony Doob, Centre of Criminology,
University of Toronto, Professor John McLaren, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria
and Professor Constance Backhouse, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario)
visited the School of Criminology in the spring of 1995; they issued their 27 page report in
July of that year.
In general and specific terms, the School of Criminology was lauded by the review
committee for its accomplishments during its 20 years of operation. At pages one and two
of the report the committee made the following comments:
The members of the academic staff contribute to knowledge within their own
definition of the field. There is no question that they are doing this. We are not
the only ones to recognize the excellence of the members of the staff of the School
of Criminology; those outside of the School whom we met also shared this view.
The academic staff are, almost without exception, enthusiastic about their work..
They not only accept -- but appear to seek out -- challenges in their teaching the
research programs.
The research being done at the School of Criminology is getting published or
otherwise made available to those most interested in it. Much of it is published by
excellent publishers or journals. The staff-- academic and non-academic -- see it
as a good place to work. Generally speaking -- with a few notable exceptions --
people get along with one another and they see the School of Criminology as a
good place to do research.
Similarly, the review committee concludes its commentary with the following
paragraph:
The School of Criminology is strong. The School and the University can be proud
of its accomplishments. We are confident that the School will meet the challenges
that it faces with enthusiasm.
What emerges from the report of the review committee is, then, a clear conviction
that the School of Criminology is a very productive academic unit which has established a
strong national and international reputation for excellence in research and teaching. The
challenges that we face will, accordingly, form the focus of the School's response to the
review.
is
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
9.
?
Page 1 of 4
In addition to responding to concerns raised about the operation of the graduate
and undergraduate programs, we want to provide some feedback with respect to the
issues of "staffing", "the intellectual atmosphere of the School", "a special matter of
concern" and "resources".
Staffing
First, with respect to "staffing", we are pleased to note the committee's finding
that the School welcomes diversity amongst staff in relation to race, disability, gender, and
sexual orientation. We are also pleased that the committee noted the unusual rank/age
distribution within the School of Criminology. As they point out, almost every faculty
member within the School falls between the ages of 40 and 60; within one eight year
period 16 of the 22 faculty employed will retire. At the present time the School of
Criminology has only one assistant professor (a joint appointment with the Department of
Sociology); this profile of rank is in marked contrast to other departments within the
Faculty of Arts. Most other departments of a comparable size have four or five assistant
professors; we have one half-time assistant professor.
It will not be surprising, then, to hear that the School of Criminology has been
trying for some years to secure authorization for tenure-track assistant professor positions.
We strongly and unanimously agree with the committee's commendation that there must
be faculty renewal within the School of Criminology. We cannot emphasize enough our
conviction that we must continue to retain and build upon our current faculty complement,
even in these difficult times of budget cutbacks.
Intellectual Atmosphere of the School
The review committee highlighted "the impression that there is very little
opportunity for informal interaction among the members of the academic community in the
School". The committee noted the observation of some students that the School is a
collection of individual faculty who may collaborate from time to time, but do not
represent a "community, having common interests".
The committee recommended an informal seminar series -- a greater sharing of
current research and research interests. We note, in response to this suggestion, that this
kind of series has been attempted by various directors and associate directors during the
past 15 years, with varying degrees of success. Our feeling is that the committee is quite
right to note that there could be more sharing of research and research interests among
faculty and graduate students, but, at the same time, we cannot compel faculty interest in
and attendance at such events.
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
4.
?
Page 2 of 4
.
A Special Matter of Concern
The review committee noted the existence of "a dispute that began early in 1994",
involving "some members of the School of Criminology and at least one non-faculty
person who was apparently then employed at the University". The committee urged the
administration of the University "to search for a mechanism to resolve this problem".
Since the release of the review committee report in July of 1995 the University
administration, including the administration of the School of Criminology, has made
several efforts to find solutions to these conflicts, efforts which we hope will have the
effect of reducing tensions within the School of Criminology, particularly among the
individual faculty members in question.
We believe that this dispute is now at an end, although some faculty continue to
look at possible changes to University policy which may alleviate such difficulties in
future.
Resources
The review committee clearly wrestled with the problem of the School of
• Criminology's interests in the development of new programs in new locations.
Specifically, the committee addressed the problem of mounting new programs and courses
at the Harbour Centre campus, the problem of integrating the Honours undergraduate
program with our other offerings and the issue of developing a legal studies program.
With respect to all of these issues, the committee sounded a note of concern about
the faculty spreading itself too thinly across a myriad of course offerings and locations;
they questioned the extent to which, with our existing resources, we could meet these new
challenges.
First, we believe that the Honours undergraduate program has been an unqualified
success, sparking strong interest among our very best baccalaureate students and
acquainting them with the task of thesis preparation and defence. In our most recent
semester, spring 1996, we had a record number of thesis defences and all faculty involved
have voiced strong support for the continuation of this program. We do not believe that
this offering detracts from our other course offerings at the graduate and undergraduate
levels; rather this program complements the existing teaching regimen.
Second, we acknowledge that the Harbour Centre campus presents us with a
number of difficult challenges. First, we cannot mount large undergraduate classes at this
site, without a considerable drop in enrollments. A close look at the demographics of our
undergraduate student body indicates that more than 75 per cent of our undergraduates
is ?
live
in Burnaby or further east; they have shown during the past decade that they are not
willing to take their first and second year classes at the Harbour Centre campus.
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
57 ?
Page 3of4
Accordingly, we believe that at this time teaching at the Harbour Centre campus must be
restricted to third and fourth year seminar courses specifically designed for the community
?
is
that would use the Harbour Centre location.
Finally, we note the committee's comments in relation to the legal studies program
-- specifically, its concerns that resources do not currently exist to permit the development
of this pedagogy. Further, the committee noted, quite fairly, that there is not a clear vision
yet of the specific form that a legal studies program might take. We do not want to close
the door on this option, nor on its potential to be offered from the Harbour Centre
campus, but we agree that we will not be able to move forward effectively until we can
secure additional resources, in both the realms of teaching and support staff. We note, in
this context, however, the comments of the review committee, "There my be a tradeoff
between retrenching and focusing on core activities on the one hand and creative
expansion on the others. Creative entrepreneurial activities add a level of excitement to
the School". It may be, then, that the development of a legal studies program -- or other
innovative pedogogies -- will permit the School of Criminology to continue to build upon
the tradition of excellence that we have collectively constructed.
.
is
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
Page 4 of 4
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY?
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
COMMITTEE ?
RESPONSE TO THIS REPORT OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
January 31, 1996
?
?
1.0: ?
Introduction
The Report of the Review Committee of the Simon Fraser University School of
Criminology has been examined by the Director of Undergraduate Programmes and by
members of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. The Report has been read in
conjunction with the report of the internal review of the School's undergraduate
programmes that preceded the visit by the external reviewers, and the draft report of the
President's Committee on University Planning entitled "The Undergraduate Program at
Simon Fraser University".
2.0: Response
The following comments are limited to the portions of the Report dealing with
undergraduate matters.
2.1: The Committee is heartened by the support expressed by the external reviewers for
the School's undergraduate programmes, and thanks the reviewers for their time,
effort, and praise.
The Report will be helpful in making the kinds of programme changes already
identified by faculty in the internal review report as important and desirable. It is
noted that in many instances the external reviewers endorsed the recommendations
of the internal report.
2.2: The Committee is concerned that many of the initiatives mentioned in the internal
review report and especially in the draft three year plan for revising undergraduate
programmes appear to have been overlooked, despite their importance as ways of
addressing the problem of balancing supply and demand in a fiscally difficult period
while simultaneously moving forward with the kinds of initiatives recommended in
the President's Committee report.
The draft three year plan, for example, sets out various ways in which curriculum
revisions will occur to eliminate overlaps, increase course offerings in key areas,
and improve the quality of teaching, without requiring further resources. These
did not appear to have been considered by the reviewers who, additionally, did not
appear to be familiar with the report of the President's Committee.
Page 1
?
FJ
2.3: The reviewers' comments with respect to the various programme development
initiatives currently being proposed or implemented reflected a conservative
attitude towards undergraduate programming. This was disappointing especially
since the reviewers did not appear to understand many of the initiatives, or
comprehend how they fitted with the President's Committee recommendations and
with larger University wide programming.
One example is the School's involvement with native education initiatives in
Kamloops. It is evident from the comments of the reviewers that they did not
understand how this involvement was funded or staffed but they still criticized the
initiative as something that detracted from "core programming".
A second example is the commentary about the honours programme. Questions
are raised about introducing such a programme when resources are stretched even
though the development of initiatives such as the honours programme that will
prepare students for graduate studies in their chosen field is strongly recommended
by the President's Committee.
A third example is the commentary about the proposed legal studies programme,
an initiative that has been approved in principle by the Faculty of Arts Curriculum
Committee and the Senate and that is in an advanced planning stage. This
initiative is consistent with the recommendations set out in the President's
Committee Report (especially section
5 -
diversifying the programme base) and the
Director of Undergraduate Programmes is co-chair of the Legal Studies
Programme Development Committee, a campus wide committee struck by the
Dean of Arts. Although the Director met with the reviewers they did not raise
questions about the legal studies programme did not meet with the Development
Committee, and did not contact the Director when their report was being
compiled, for further information.
2.4: ?
The reviewers' message is overwhelmingly conservative: develop a "vision" (even
though they state, somewhat curiously, that the vision does not have to be stable
once it is established!); concentrate on "core programming"; and relax, there will
be students aplenty.
While this is encouraging, it is inconsistent with the recommendations in the
President's Committee report. The latter speaks to the inevitability of change,
growing challenges in tough fiscal times, the need for programming initiatives and
diversification, and the importance of continued excellence in teaching but with
limited resources. The report of the President's Committee underscores the
importance of expanding the programme base to meet the demands of additional
students and labour market demands. It is not a conservative message.
Page 2
?
I
V1
I
3.0: ?
Conclusion
The results of the School's internal review and the recommendations of the
President's Committee on University Planning are generally consistent and reflect
support for progressive developments that will meet the changing fiscal, social and
political circumstances of British Columbia.
While the external review report was generally supportive of the School's
undergraduate programmes many of the critical comments did not appear to have
been built upon a fill understanding of the way in which programme developments
fit with the recommendations of the President's Committee.
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will continue to implement the draft
three year plan for undergraduate programme revision to the extent that it is
consistent with the report of the President's Committee, while noting the concerns
expressed by the external reviewers with respect to resource limitations.
.
Page 3
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
?
0
GRADUATE PROGRAMMES COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO THE
?
REPORT OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
November 7, 1995
Here are some comments from the Graduate Programmes Committee on the
External Review's comments on the Graduate Programmes.
1.
Overall, the review of the graduate programmes was positive.
2.
There was some general agreement that we are already doing a number of things
suggested by the External Reviewers. Perhaps we did not communicate this
information to the reviewers, or perhaps some students and faculty think the
procedures are still inadequate.
• move comprehensives more toward doctoral thesis preparation
• periodic reports by students on their progress (we do this 2 X a year)
• use course work to contribute to thesis
• credits to faculty for courses on demand
3.
We need a Faculty Representative on the Library Committee.
4.
Overall, we are satisfied with the course requirements. However, we discussed
possible changes to the M.A. and Ph.D. programmes to deal with time to completion.
5.
The M.A. Programme. It might be useful to announce thesis defence dates the day the
students enter the programme. That is, all M.A. defences in a given cohort will take
place in week X of month Y, Z semesters after the students enter the programme.
This would put the onus on the student and the supervisor to ensure that students
engage in a project they can defend within the specified time. The Honours
programme is run on this model, and it is found at other universities.
6.
The M.A. Programme. We also discussed the no-thesis option, however, there was
less enthusiasm for this option.
7.
The M.A. Programme. Supervisors, together with students, should discuss deadlines
for thesis proposals and the completion of research and individual chapters. A written
plan (in the nature of a "contract" might be useful).
.
Graduate Programmes Committee Response to the Report of the Review Committee
Page 1 of 2
. 8. The M.A. Programme. We asked the graduate students to consider whether they
would like to abandon the assignment of initial advisors and perhaps replace it with
"peer advisors". If we retain the assignment of initial advisors, we thought the role
should be clarified to faculty and perhaps relabelled to reflect that this initial contact is
not necessarily the thesis supervisor.
9.
The Ph.D. Programme. Perhaps we need to add presumptive guidelines for turn
around time on drafts of theses. We presently have presumptive guidelines for
comprehensives: "Normally no longer than a month should pass between the
completion of a comprehensive exam and a decision being relayed by the Examining
Committee to the student and the Director of the Graduate Programmes."
10.
The Ph.D. Programme. Given that comprehensives duplicate required courses and
that many are beginning to look like directed readings courses we might want to
rethink what we are trying to accomplish by comprehensives. Getting rid of comps
might reduce the demand on faculty.
11.
Both Programmes. We need a forum in which faculty and students can discuss their
mutual interests. This would allow for faculty and students to meet and discuss
mutual interests. Adding the occasional external speaker would broaden the seminar
series as suggested in the External Review document. A post-seminar social might
.
?
provide added benefits. We would need a physical site for these activities.
1 la One of the suggestions in the review was that we use the proseminar for such a forum.
We could open up the seminar for faculty to visit/listen to and maybe end up with
coffee/milk, cookies for an hour social after.
12.
Both Programmes. Faculty need to be more proactive in finding research money that
could be used to fund graduate student research. Both faculty and students would
benefit from these joint efforts.
13.
We are not following our earlier "frequent flyer" plan for granting teaching credits for
thesis supervision, apparently because of lack of adequate resources.
14.
The Report notes that the number of graduate students is increasing. This is not the
case. However, a growing proportion are Ph.D.'s which means we have them for
more student-years, and we have more work.
15.
We discussed the fact that graduate supervision needs to be more equally distributed,
but we did not have any concrete proposal for how to do this.
Graduate Programmes Committee Response to the Report of the Review Committee
I,
?
Page 2of2
SCAP 96-49
•
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Office of the Registrar
MEMORANDUM
To: ?
SCAP
From: ?
Alison Watt, Director, Secretariat Services
Subject: ?
External Review - School of Criminology
Date: ?
31 October, 1996
Attached is the Report of the External Review Committee of the School of Criminology and the
School's response dated September 11, 1996.
The External Review Committee site visit was scheduled in May, 1995 and the report was received
in July, 1995. The members of the committee were:
Professor Tony Doob
?
Chair
Centre of Criminology
University of Toronto
Professor Constance Backhouse
?
Member
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
Professor John McLaren ?
Member
Faculty of Law
University of Victoria
Dr. Noel Dyck
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Internal Member
Simon Fraser University
Professor Neil Boyd, former Director of the School will attend the SCAP meeting (in the absence
of Professor Margaret Jackson) and will be accompanied by Professor Joan Brockman, Director of
Graduate Programs and Dr. Rob Gordon, Director of Undergraduate Programs.
Enclosures: 2
1160
•
I
.
Report of the Review Committee
?
of the?
Simon Fraser University
?
School of Criminology
?
July 1995
Constance Backhouse?
Faculty of Law?
University of Western Ontario
Anthony N. Doob?
Centre of Criminology ?
University of Toronto
Noel Dyck?
Department of Sociology and Anthropology?
Simon Fraser University
John McLaren?
Faculty of Law?
University of Victoria
0
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
The past and the future
2
Structure of the School of Criminology
4
The undergraduate program
6
Some specific issues related to the undergraduate program
and the focus of the School
9
The Graduate Program
11
Staffing
16
Equity in duties
18
The intellectual atmosphere of the School of Criminology
19
A special matter of concern
21
Resources
23
Conclusion
24
Appendix 1: Some comments on the material given for this review
26
Appendix 2: Meetings
27
0
School of Criminology Review (July
1995) ?
Page 1
Introduction
The external review of the Simon Fraser University School of Criminology in the
spring of 1995 was, apparently, the first comprehensive review that has taken place in
the history of the School. In preparing for the review, it was clear that the School as a
whole spent an enormous amount of time reviewing its own programs and activities. It
was obvious to us that particular people -- those with administrative responsibilities --
had been very active in collecting information for the review and in preparing materials
for us. In addition, the university administrators whom we met provided us with all of
the information that we needed and were extremely helpful to us.
The four of us -- three from outside of Simon Fraser University, and one from
within the University but from another department -- were received cordially into the
department. Our questions were answered directly and completely. In fact, almost
every meeting we had with members of the School -- students, faculty, support staff,
administrators -- could have gone on much longer than the time that was allotted.
Reviewing a university department is a task that is different from assessing the
quality of the work being done by the individual members of that department.
However, we were obviously given, as part of our materials, the
curriculum vitae
of
the various academic staff. It is clear that the academic staff of the School are, on the
whole, very productive. In some cases, the level of productivity is extraordinary.
Thken as a whole, the staff are involved in a wide range of different kinds of scholarly
activity. The focus of this work, its goals, and its intended audiences vary from person
to person, or, within people, from accomplishment to accomplishment. What is
important, however, is that these very productive scholars appeared to be contributing
to criminology in a variety of different ways. Criminology is a broad field. The focus
of enquiry, methods, and goals of research are not universally agreed upon. This
diversity of approach is represented within the School of Criminology. The members
of the academic staff contribute to knowledge within their own definition of the field.
There is no question that they are doing this. We are not the only ones to recognize the
excellence of the members of the staff of the School of Criminology: those outside of
the School whom we met also shared this view.
The academic staff are, almost without exception, enthusiastic about their work.
They not only accept -- but appear to seek out -- challenges in their teaching and
research programs. It appeared that when opportunities would arise to embark on new
activities, they would respond to these challenges. As we have already pointed out,
they come to criminology from a wide range of different perspectives and disciplines
and thus are able to provide' their students with a wide range of different, and to some
extent competing, perspectives. Given the variation in backgrounds, approach to the
field, and the focus of their scholarly work, it is inevitable that there exists a certain
S ?
amount of tension about the manner in which different people contribute to their
discipline.
School of Criminology Review (July
1995) ?
Page 2
Nevertheless, what is, in the long run, more important is that the academic staff
have been successful at what they are doing. They continue to attract research funds
from a range of different sources. Some of these research funds are not administered
by the University. The attracting and use of funds outside of the university setting is an
issue that is not unique to the School of Criminology or to Simon Fraser University. It
is, and should be, a source of concern within the School. The research being done at
the School of Criminology is getting published or otherwise made available to those
most interested in it. Much of it is published by excellent publishers or journals. The
staff -- academic and non-academic -- see it as a good place to work. Generally
speaking -- with a few notable exceptions -- people get along with one another and they
see the School of Criminology as a good place to do research.
We spoke to the four current members of the academic staff of the School' who
have served as directors of the School. And, as one might expect, a number of those
we spoke to made reference to the current and previous directors and the way in which
the School has changed over the years. The School began under the directorship of
Ezzat Fattah. He was responsible for creating a strong academic criminology unit that
fulfilled an important research and teaching mandate. He also had the responsibility for
helping to get criminology, as a field of enquiry, accepted within a university where all
other departments were not necessarily accepting of the view that there should be an
independent criminology department. Now, in 1995, he can look back proudly at the
School he created.
The other directors currently at the School -- Simon Verdun-Jones, Margaret
Jackson, and Neil Boyd -- all
have contributed to the current excellence of the school in
different ways. They clearly have been different kinds of leaders and have contributed
to the strength and reputation of the School in different ways. Along with Ezzat Fattah,
they have maintained the respect of their colleagues and those outside of the School.
The undergraduate and graduate programs are well regarded and appear to
attract good, and varied, students. In fact, as will be discussed later in this report, their
success has been such that they have had serious difficulties in accommodating students.
The past and the future
The original mission of the School, as expressed in its 1975 statement of goals,
included the focus on producing "action oriented graduates" dedicated to "producing
change" in the criminal justice system and in society more generally. Many of the
1. The
School
of Criminology is now part of the Faculty of Arts. It started its life as the
Department
of
Criminology in the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies. For ease of presentation we will always refer to it by
its current name.
School of Criminology Review (July
1995) ?
Page 3
• current staff were hired during the time when this orientation was probably more
accepted as
the
appropriate orientation for the School. The focus on "reform" and
"policy" is not universally held by all staff now. Criminology has changed; the School
has changed; and the nature of the faculty in criminology has also changed. Such
change is inevitable and healthy. It should also be recognized that the criminology that
is "current" is likely to continue to change in the years to come. Thus those who, at
present, may feel that "their" view is "the" appropriate view, may find, within a
relatively small number of years, that their approach is seen by younger faculty as old
fashioned and inappropriate. The challenge is not to find a way to "freeze" the changes
that are taking place. The challenge is to adapt to the reality of change and to accept
the diversity that this creates as being a healthy development for the School.
The changes which have occurred over the years in the type of person being
hired at the School of Criminology have certainly created some tensions. We heard the
current academic staff described by some as falling into two groups. How those two
groups were described, however, varied somewhat from person to person. Almost
everyone, however, described the academic staff on a single dimension such as the
following:
--academic vs. applied
--theoretical vs. others
--left vs. others/right
--feminist vs. others.
In addition, staff were described in terms of where they tended to publish their work.
Some were seen as focusing on, or valuing "traditional" scholarship (refereed journals,
books or chapters in books published by academic or commercial publishers, but having
an "academic" target readership). Others were seen as publishing more policy oriented
papers and reports, government reports, policy papers.
However, when one looks carefully at the
curriculum vitae
of the various staff,
it is clear that a good many of them are not easily classified on the end of any one of
these dimensions. What is clear, however, is that the staff is varied. Furthermore, it
appears that the "splits" or "allegiances" that do exist do not invariably hold from one
issue to another. In some cases, this committee was surprised by the views expressed
by some who might have been expected to have sided with others on traditionally
contentious issues (e.g., hiring decisions). As a committee, we found these labels to be
unhelpful at best, and divisive at worst. It appeared that the relatively unstable
groupings ("me and a few others" versus "everyone else") is not productive and,
equally importantly, is not even descriptive.
The first twenty years of the School are likely to be different from the next ten
or fifteen years. The growth in the School occurred largely in the first ten years. The
development and consolidation of the staff occurred during the next ten years or so. It
was not clear to the committee what the next ten years in the School's life will look
. ?
like. More importantly, we do not believe that the School has addressed itself to the
question of what it wants to look like ten years from now. If we were to identify our
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page 4
.
most important concern about the School, then, it would be that the School as an
institution, and, to a very large extent those within it, do not appear to have a "vision"
of what the school should look like in the future. The individual members of the staff
individually respond enthusiastically to challenges and opportunities, but as an
institution, there appears to be less of an overall direction than might be desirable.
To some extent, change and development in an academic institution occurs
naturally at times when growth is taking place. At the School of Criminology, many of
the staff have spent all or close to all of their academic careers at Simon Fraser. The
faces at the School are not likely to change much in the next few years, although a few
new faces may be added. Criminology at Simon Fraser will inevitably change as new
people are hired. Those presently at the School are likely to find, therefore, that their
view of criminology is not necessarily being reproduced in the hiring process.
It is important, therefore, that the school should actively begin a process of
developing clearer goals for itself for the next decade. This should be done with a clear
understanding of the reality that its vision must be created without having to depend on
large infusions of resources. Furthermore, it is important this process of developing a
vision for the future be carried out slowly and reflectively. It should not be allowed to
turn into an exercise where people -- or groups of people -- are vying with one another
for support to create demanding and unconnected new programs or ideas. It is not
something that needs to be accomplished immediately or within a specific time period.
Nor of course does this "vision" have to be stable once it is established. Institutions
evolve, and their visions of what they are also evolve. It is important that a broadly
based vision should exist so that a standard exists against which to evaluate decisions
and initiatives.
Structure of the School of Criminology
The School has large undergraduate and graduate programs. Indeed, enrollment is at
or above capacity in both sets of programs. The undergraduate program is, however,
more complex than most programs at most universities. On the surface, the program
looks quite ordinary. They have a standard looking 120 semester hours undergraduate
degree. In addition, they have a small, but probably growing, 132 semester hours
honours program. But in addition to normal classroom teaching at the Burnaby
Mountain campus, they teach a few courses -- as part of a faculty member's normal
teaching load -- at the Harbour Centre campus. In addition, faculty have been involved
in teaching (to largely First Nations students) at Kamloops. These activities obviously
take faculty away from the Burnaby Mountain campus. Hence faculty involved in
teaching elsewhere are not available on the Burnaby Mountain campus for the wide
range of activities expected of academics when they are not in class. As we mention
later in this report, these activities, occurring away from the Burnaby campus --
• ?
though sensible and important in the abstract --
may
be having the effect of spreading
scarce resources thinner than is sensible.
School of Criminology Review (July
1995) ?
Page
5
The School of Criminology has within it what appears to us to be an unusually
large number of specialized research centres. Some of these Centres are apparently
very active and reflect obvious interests that are represented in the School. We found
the existence of the large numbers of these centres to be curious and possibly
symptomatic of a more fundamental problem in the School. With the exception of the
Criminology Research Centre which was apparently funded in the past largely by the
contribution made by the Solicitor General, Canada, these centres appear to have been
created as a result of the interest of a varying number of faculty who have a special
interest. Nobody we spoke to identified any obvious harm in having these institutes
within the School.
This committee, however, recommends that the School of Criminology should
examine these institutes with the view of identifying what special functions they are
serving above and beyond what could occur within the School as a whole. Put
differently, if the institutes are, in fact, serving the function of highlighting certain
activities or approaches to criminology, might not the School have an interest in
searching for a more effective, but less isolating, approach? Our concern is that the
institutes may be creating unnecessary divisions within the faculty more than they are
bringing together people who have similar interests. Are they, for example,
exacerbating the "them" versus "us" view of the School that we heard expressed
numerous times? There is an added problem: what may have been seen as a vital and
relevant way of organizing people and ideas at one point in time may not be so now or
at some point in the future. The existence of narrowly defined administrative structures
may not serve the School well in its evolution. We have no conclusion to offer, but
we think that the School should address the issue of the role and function of the
institutes that it has associated with it.
A few members of the School have some connections with other departments.
There are some joint endeavours with the psychology department, and recently one of
the criminology staff became cross-appointed to the Department of Sociology and
Anthropology. Such contacts are, we think, important, and help contribute to the
academic strength of the School.
The faculty appear to receive support for their research from a variety of
different sources. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
however, appears not to play a central role in the research funding of many faculty.
One effect of the SSHRC not playing a central role is that opportunities are missed for
graduate student support through SSHRC grants. There is, however, a potentially more
serious matter: the attracting of research funds completely outside of the university.
Faculty in criminology, as elsewhere in areas that have an applied component, are often
in demand to do research -- usually of a short term nature -- for governments.
Research carried out by university researchers outside of the university is often
• ?
"supported" by the university in indirect ways. For example, researchers might use
library facilities; they may have easy access to graduate students who want to do work,
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 6
• who, in the private sector, might expect to have some form of job security; and,
perhaps most importantly, the university, through its guarantee of the principal
investigator's basic salary provides an opportunity for an academic to "undercharge"
the government department for the academic's time. The academic can underestimate
the amount of time the project will take. In addition, the amount charged per day for
the academic's time can be set at a rate that does not reflect the amount of "uncharged"
time spent preparing the application and negotiating its terms. Nor does it include
various other "overhead" expenses (e.g., recruiting and paying research assistance). In
effect, charging the funder at the simple "salary" rate (e.g., 1/225 of an annual rate) is
possible only because faculty are at an academic institution. When the Canadian
universities and Supply and Services, Canada, negotiated an overhead rate, these other
costs were included in the overhead rate. In fact, of course, few senior consultants in
the private sector could afford to be "charged out" at a rate comparable to the "official"
rate that the universities would charge including overhead.
Nevertheless, much research work is apparently being carried out independent
of the university setting. Aside from anything else, it means that the academic doing
the work can be paid extra for the work without any embarrassment of being paid more
than their normal salary by the university. Those in government negotiating the
contract obviously prefer to have it done outside of the university since various
university rules (e.g., rules about ownership of the findings) can be negotiated more
informally and independent of university rules about freedom to publish. The fact that
the rates involved do not include overhead means that more research can apparently be
done for the same amount of money.
Clearly some external work outside of the University setting can be beneficial to
the academic involved and to the University. One might question, however, whether
large scale or long term research projects should be carried out independent of the.
university. We were told that the university was willing to negotiate the overhead
rates on individual research contracts and we were told that this had not been requested
by members of the School. There are very real costs to the academic enterprise and to
graduate students of shifting work outside of the university. We would urge those at
the School to open this issue as a topic for discussion with the goal of developing an
approach that is consistent with the university's own guidelines, but which deals with
the matter in a manner that serves the needs of the School. In particular, of course,
such an enquiry should first examine whether, in fact, the current situation is serving
the overall needs of the School of Criminology and its students and faculty.
The undergraduate program
The undergraduate program is well received by the students, and talked about in very
positive terms by the faculty. It apparently has a good reputation both inside the
• ?
university and outside. Unlike many programs at SFU and elsewhere in Canada, the
faculty at SFU have managed to maintain an extensive system of tutorials in lower
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 7
• division courses and have, largely, maintained teaching of courses largely in seminar
form in upper division courses. In times of large undergraduate demands and shrinking
resources, such opportunities for close contact between students and faculty are unusual
and should be both applauded and protected. The amount of sessional teaching (i.e., by
those who are not regular members of the teaching staff) appears to be within the norms
of the Faculty of Arts. We were told that most of it is done by doctoral students who
are likely to understand the SFU system as well as being highly motivated to do a good
job. It also serves, obviously, as an opportunity for doctoral students to get some
teaching experience.
The most obvious and difficult problem facing the undergraduate program at
SFU is in servicing the needs of students who want to major in criminology or who are
majoring in the subject but who cannot get into the (upper division) courses they want
to take. There are few choices available to the School, or to the university. We note,
however, that students may be attracted to SFU as undergraduates, or may successfully
transfer to SFU from another British Columbia institution in order to take criminology.
Having arrived at the university, they may find that they do not have the record to get
into the program. We note, however, that the 1994-1995 calendar lays out the
limitations and the rules for entry into the program in detail. Hence, although some
students may be disappointed, it cannot be said that they should be shocked by the
result. Nevertheless, though we are not attributing blame for this situation to any
group within the university, we believe the limits on entry into the criminology
undergraduate programs serve as a symptom of the state of university funding in British
Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.
The fact that the SFU School of Criminology cannot service the demands placed
on its undergraduate program can serve as a backdrop to a range of issues facing the
School. There are a wide range of teaching opportunities available to SFU faculty.
There are a number of examples of very worthwhile teaching programs that draw
faculty away from what might be considered to be their primary graduate and
undergraduate teaching.
What might be considered to be "core" and what might be considered to be
"extra" or "peripheral" is problematic. We are defining, for the purposes of this
discussion, "core" as being what the member of the academic staff receives basic salary
for: undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research. This is
not
meant to
downgrade the importance of other legitimate teaching functions carried out mother
ways. It is only to suggest that the University as a whole appears to treat, by way of its
contractual arrangements, these other matters as being secondary since few people have
these other responsibilities as part of their "normal" teaching load.
Some of the other activities that presently (or which could in the future) draw
faculty away from "core" criminology responsibilities on the Burnaby Mountain
campus are the following:
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page 8
.
• Some faculty have, from time to time, been involved in teaching (largely First
Nations students) in Kamloops. Although it is an individual decision on the part of a
faculty member whether to take on such a responsibility, the effect of taking on such a
commitment is that a faculty member is not available for other duties. Even if such
teaching is not part of a faculty member's teaching load, the effect is the same: they are
not involved in what some might consider to be their "core" responsibilities on the day
they are in Kamloops. The conifict is obvious: the program is serving a very real need
and yet the costs of addressing that need are also real.
• Courses offered at the Harbour Centre campus serve a group of students who might
not otherwise be able to take the course. On the other hand, since it is not easy for
students to take courses simultaneously on both campuses, and since fewer courses are
available at the harbour Centre campus, courses which might be full on Burnaby
Mountain are not invariably full when offered at Harbour Centre.
• Courses offered during the summer semester tend not to be full whereas if they were
offered in the fall or spring semester they would be full. Is this a sensible use of
resources?
• We were told that a "legal studies" program was being planned. There seemed to be
some lack of consensus among faculty on exactly what this program would look like.
For example, some appeared to describe it more as an undergraduate law program
where others thought it would make more of a contribution if it were closer to a "law
and society" program. In addition, the concern was expressed that it would be seen by
students as a way of increasing the likelihood of gaining admission to law school.
There were differing opinions as to what stage the planning was at. Whatever the
program might eventually look like, we have to ask the question whether it makes sense
for the staff of criminology to mount a new program -- and, in particular, a program
that is likely to be very popular and to be a draw on scarce resources from both the
School and the university more generally -- when it cannot service its current program.
Clearly, there are a core of very enthusiastic faculty who are interested in
developing such a program. One can easily sympathize with the view that their
enthusiasm and hard work should be encouraged. The enthusiasm for the program can
be seen as being symbolic of some of the best characteristics of the School of
Criminology and of its most significant problem: the question of priorities, and of a
coherent vision of the role of the school, did not appear to enter into the consideration
of this program. We found very little evidence of careful consideration of priorities, of
the resources that were necessary to mount an effective program, or of how this would
increase the commitments of the School to undergraduate teaching. It appeared to us as
if the legal studies proposal was being talked about in a compartmentalized fashion as if
it was a cost-free item. The idea that certain courses could not be offered unless
resources were allocated to them was not, in our opinion, sufficient. There are
•
?
enormous resource implications Of offering a new program. Some -- such as the
advising of students -- are fairly direct. However, more generally, the issue of
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page 9
• ?
priorities in a time when everyone agrees that current programs cannot be adequately
serviced cannot be ignored.
• The school has recently developed a small honours program. Certainly it looks like
a good idea, and it appears to
fit
quite well into the basic major program. However, if
the supervision of current graduate students is a problem, does it make sense to expand
the research supervision problem to undergraduates?
• There are other initiatives apparently being considered by the School of
Criminology. For example, there is consideration of mounting a diploma program in
criminology (probably located at the Harbour Centre campus). There is discussion,
given the connections that SFU has been developing with other parts of the world, of
initiating field placement opportunities outside of Canada.
This committee should
not
be seen as being critical of any of these individual
initiatives. Our concern is that we, as reviewers, we left a bit breathless and concerned
about the number of them and of the apparent lack of consideration of priorities. We
were not convinced that adequate attention was being paid to a very basic question:
exactly what can the School of Criminology accommodate, given its present and
probable future resources. We recommend, therefore, that the School should address
itself directly to its priorities in the area of undergraduate teaching, taking into account
the impact of this commitment on graduate teaching and research. They should ask a
simple question: What is it that we are trying to accomplish with the program. In this
context, consideration should be given to revisiting the nature of the undergraduate
curriculum rather than simply reconfiguring what is there. There is no need for the
SFU School of Criminology to be consumer driven: they have, and will continue to
have, more "consumers" than they can accommodate. Thus if they were to redefine
what their role was in the teaching of criminology and encourage appropriate students
• to come to this (possibly new) model of their mandate, we have no doubt that there
would be plenty of students. Unfortunately, as enthusiastic as many of the faculty are,
they cannot be all things to all people.
Some specific issues related to
?
the undergraduate program and the focus of the School
As has already been pointed out, we have some concerns about the overall focus of the
undergraduate program in criminology. However, in addition there are a few aspects
of the overall structure of the university that have an impact on the way in which the
School operates.
The Harbour Centre campus.
Obviously, we can only applaud the theory that the
opening of the Harbour Centre campus of SFU would increase the accessibility of
• ?
university level education to the thousands of people who live or work in the downtown
Vancouver area. In addition, of course, it provides a location for teaching that is
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 10
• preferred by some faculty. But teaching criminology at Harbour Centre appears to be a
mixed blessing. For reasons that were not clear to us, some of the criminology staff
who chose to teach at Harbour Centre do not have access to the basic necessities of
academic life (e.g., access to full telephone services, fax machines, etc.) Furthermore,
it appears that it is not economically feasible for the School of Criminology to provide
its own services on this campus since the number of staff presently there is so small.
Clearly the present (perhaps interim) arrangements are unsatisfactory. The School of
criminology should resist continuing an arrangement of providing courses and faculty
until support facilities comparable to those available at the Burnaby Mountain campus
can be assured.
However, there are other problems that cannot be ignored. We have already
noted that spreading out an already over-burdened staff across two campuses has impact
on the full teaching and research programs of the School. The replacement of those
who teach at the Harbour Centre campus with a person teaching on a sessional stipend
at Burnaby Mountain obviously addresses only a small part of the problem of
resources. The library services at the Harbour Centre campus, though probably all
that is possible under present circumstances, clearly do not allow students the same
kind of direct access to reading materials that they would have at the Burnaby Mountain
campus.
As we have already pointed out, the existence of the Harbour Centre campus
appears to act as an encouragement to the faculty of the School to create new programs
such as the legal studies program (one scenario would suggest that it would be offered
primarily at Harbour Centre) or a post-B.A. diploma in criminology. It is not clear that
resources are available for such programs especially if offered at another location.
Finally, there are obvious difficulties for students and for academic staff created
by the fact that there is no efficient public (or university run) transportation between the
two campuses.
We were not asked to review the overall relationship between the two campuses
of SFU. Therefore, our recommendation is restricted to the School of Criminology
itself. The School should develop a clear plan for the School's role, if any, at Harbour
Centre.
The relationship of SF1.1 to the colleges.
A number of the faculty mentioned that
there are problems concerning the integrating of students who have transferred into
SFU from the various British Columbia colleges. Although there are apparently
mechanisms in place to try to create comparability of background between the
universities and the colleges, it appears to the faculty who raised this issue that the
academic experience of the college students is generally not comparable. Obviously
this becomes most salient in the upper division classes.
We doubt that this is an issue solely for criminology students at SFU. We
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 11
.
would suggest, therefore, that systematic data be collected in the upper division courses
and that the pattern of performance of the transfer students be compared to those whose
full post-secondary education experience was at SFU. In particular, such a study could
determine whether the problem, if indeed it does exist, tends to be a short term issue of
adaptation to a new educational environment (which might be suggested if an initial
difference in performance disappears after a semester or two) or if it is a broader issue
of overall preparation for university level work.
Distance education.
This is an important part of the mission of SFU and of the School
of Criminology. We had concerns about the manner in which this important part of
post-secondary education is funded. In particular, by not having the preparation and
supervision of distance education courses be part of a faculty member's basic
responsibilities (or by not providing a mechanism for doing this), distance education
may be seen as having a secondary importance. In addition, we were told that the
amount paid for the development and update of distance education materials, and the
supervision of courses understates both the importance of the project and the amount of
time necessary to do an adequate job of distance education. If this part of the education
process could be made part of the basic responsibilities of faculty members, it would be
one way of reflecting its actual importance. Distance education, broadly defined, can
also give the School opportunities to create links with groups (such as First Nations
communities) that otherwise would not be possible. Criminology has been very heavily
involved in distance education, and the faculty involved are to be commended for their
enthusiasm about this form of education.
There is a danger in criminology at SFU of turning distance education courses
into a means of dealing with the fact that fall and spring upper division courses are
typically filled to capacity. Students who cannot find an appropriate course at the
Burnaby Mountain campus are apparently turning to distance education even though
they may not prefer this mode of education. This does not serve the distance education
program since it might tend to be seen as "where you go if you cannot get into regular
courses." Nor, of course, does it serve those students well who would prefer a more
traditional method of instruction.
The Graduate Program
Resources.
Generally speaking, the graduate students in criminology at SFU appear to
have reasonably good resources available. They are given shared office space; they
have access to computer facilities. There are, of course, limitations on the kinds of
materials that are available through the SFU library. Students, in effect, have to make
do with what is there or available through inter-library loan service. To the extent that
the School has specific concerns about library services, our discussions with the library
personnel would suggest that the school should take an more active role in feeding into
• ?
the library resources process the School's view of what type of collection is
appropriate. There was some discussion about the rule that a course cannot be offered
School of Criminology Review
(July
1995)
?
Page 12
• unless library resources are available to support it. From the perspective of academic
planning, it obviously would be preferable if library resources could be made
automatically available to support any new academic endeavour. But with limited
budgets, library resources need to be seen as part of the equation just as is the
availability of academic staff.
Financial support is inadequate, particularly for doctoral students who obviously can
expect to be students for longer than M.A. students. Having more students work on
projects closer to the current work of their supervisors may be a way of increasing the
amount of support available to students. In addition, the School might think about
tailoring its admissions decisions more closely -- particularly at the doctoral level -- to
the resources available.
A basic problem to address.
It appeared to us that in both the M.A. program and in
the Ph.D. program there is a problem of students completing their graduate program in
a reasonable period of time. Looking at completion figures for 1985 through
1995,
it
appeared that four out of 79
(5%)
of the graduates of the M.A. program finished in
what we told was the target time period (5 semesters). Only 7 of the 79 (9%) finished
within six semesters (two years).
The school has had less experience with its doctoral program. But, using 12 semesters
(four years) as a reasonable target for completion we see that only one of the six
graduates (between
1985
and
1995)
completed within this time period.
Many graduate programs have similar problems, and, therefore, we do not feel that the
School of Criminology's record in this area is special. Nevertheless, we do believe it is
a problem that should be addressed by the School. It is likely that this issue is related
to resource problems that plague graduate programs everywhere. Nevertheless, we
believe it is a problem that should be addressed
in the context of the resources that are
available.
Withdrawals from the graduate programs constitute another set of problems.
Withdrawals early in a graduate program may be the result of a discovery by the
student that the program is not likely to meet the student's needs. Withdrawals after
considerable experience with the program, however, can constitute a serious waste of
resources of the School and of the student. We were disturbed, therefore, to see that
during this same period (1985 through 1995) that there were 51 students who withdrew
from the M.A. program and 7 who withdrew from the doctoral program. We
understand that the withdrawal rate is better for recent years than it was in the past.
Nevertheless, we think it is worthwhile noting that 40 of the 51(78%) M.A. students
withdrew
after more than
three semesters (one year) in the program. Four of the seven
withdrawals from the Ph.D. program left after more than two years in the program.
0
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 13
. The structure of the M.A. program.
We had the impression, from talking to the
graduate students that there was an almost complete separation of the thesis requirement
from the course work. The course work was, obviously, relatively structured. Then
when the students moved to the thesis, they were left more or less on their own.
Students indicated that it would be worthwhile to create explicit presumptive
"timelines" on when certain steps in the thesis should be completed. We agree.
Planning the M.A. thesis earlier in the program -- e.g., during the second semester,
might also be useful. We did not inspect recent M.A. theses. Nevertheless, we would
encourage the School to review its expectations of what an M.A. thesis should look
like. It is possible that sufficient direction is not given to M.A. students on how to
design and carry out a thesis that is appropriate in scope for an M.A. There also may
be unreasonably high expectations on the part of some faculty on the scope of an M.A.
thesis.
A few students mentioned the fact that the system of assigning a "presumptive"
research advisor to entering M.A. students sometimes caused a bit of conflict if the
student wished to change advisors. The School might wish to re-open the question of
whether this method of ensuring supervision of a student is a good idea. Some have
argued that a system whereby a student must find a supervisor is better since it forces
the student to address the question of thesis topic earlier in the program.
The structure of the doctoral program.
Doctoral students in criminology at SFU have
to do a relatively large amount of course work. The requirements as they are
advertised in the calendar are obviously more onerous than they may be in practice,
since they appear to require a minimum of 33 semester hours of courses. It is pointed
out, however, that "the graduate committee may waive up to 15 semester credit hours
of course requirements on determining that equivalent courses have been taken at the
graduate level." Nevertheless, this leaves, at a minimum, 18 hours of courses for
doctoral students. Some students suggested that the system of waiving of courses was
not completely satisfactory since, from their perspective, the decisions were often, in
effect, delegated to individual instructors teaching the courses. This, they suggested,
led to inconsistency in the application of the rules. The School should consider turning
this rule around: beginning with the basic course requirements and then suggesting that
additional specific courses might be added for those coming to the Ph.D. with an M.A.
from elsewhere. This would obviously depend on the student's background.
It appears to us that the School views the course work as the main way in which
students achieve "breadth" in their graduate training. If this is, in fact, the case, the
school might want to consider focusing the comprehensive exams more toward the
doctoral thesis so that preparatory work will be directly relevant to the thesis. In this
context, it might be worth examining the extent to which assignments in course work
could be designed for doctoral students to contribute to their theses.
• ?
The School might also wish to have an open discussion about what doctoral thesis
should look like. Since there is enormous variation across universities -- and within
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page
14
.
universities, across departments -- on the scope of a doctoral thesis, some attempts to
achieve a consensus (at least on the range of what is expected) appear to us to be
warranted.
Comments that relate to both graduate programs.
We would suggest that the School
should review its course requirements at both the M.A. and Ph.D. level asking some
very basic questions. First, what skills/knowledge does the school expect students to
have as a result of completion of the degree. Second, what courses are necessary to
accomplish this result. We note, for example, the fact that a full one-third of the
course requirements are methods courses. Though obviously such courses can be
useful, we would suggest that the School might ask whether these courses are serving
the needs of all students. In this context, notwithstanding the rather extensive methods
offerings within criminology, we note that a few of the students have gone outside the
department for methods courses. The number of such students is, obviously, small and
the department that provided them with the training (Sociology and Anthropology) has
limited resources to accept external students in any case.
The School has instituted a "course on demand" system whereby faculty members can
list a specific course that will be offered if, in fact, there is sufficient demand from the
students. The intent of this approach is clear: it is a way of offering specialized courses
that fit the specific needs of the students at a given point in time. We were not
convinced, however, that it was turning out to be a sensible way of dealing with the
resource problem. Although teaching core graduate courses does, apparently, "count"
in a faculty member's overall teaching load, it appeared to us (and to some faculty) that
there were problems in getting teaching credit for courses mounted "on demand." In
terms of faculty time, there is an additional problem: there is a reasonable likelihood
that a faculty member could spend a considerable amount of time preparing an outline
for a course to be offered "on demand" only to find that the demand was not there.
This wasted time was seen as being particularly problematic for new faculty. A more
basic question that might be asked is whether the "course on demand" is really the most
appropriate model for graduate course work? If a course is worth offering -- on some
basis other than market forces -- should it not be offered? Alternatively, given the
rather large course requirements particularly at the doctoral level, and a faculty that has
large demands put on it from various directions (research, undergraduate teaching,
graduate supervision, etc.), should a course be offered simply because it is popular?
There are a number of different traditions concerning the relationship between the
student's M.A. or Ph.D. thesis topic and the research being done by the supervisor. As
one approach to addressing the amount of time it appears to take students to complete
their degrees, students might consider choosing a thesis topic closer to the research
being carried out by the supervisor. Such an approach could, perhaps, give the student
access to funds that otherwise might not be available. It also might assist in relating the
work being done outside of the university to the "academic project."
The School might wish to consider taking a more active role in ensuring the progress of
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page
15
.
its graduate students. Periodic reports by students on their progress and their expected
completion date might help focus everyone's attention on achieving a timely
completion. Realistic guidelines concerning completion of individual requirements
might also help.
The supervision of graduate students.
The committee obviously had some concerns
about the adequacy of supervision of graduate students. With many of the faculty
indicating that they were stretched thin in terms of their ability to do their basic
teaching and research, and with graduate students indicating that there were problems
of getting adequate and timely feedback on theses or parts of theses, we would suggest
that the School should question whether it can, for example, increase the size of its
doctoral program. We were told that there are now 18 students in the program. This
will be increased by seven next year. If the School is having trouble supervising and
supporting doctoral students at the moment, does it make sense to increase the number
it accepts? Arguments about accessibility have to be weighed against the possible net
loss to
all
students if the program suffers from being larger than the school can handle.
Taking fewer students, for example, could lead to fewer dropouts and a net
increase
in
the number actually completing their degrees.
It is clear, of course, that the decision -
to expand its graduate program is completely the
School's; nobody suggested that there was direct pressure on the School to expand its
Oprogram.
In the context of supervision of students, the School might wish to consider developing
guidelines of "expectations" for supervisors and students. Such guidelines exist in
some other universities and are seen as being helpful. The guidelines in other
universities, for example, set out expectations for supervisors and, in effect, define the
roles of both students and supervisors. We had the impression that some students were
"mentored" more than others. It might also make sense to explore whether the School,
as well, could take a more active role in guiding students with respect to fellowships,
conferences, publications, jobs, etc.
Similarly, there appeared to be some ambiguity -- as there is in other departments and
universities -- on the proper role of other members of the supervisory committees.
This, too, might be made the subject of guidelines.
Finally, we suggest that the issue of "teaching credit" for graduate supervision should
be revisited. The idea that the school cannot "afford" to give credit for this work
ignores the fact that the question concerns the
equitable
distribution of work across
faculty members rather than the total amount of work being carried out by the full
faculty complement at the School. It is important that graduate supervision not create
greater inequities in the actual workload of faculty at the School.
. ?
A final word.
We sensed that students on the whole were reasonably content with their
graduate programs. On the other hand, we felt that there were some broad concerns
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 16
.
that should be raised. Some students did not appear to see criminology faculty as a
whole to be a "resource" to aid in their development. They work with their supervisors
(and to a lesser extent with their other committee members). The other members of the
department are not seen as being available. Among other things, they pick up the
"splits" in the department, and are aware of what combinations of people cannot be put
on the same committee. They talk about the "last four appointments being in theory
rather than being applied" using much the same language as the faculty use. Some
international students also mentioned specific concerns that they had about the faculty's
lack of comparative perspective. But the concern that we have is broader than that.
The problem may arise, to some extent, as a result of the fact that there do not appear
to be opportunities for graduate students and faculty to talk informally at the School of
Criminology. Faculty are, to varying extents, available in their offices for those who
have specific concerns. But faculty don't "just talk" to other faculty or students unless
there is a specific issue or a meeting is called. We are
not
suggesting that there needs
to be social interaction amongst students and faculty off campus. But the School, in its
present location, did not appear to us to constitute an identifiable community. The
architecture of the School may contribute, in part, to this problem (if, indeed, it
qualifies as a problem). We would suggest that the School might wish to think about
how informal interactions among academic staff, non-academic staff, and students,
might be encouraged. Could, for example, some "inviting space" be converted into a
"common" area?
.
Staffing
Staffing in any department has the potential of creating or bringing out any
serious problems or tensions that exist. The value of one's own approach to a field (or
one's own area or one's interests) is often seen as being evaluated by the priority given
in hiring decisions. If one's own approach is "downgraded" in priority, then it can be
seen as a statement of others' views about one's own work.
Our approach to understanding the
"staffing"
issues at the School is based on the
following assumptions:
• We believe that there is a need for diversity in the academic staff of the School as
there is in other academic units in Canada. We think it is important to point out that
those we spoke to in the School of Criminology welcome diversity along racial,
disability, gender, and sexual orientation lines. A number of people pointed out their
own desire to hire First Nations and racial minority academic staff. Ensuring equitable
diversity across these categories is an important goal, which will improve the capacity
of the School to produce excellent academic research and to provide new and creative
teaching methodologies.
• In addition, however, the SFU criminologists have a rather unusual age/rank
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page
17
. distribution. We realize that
age per se
cannot be a criterion used for hiring. But
looking at the age (or estimated age for those who did not provide birth dates), it would
appear that roughly 16 of the current 22 people will retire in one eight year period.
These people all currently fall in an age range of approximately 44 to
52.
We estimate
that there are two people currently in the professorial ranks who are younger than 44. It
should also be pointed out that there is one assistant professor (actually one half, but for
comparison purposes, she will count as if she were full time at the School) out of 22
people listed in the professorial ranks in the
1994/5
calendar
(5
% of the faculty are
assistant professors). For some haphazardly chosen other departments in the faculty,
the number and percent of assistant professors are as follows:
Economics: 6 of 31 or 19%
Geography: 8 of 22 or 36%
History:
5
of 29 or 17%
Political Science: 4 of 18 or 22%
Psychology: 6 of
35
or 17%
Sociology & Anthropology: 6 of 18 or 33%
• There is, then, a good deal of homogeneity of the faculty in terms of age and rank.
Most of the faculty have been at SFU, in one capacity or another, for a long time. One
consequence of the "fact" of a shared past, then, is that when a new person comes in,
there is no culture of how to help this person become integrated into the School. And
because there appears to be little "collective" responsibility on the part of individuals,
nothing really happens. This is the problem of a department that has been in a "steady
state" for some number of years.
We heard a good deal about "the 1991 hiring priorities" formulated at a retreat.
We obviously cannot comment on the manner in which they were arrived at.
Nevertheless, we would suggest that, as the School's own priorities, they should not be
considered to be written in stone. Perhaps, even then, they were not the most
appropriate way to go. We would suggest that the priorities for the next job or jobs in
criminology should be reopened.
There was a good deal of talk about the "balance" in the number of
representatives of different fields (e.g., theory vs. applied). There are two problems
with the "single continuum, balance" model: first, how does one know where the
fulcrum should be. But more important, what if "balance" is much more
multidimensional than was talked about with us. What if there are a number of
different dimensions on which people differ.
We were somewhat disturbed that there was so much talk from some about
"theory" vs. "applied" as if it was clear to everyone that this was the right way of
characterizing everyone. We heard repeatedly that "the last four jobs have gone to
those interested in feminist theory. It is our turn now" (or some close variant of this).
•
?
The problem we had with this view is that, from the review committee's perspective,
the "last four people" hired looked quite different from one another.
School of Criminology Review
(July
1995)
?
Page 18
We strongly question the strategy of narrowing the search for new academic
staff to a particular field or interest (e.g., policing). The reality of the job market is
that there will be very real problems in finding good young people at the assistant
professor level in any area. The emphasis should be on getting the best person without
narrow definitions of area.
How then should the School define its "needs"? Is it solely in terms of courses
or areas of the criminal justice system (e.g., policing)? The problem is that there is
need for diversity on a range of dimensions. We recommend that the School should
hire the best young recent Ph.D. they can find at the assistant professor level, while
also attempting to bear in mind the need to maximize diversity and satisfy employment
equity concerns. The primary criterion that should be used is that the person is
making and/or is likely to make during his/her university career significant
contributions to our knowledge in the field of criminology, broadly defined.
Obviously, the School should not hire someone "just like" those already in the
School. (If it were an issue -- and we do not think it is -- there should be a strong
presumption against hiring an SFU Ph.D. or a close collaborator with someone at
SFU.) At the same time, "broad labels" which divide people into two groups are not
very helpful. "To a flower, all vegetables look alike, and to a vegetable, all flowers
look alike."
Hence in advertising and in recruiting, we recommend against the naming of
specific areas. To limit the search will lower the likelihood of finding an excellent
candidate. In any case, if the School were to name areas, what about areas where there
are obvious gaps: disciplines like anthropology or economics? There is another point to
remember: SFU Criminology cannot be "all things to all people."
Equity in duties
In recent years, the SFU School of Criminology has experienced cutbacks of
support staff. These cutbacks have created their own sets of problems. For example,
until recently, when a half time person was hired to help advise students, a number of
undergraduate students
.
-- frustrated, on the one hand by not being able to get into
courses, and on the other by not being able on a predictable basis to get advice --
expressed dissatisfaction with the School for the way it dealt with students. It is hoped
that this dissatisfaction on the part of the students with the "service" they were
receiving has been at least ameliorated by assigning resources to it. The cutback on
support staff has other impacts. Faculty are obviously doing virtually all of their own
administrative and clerical work.
.
?
?
There is another "workload" issue that should be addressed. Many of the
people we spoke to suggested that work at the School was unevenly distributed and that
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page
19
.
this uneven distribution was above and beyond the extra work that active academics
normally do. "Stressed out" was a word used repeatedly to describe some of the
faculty. We recommend that the School should examine the overall distribution of its
responsibilities. It was suggested, for example, that there were a number of
ad hoc
arrangements about teaching responsibilities. We did not examine this issue in detail.
It appeared to be a concern. We suggest that it be looked into. Part of such an enquiry
should, obviously, include the question of credit for the supervision of graduate
students. It appeared to us, for example, that the supervision of honours
undergraduates was receiving more "official" recognition than the supervision of
graduate students.
Such an enquiry will not be easy. As one person noted, the work that comes
with membership on committees depends, in large part, with how active and
responsible, a committee member is. Those who do not show up for committee
meetings do not do much work outside of committee meetings either.
There are other sources of disparity in workloads. Those who spend a
substantial amount of time away from the office (e.g., working at home, or working on
non-university tasks) leave those who work in their offices with much of the day-to-day
minor tasks and questions.
Questions were also raised about the procedures used in assigning of teaching
responsibility. Once again, this committee did not go into the matter in detail.
Nevertheless, it does appear that there is some dissatisfaction with the outcome. This is
natural. However, there were assertions made about the nature of the process that
suggested to us that the process of assigning teaching responsibilities (e.g., decisions on
who taught particular courses at the graduate level) was not well understood by all
faculty. This is not a major issue; nevertheless, the School might wish to avoid certain
types of feelings of unfairness by creating clear and public guidelines on how teaching
responsibilities are assigned.
The intellectual atmosphere of the School of Criminology
We have already noted that the School does not appear to be a place where
students and faculty meet informally (over coffee, for example) to discuss whatever
happens to come up. We were told that some faculty have research meetings. These
were very well received by the graduate students. However, in general, we got the
impression that there is very little opportunity for informal interaction among the
members of the academic community in the School.
The proseminar was seen by many students as being a useful tool for making
people aware of what faculty were doing. Some students, however, suggested that by
.
?
giving credit, this purpose was undermined. In addition, as we understand it, the
seminar sessions are not typically attended by the faculty. Hence it does not help create
School of Criminology Review (July
1995) ?
Page 20
an opportunity for the whole community to get together.
Although the School does, from time to time, hold symposia on specific topics,
it does not have a seminar series where diverse people from within the University, or
from other universities, or from elsewhere, come and talk about their work or ideas.
When asked about such seminars, students mentioned the Green College series at UBC.
Although such a series at another university serves some functions, it does not serve the
interests of creating an intellectual climate involving large numbers of people at the
School. Aside from anything else, the students and faculty at SFU do not have an
opportunity to invite the people they wish to hear.
Such seminar series need not be expensive. Many people who would be of
interest to the students and faculty at SFU come to Vancouver from time to time. In
addition, there are a fair number of people in the Vancouver area who could
participate. For little financial cost, but a fair amount of effort, a seminar series could
be created. We would suggest that the School should consider creating such a series.
Such opportunities might help break the view that several students appear to
have of the School: that it is a collection of individual faculty who collaborate from
time to time, but who generally are not seen as a "community" having common
interests. In addition, in some cases, students indicated that after being at SFU for
some time, they hardly knew some of the faculty. Faculty are seen as having a
relationship to "their own" students and to their courses, but not to "graduate students"
generally. With a few notable exceptions, people are pleasant to one another, and there
are quite a few collaborations between faculty members. At the same time,
intellectually, they do not "cross boundaries." Could efforts be made to develop a
greater attachment to the School of Criminology, as opposed to the development and
support of individual endeavours? Might the School, for example, want to consider
using certain events -- such as the convocation of its students -- as an opportunity to
come together informally?
Although sexual harassment appears to have been a problem in an earlier era of
the School's history, from what we were able to determine, much has changed. Many
of those who spoke to us remarked on the improvement in the environment for women
students in this respect. We raised the issue of harassment of undergraduate students
in field settings, but since we did not speak to undergraduates and the person in charge
of field placements was not on campus during our visit, we could not get much
information. Given the varied nature of the placements, however, we would suggest
that the person in charge of field placements, if he is not already doing so, might
address this subject directly with the students.
fl
School of Criminology Review (July
1995) ?
Page 21
A special matter of concern
The Review Committee was asked to examine "the extent, to which the working
environment within the School
[of
Criminology] is conducive to the attainment of its
objectives." An issue came to our attention which, we believe, has had the effect of
interfering with teaching and scholarship at the School of Criminology. We do not
know the extent of this interference; we are convinced, however, that the problem
exists.
The issue is one which is known to the administration of the School of Criminology and
to the administration of the University and derives from a dispute that began early in
1994. It involves some members of the School of Criminology and at least one non-
faculty person who was apparently then employed at the University. We understand
from our discussions that significant portions of the nature of the dispute and the nature
of attempts to resolve it are not at present public. Hence we have not been made fully
aware of the nature of the original dispute, the details of the manner in which it was
handled by the School of Criminology, and we have almost no details of the manner in
which it was handled by the administration of the
,
university. We understand that some
factual determinations have been made and that some assignment of responsibility for
certain aspects of the dispute have been made. We have been led to believe that these
determinations have not been made fully public. In any case, the review committee has
not been made aware of these findings, nor did we ask for details about them.
We have deep concerns about whether the administration of the university has
"resolved" this matter in the most satisfactory manner possible. In fact, the matter
came up quite spontaneously in our discussions with a number of people at the School
of Criminology. It is completely evident to everyone that the matter is still an active
source of conflict and concern.
The administration of the university cannot responsibly sit back and hope that the
problem will disappear. Nor can the responsibility for the problems that still exist
within the School of Criminology be attributed solely to any single one of the parties
involved. Similarly, the central administration cannot leave the dispute to the School
of Criminology to resolve completely on its own.
The university must search for a mechanism to resolve this problem. Although the
central administration of the university might choose to believe that the problem can be
ignored, its potential long term impact on the School of Criminology is of such a
magnitude that we believe that the administration would be derelict in its duty were it
not to make every reasonable attempt to find a solution which will reduce the tensions
within the School of Criminology. This is not a problem that the central
administration of the university can distance itself from by suggesting that "ownership"
of the problem lies solely within the School of Criminology. The administration of the
•
?
university is involved as a party to the dispute as a result of the manner in which it has
handled the dispute thus far.
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page 22
The matter, as we understand it, now involves at least four somewhat separate issues.
What began as an "incident" involving, apparently, two people, has now -- because the
original matter was not satisfactorily resolved -- escalated. Without being fully
informed about the details of the dispute, it appears to us that the various layers now
involve:
1)
The original dispute and whether the conflict involved was handled in the most
appropriate manner;
2)
The University's own involvement in the matter and the manner in which it was
handled, and is still being handled, by the central administration of the university.
There have been suggestions that none of those in the School are satisfied that the
University has handled this dispute adequately.
3)
The costs (broadly defined) to the faculty and non-faculty parties involved in the
dispute.
4)
Whether the University has in place appropriate mechanisms to deal with disputes
between or among members of its own community.
It is our experience that universities have a tendency to try to brush conflicts such as
this one aside rather than deal with the unpleasant matters directly. In this case -- as in
others that we are aware of at other universities -- such an approach has not worked.
We are
not
taking issue with the motivation of those in central administration in the
university who have been involved in this most difficult matter. The advantage of
having an external review such as ours is that a fresh assessment of the strategy
presently being followed can be made. It was clear to us that "hoping the problem will
disappear" has not worked.
We strongly recommend, therefore, that the University immediately re-open this issue
with the goal, in the first instance, of attempting to find a resolution of the matter as it
directly affects those associated with the School of Criminology. We can understand --
but we do not accept -- the reluctance of the central administration of the university to
get further involved in a matter that may lead to litigation. Litigation, if it occurs, will
not only be expensive and divisive: it will take years to resolve and will destroy many
person-years of the lives of productive academics.
For the health of the School of Criminology, therefore, attempts to deal directly with
the concerns of those in the School who are involved, should be made. These should
be initiated as soon as possible. They must involve attempts at achieving a settlement
among all of the parties involved: the various individuals within the School of
Criminology who are involved, the non-faculty person who apparently had been an
• ?
employee, and the senior administration of the university. In seeking a resolution to the
dispute, we would like to point out that in our opinion the apparent secrecy that has,
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 23
. ?
thus far, characterized the attempts at resolving this dispute has not been very
productive.
A number of approaches might be considered, among them the following:
1)
We understand that two highly respected academics carried out an enquiry of this
dispute during the summer of 1994. Since they are obviously knowledgeable about the
dispute, they might be asked to take on the task of looking for a method of finding a
resolution to the dispute as it presently exists.
2)
A second approach to the matter might be to engage the services of a professional
(external, independent) mediator who might work directly with the parties to help
resolve the issues. Again, however, the resolution cannot be assumed to be a
completely private one involving only the original parties. It is likely to involve all of
those presently involved.
The resolution of disputes outside of traditional legal structures is not unusual, and in
this context, the two members of our committee who are also lawyers -- Professor
Constance Backhouse and Professor John McLaren -- would be happy to suggest names
of specific individuals who might be able to take on this task.
We urge the administration of the university to address this issue immediately.
.
Resources
We have noted that resource problems arise with respect to a number of
different issues. It does little good to say that more resources are needed. That could
be said in almost every part of every university in Canada. We have no expertise to
suggest that the School of Criminology should be receiving higher priority than it
presently has. We have already noted that there are a number of areas where the SFU
School of Criminology could use additional appointments.
However, these problems are, to some extent, made worse by the existence
within the School of a small number of apparently relatively unproductive faculty.
Those working considerably more than a normal work week are understandably
demoralized by the existence of those who contribute relatively little to the research and
graduate enterprise. This is not a problem unique to SFU criminology. The challenge,
from the perspective of the university as a whole, and from within the school, is to find
a way of making effective use of the expertise of all of the members of the academic
staff. It may be, for example, that some formal approach to modifying what is
expected of faculty would be appropriate.
•
?
?
Another issue that came up in a number of contexts was the distribution of
resources. As we have already noted, the proportion of total school resources going
School of Criminology Review (July
1995)
?
Page 24
• into academic salaries has apparently increased over the years. At the same time, the
infrastructure for supporting research and investing in new ideas for research is seen as
having deteriorated. We believe that the question should be asked: with the resources
that the University can make available to the School, how would the needs of the
School best be served. For example, would the quality of research and teaching
improve, and the ability of the School to fulfill its mission be increase, if the school
were to target funds to "infrastructure" improvement rather than an academic
appointment? We do not have an answer to this question, but we believe it should be
asked. When we did ask it to people in the School, we were told that the power to re-
allocate funds was completely outside of their control. If this is, in fact, the case, then
the University might wish to support plans to reallocate resources in a way that aids to
total academic enterprise.
A specific "one time only" resource issue.
A very specific issue was brought to the
attention of the committee which we did not feel qualified to examine in great detail. It
involved claims by one faculty member that his scholarship had been stalled by changes
in the university's computer facilities. We cannot assess this claim, nor can we assess
whether the university has already taken all appropriate steps in this matter.
Nevertheless, from this individual's perspective, it would appear that the matter has not
been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, it was suggested that the university has not
fulfilled its part of what was agreed to at the time when the computer facilities were
changing some time ago. We would suggest that this be resolved in the following way.
The university should state, unambiguously, either that it will not put any more
resources into this project or that it will. If it is not going to support this individual any
more, then there should be a written statement to that effect (assuming, of course, that
such a written statement has not already been issued). If the university does believe it is
appropriate to put more resources into the project, it should set aside a fixed (dollar)
amount for this purpose to be expended as the individual and the School agree is
appropriate. Upon the
allocation
of these funds to the project, the matter would be
declared closed.
Conclusion
The SFU criminologists are, on the whole, a productive, energetic group, who
contribute in quite different -- but important -- ways to the School and to their field.
The suggestions that we have made should be seen in light of this positive overall
assessment.
We suggest that the main task for the future is to develop a vision of what the
School should be. The school should look for ways of consolidating what has been
accomplished individually thus far to serve the overall needs of the School. There is
tolerance of diversity of approaches at the School. The question is whether diversity of
• ?
approaches is celebrated sufficiently. We may never achieve a consensus as to what
"criminology" is all about. It may not be sensible to attempt it. But tolerance for the
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page 25
multiple views that do exist is important.
In making recommendations that suggest "consolidation" and "caution" in
expanding further, we realize that there are a number of risks.
--there is the potential for (further) ideological divides in the School.
--there may be a tradeoff between retrenching and focusing on core activities on the one
hand and creative expansion on the other. Creative entrepreneurial activities add a
level of excitement to the School.
The task for the next director should be to work on a vision for the future for
the School as a whole. One important issue is to ensure that there be a differentiation
between SFU from the colleges. To some extent the "academic" approach of the
School helps accomplish this.
For the next few years, the challenge will be to look for ways to help people
remain productive scholars in an era of little hiring. The rewards of growth will not be
there the way they were in earlier times in the history of the School. Hence there will
be a need to look for a way to focus energy in other ways.
We have no specific suggestions on the criteria that should be used to choose the
next Director of the School. However, we would urge caution before choosing a
person for director
solely
because that person has the ability to deal with conflicts,
problems, etc., fairly and directly. The "people's choice" for director by all accounts
can deal wonderfully with the problems that come up. If the administration were to
want this person to be the next director, they should provide this person with adequate
incentives to make the job attractive. The issue is greater that simply finding someone
who has the support of the faculty: the School should be looking for someone who, in
addition, will provide leadership in developing a vision. The "prime candidate" may
well do this wonderfully as well if given the mandate and the support of the School. It
should be understood that in the short term, the process of helping the School develop
a "vision" of where it is going may also create some conflict.
The School of Criminology is strong. The School and the University can be
proud of its accomplishments. We are confident that the School will meet the
challenges that it faces with enthusiasm.
School of Criminology Review (July
1995) ?
Page 26
Appendix 1: Some comments on the material given for this review.
We would suggest that review committees provide much less information to reviewers.
The School of Criminology obviously
,
provided an enormous amount of information to
us. We are concerned that the time involved in providing this documentation is
excessive and could be better spent on other activities.
We suggest that a much more limited set of information and a shorter report be
provided to the reviewers. A suggestion as to what might be useful follows. The detail
is not important. What is important is that the information be focused on the issues that
the committee has to address.
Here are some suggestions on possible information that might be useful to reviewers:
1) The basic public information about the department:
--Calendars
--already prepared information about the department
--CVs
2)
Very basic data in a rather simple form. For example,
--numbers of students in the various programs over the past few years
--distribution of time to completion for graduate students.
--support available for graduate students
- -dollar value of research grants/contracts received and administered through the
university for each of the past five years.
3)
A statement from the department (or appropriate committee) on a limited number of
topics:
--graduate program issues
--undergraduate program issues
--research support
--general departmental issues, facilities, etc.
Such a series of statements could include "self-assessments" on such issues as:
--the strengths
--weaknesses/challenges/concerns
--plans for change
We wouldn't want to suggest a length for such documentation. But brevity should be
encouraged. If less information were provided to the committees and individual
committee members wanted additional information that was (easily) available, they
could ask for it before or at the site visit.
[11
School of Criminology Review (July 1995)
?
Page 27
Appendix 2: Meetings.
The schedule was drawn up by the Office of the Vice-President, Academic. Meetings
with individual faculty members were scheduled by the School of Criminology. As far
as we know, all faculty members who wished to meet with us were given the
opportunity to do so.
Wednesday, 24 May 1995:
• John Munro, Evan Alderson, Bruce Clayman, and Alison Watt (University
administrators)
• Neil Boyd.
• Undergraduate curriculum committee
• Dorothy Chunn
• Brian Burtch
• John Lowman
Thursday, 25 May
1995:
• Bruce Clayman
• Deborah Palliser
• Support Staff
• Graduate students
• Graduate curriculum committee
• Lunch with Robert Gordon and Robert Menzies
• Chris Webster (Chair, Psychology)
• Margaret Jackson
• Dany Lacombe
• Robert Menzies
• Karlene Faith
• Ezzat Fattah
Friday, 26 May 1995:
• Evan Alderson
• Ellen Gee (Chair, Sociology & Anthropology)
• Simon Verdun-Jones (by phone)
• Joan Brockman
• Douglas Cousineau
• Ehor Boyanowsky
• Ray Corrado
• Jack Corse and Sharon Thomas (Library)
• Monique Layton and Joan Collinge (Distance Education)
• Neil Boyd
• John Munro, Evan Alderson, Bruce Clayman, and Alison Watt (University
administrators)
0
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts
• ?
MEMORANDUM
To: ?
David Gagan ?
From: Evan Alderson
V/P Academic
?
Dean of Arts
Subject-
?
Date:
?
September
16, 1996
I am forwarding the response from the School of Criminology to the 1995
External Review of the School.
Evan Alderson
EA/jm:
Copy:
Alison Watt
40
OFFiCE OF THE DEu
.
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
SEP 13
I)
I.j.JsJ
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
?
FACULTY OF APITS
To: ?
Evan Alderson, Dean of Arts
From: ?
Margaret A. Jackson, Director
Re:
?
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
Date:
?
September 11, 1996
Attached please find the School's response to the External Review of Spring,
1995. The former Director, Neil Boyd, developed the first draft of the report, which was
subsequently refined by the present Director and her two Associate Directors.
Please let me know if there is need for further clarification. Both Professor Boyd
and I would be willing to attend a Senate meeting to present the report.
Thank you.
0
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
The external review committee (Professor Tony Doob, Centre of Criminology,
University of Toronto, Professor John McLaren, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria
and Professor Constance Backhouse, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario)
visited the School of Criminology in the spring of 1995; they issued their 27 page report in
July of that year.
In general and specific terms, the School of Criminology was lauded by the review
committee for its accomplishments during its 20 years of operation. At pages one and two
of the report the committee made the following comments:
The members of the academic staff contribute to knowledge within their own
definition of the field. There is no question that they are doing this. We are not
the only ones to recognize the excellence of the members of the staff of the School
of Criminology; those outside of the School whom we met also shared this view.
The academic staff are, almost without exception, enthusiastic about their work.
They not only accept -- but appear to seek out -- challenges in their teaching the
research programs.
• The research being done at the School of Criminology is getting published or
otherwise made available to those most interested in it. Much of it is published by
excellent publishers or journals. The staff-- academic and non-academic -- see it
as a good place to work. Generally speaking -- with a few notable exceptions --
people get along with one another and they see the School of Criminology as a
good place to do research.
Similarly, the review committee concludes its commentary with the following
paragraph:
The School of Criminology is strong. The School and the University can be proud
of its accomplishments. We are confident that the School will meet the challenges
that it faces with enthusiasm.
What emerges from the report of the review committee is, then, a clear conviction
that the School of Criminology is a very productive academic unit which has established a
strong national and international reputation for excellence in research and teaching. The
challenges that we face will, accordingly, form the focus of the School's response to the
review.
.
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
Pagel of4
In addition to responding to concerns raised about the operation of the graduate
and undergraduate programs, we want to provide some feedback with respect to the
issues of "staffing", "the intellectual atmosphere of the School", "a special matter of
concern" and "resources".
Staffing
First, with respect to "staffing", we are pleased to note the committee's finding
that the School welcomes diversity amongst staff in relation to race, disability, gender, and
sexual orientation. We are also pleased that the committee noted the unusual rank/age
distribution within the School of Criminology. As they point out, almost every faculty
member within the School falls between the ages of 40 and 60; within one eight year
period 16 of the 22 faculty employed will retire. At the present time the School of
Criminology has only one assistant professor (a joint appointment with the Department of
Sociology); this profile of rank is in marked contrast to other departments within the
Faculty of Arts. Most other departments of a comparable size have four or five assistant
professors; we have one half-time assistant professor.
It will not be surprising, then, to hear that the School of Criminology has been
trying for some years to secure authorization for tenure-track assistant professor positions.
We strongly and unanimously agree with the committee's commendation that there must
• be faculty renewal within the School of Criminology. We cannot emphasize enough our
conviction that we must continue to retain and build upon our current faculty complement,
even in these difficult times of budget cutbacks.
Intellectual Atmosphere of the School
The review committee highlighted "the impression that there is very little
opportunity for informal interaction among the members of the academic community in the
School". The committee noted the observation of some students that the School is a
collection of individual faculty who may collaborate from time to time, but do not
represent a "community, having common interests".
The committee recommended an informal seminar series -- a greater sharing of
current research and research interests. We note, in response to this suggestion, that this
kind of series has been attempted by various directors and associate directors during the
past 15 years, with varying degrees of success. Our feeling is that the committee is quite
right to note that there could be more sharing of research and research interests among
faculty and graduate students, but, at the same time, we cannot compel faculty interest in
and attendance at such events.
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
Page 2 of 4
.
?
A Special Matter of Concern
The review committee noted the existence of "a dispute that began early in 1994",
involving "some members of the School of Criminology and at least one non-faculty
person who was apparently then employed at the University". The committee urged the
administration of the University "to search for a mechanism to resolve this problem".
Since the release of the review committee report in July of 1995 the University
administration, including the administration of the School of Criminology, has made
several efforts to find solutions to these conflicts, efforts which we hope will have the
effect of reducing tensions within the School of Criminology, particularly among the
individual faculty members in question.
We believe that this dispute is now at an end, although some faculty continue to
look at possible changes to University policy which may alleviate such difficulties in
future.
Resources
The review committee clearly wrestled with the problem of the School of
Criminology's interests in the development of new programs in new locations.
• Specifically, the committee addressed the problem of mounting new programs and courses
at the Harbour Centre campus, the problem of integrating the Honours undergraduate
program with our other offerings and the issue of developing a legal studies program.
With respect to all of these issues, the committee sounded a note of concern about
the faculty spreading itself too thinly across a myriad of course offerings and locations;
they questioned the extent to which, with our existing resources, we could meet these new
challenges.
First, we believe that the Honours undergraduate program has been an unqualified
success, sparking strong interest among our very best baccalaureate students and
acquainting them with the task of thesis preparation and defence. In our most recent
semester, spring 1996, we had a record number of thesis defences and all faculty involved
have voiced strong support for the continuation of this program. We do not believe that
this offering detracts from our other course offerings at the graduate and undergraduate
levels; rather this program complements the existing teaching regimen.
Second, we acknowledge that the Harbour Centre campus presents us with a
?
number of difficult challenges. First, we cannot mount large undergraduate classes at this
?
site, without a considerable drop in enrollments. A close look at the demographics of our
?
undergraduate student body indicates that more than 75 per cent of our undergraduates
?
live in Burnaby or further east; they have shown during the past decade that they are not
?
S
willing to take their first and second year classes at the Harbour Centre campus.
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
Page 3 of
Accordingly, we believe that at this time teaching at the Harbour Centre campus must be
restricted to third and fourth year seminar courses specifically designed for the community
that would use the Harbour Centre location.
Finally, we note the committee's comments in relation to the legal studies program
-- specifically, its concerns that resources do not currently exist to permit the development
of this pedagogy. Further, the committee noted, quite fairly, that there is not a clear vision
yet of the specific form that a legal studies program might take. We do not want to close
the door on this option, nor on its potential to be offered from the Harbour Centre
campus, but we agree that we will not be able to move forward effectively until we can
secure additional resources, in both the realms of teaching and support staff. We note, in
this context, however, the comments of the review committee, "There my be a tradeoff
between retrenching and focusing on core activities on the one hand and creative
expansion on the others. Creative entrepreneurial activities add a level of excitement to
the School". It may be, then, that the development of a legal studies program -- or other
innovative pedogogies -- will permit the School of Criminology to continue to build upon
the tradition of excellence that we have collectively constructed.
.
S
The School of Criminology: Response to the External Review
Page 4 of
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY ?
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
COMMITTEE?
RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
January 31, 1996
1.0: ?
Introduction
The Report of the Review Committee of the Simon Fraser University School of
Criminology has been examined by the Director of Undergraduate Programmes and by
members of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. The Report has been read in
conjunction with the report of the internal review of the School's undergraduate
programmes that preceded the visit by the external reviewers, and the draft report of the
President's Committee on University Planning entitled "The Undergraduate Program at
Simon Fraser University".
2.0:
?
Response
The following comments are limited to the portions of the Report dealing with
undergraduate matters.
• 2.1: The Committee is heartened by the support expressed by the external reviewers for
the School's undergraduate programmes, and thanks the reviewers for their time,
effort, and praise.
The Report will be helpful in making the kinds of programme changes already
identified by faculty in the internal review report as important and desirable. It is
noted that in many instances the external reviewers endorsed the recommendations
of the internal report.
2.2: The Committee is concerned that many of the initiatives mentioned in the internal
review report and especially in the draft three year plan for revising undergraduate
programmes appear to have been overlooked, despite their importance as ways of
addressing the problem of balancing supply and demand in a fiscally difficult period
while simultaneously moving forward with the kinds of initiatives recommended in
the President's Committee report.
The draft three year plan, for example, sets out various ways in which curriculum
revisions will occur to eliminate overlaps, increase course offerings in key areas,
and improve the quality of teaching, without requiring further resources. These
did not appear to have been considered by the reviewers who, additionally, did not
appear to be familiar with the report of the President's Committee.
.
Page 1
. 2.3: The reviewers' comments with respect to the various programme development
initiatives currently being proposed or implemented reflected a conservative
attitude towards undergraduate programming. This was disappointing especially
since the reviewers did not appear to understand many of the initiatives, or
comprehend how they fitted with the President's Committee recommendations and
with larger University wide programming.
One example is the School's involvement with native education initiatives in
Kamloops. It is evident from the comments of the reviewers that they did not
understand how this involvement was funded or staffed but they still criticized the
initiative as something that detracted from "core programming".
A second example is the commentary about the honours programme. Questions
are raised about introducing such a programme when resources are stretched even
though the development of initiatives such as the honours programme that will
prepare students for graduate studies in their chosen field is strongly recommended
by the President's Committee.
A third example is the commentary about the proposed legal studies programme,
an initiative that has been approved in principle by the Faculty of Arts Curriculum
Committee and the Senate and that is in an advanced planning stage. This
initiative is consistent with the recommendations set out in the President's
. Committee Report (especially section 5 - diversifying the programme base) and the
Director of Undergraduate Programmes is co-chair of the Legal Studies
Programme Development Committee, a campus wide committee struck by the
Dean of
Ans.
Although the Director met with the reviewers they did not raise
questions about the legal studies programme did not meet with the Development
Committee, and did not contact the Director when their report was being
compiled, for further information.
2.4: The reviewers' message is overwhelmingly conservative: develop a "vision" (even
though they state, somewhat curiously, that the vision does not have to be stable
once it is established!); concentrate on "core programming"; and relax, there will
be students aplenty.
While this is encouraging, it is inconsistent with the recommendations in the
President's Committee report. The latter speaks to the inevitability of change,
growing challenges in tough fiscal times, the need for programming initiatives and
diversification, and the importance of continued excellence in teaching but with
limited resources. The report of the President's Committee underscores the
importance of expanding the programme base to meet the demands of additional
students and labour market demands. It is not a conservative message.
.
Page 2
3.0: ?
Conclusion
The results of the School's internal review and the recommendations of the
President's Committee on University Planning are generally consistent and reflect
support for progressive developments that will meet the changing fiscal, social and
political circumstances of British Columbia.
While the external review report was generally supportive of the School's
undergraduate programmes many of the critical comments did not appear to have
been built upon a full understanding of the way in which programme developments
fit with the recommendations of the President's Committee.
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will continue to implement the draft
three year plan for undergraduate programme revision to the extent that it is
consistent with the report of the President's Committee, while noting the concerns
expressed by the external reviewers with respect to resource limitations.
.
Page 3
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
?
GRADUATE PROGRAMMES COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO THE
?
REPORT OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
?
November 7, 1995
Here are some comments from the Graduate Programmes Committee on the
External Review's comments on the Graduate Programmes.
1.
Overall, the review of the graduate programmes was positive.
2.
There was some general agreement that we are already doing a number of things
suggested by the External Reviewers. Perhaps we did not communicate this
information to the reviewers, or perhaps some students and faculty think the
procedures are still inadequate.
• move comprehensives more toward doctoral thesis preparation
• periodic reports by students on their progress (we do this 2 X a year)
• use course work to contribute to thesis
• credits to faculty for courses on demand
3.
We need a Faculty Representative on the Library Committee.
4.
Overall, we are satisfied with the course requirements. However, we discussed
possible changes to the M.A. and Ph.D. programmes to deal with time to completion.
5.
The M.A. Programme. It might be useful to announce thesis defence dates the day the
students enter the programme. That is, all M.A. defences in a given cohort will take
place in week X of month Y, Z semesters after the students enter the programme.
This would put the onus on the student and the supervisor to ensure that students
engage in a project they can defend within the specified time. The Honours
programme is run on this model, and it is found at other universities.
6.
The M.A. Programme. We also discussed the no-thesis option, however, there was
less enthusiasm for this option.
7.
The M.A. Programme. Supervisors, together with students, should discuss deadlines
for thesis proposals and the completion of research and individual chapters. A written
plan (in the nature of a "contract" might be useful).
Graduate Programmes Committee Response to the Report of the Review Committee
Pagel of2
8.
The M.A. Programme. We asked the graduate students to consider whether they
would like to abandon the assignment of initial advisors and perhaps replace it with
"peer advisors". If we retain the assignment of initial advisors, we thought the role
should be clarified to faculty and perhaps relabelled to reflect that this initial contact is
not necessarily the thesis supervisor.
9.
The Ph.D. Programme. Perhaps we need to add presumptive guidelines for turn
around time on drafts of theses. We presently have presumptive guidelines for
comprehensives: "Normally no longer than a month should pass between the
completion of a comprehensive exam and a decision being relayed by the Examining
Committee to the student and the Director of the Graduate Programmes."
10.
The Ph.D. Programme. Given that comprehensives duplicate required courses and
that many are beginning to look like directed readings courses we might want to
rethink what we are trying to accomplish by comprehensives. Getting rid of comps
might reduce the demand on faculty.
11.
Both Programmes. We need a forum in which faculty and students can discuss their
mutual interests. This would allow for faculty and students to meet and discuss
mutual interests. Adding the occasional external speaker would broaden the seminar
series as suggested in the External Review document. A post-seminar social might
provide added benefits. We would need a physical site for these activities.
1 la One of the suggestions in the review was that we use the proseminar for such a forum.
We could open up the seminar for faculty to visit/listen to and maybe end up with
coffee/milk, cookies for an hour social after.
12.
Both Programmes. Faculty need to be more proactive in finding research money that
could be used to fund graduate student research. Both faculty and students would
benefit from these joint efforts.
13.
We are not following our earlier "frequent flyer" plan for granting teaching credits for
thesis supervision, apparently because of lack of adequate resources.
14.
The Report notes that the number of graduate students is increasing. This is not the
case. However, a growing proportion are Ph.D.'s which means we have them for
more student-years, and we have more work.
15.
We discussed the fact that graduate supervision needs to be more equally distributed,
but we did not have any concrete proposal for how to do this.
Graduate Programmes Committee Response to the Report of the Review Committee
Page 2 of 2
- s.
q c0-
D
1
54A341r 4 ct k
at
I !
) 1ed-7ry
Ot
Courses renumbered but not noted
Engineering Science(-5q
?
i)
ENSC 203
to
ENSC304
ENSC 301
to
ENSC201
ENSC 310
to
ENSC230
ENSC 321
to
ENSC325
ENSC 385
to
ENSC351
ENSC 365
to
ENSC387
ENSC 381
to
ENSC383
ENSC 435
to
ENSC481
ENSC 423
to
ENSC483
ENSC 438
to
ENSC488
ENSC 439
to
ENSC489
ENSC 474
to
ENSC424
inesio1ogy(.)
KIN 220 to
?
KIN 311
Criminology
C
CRIM 120 to CRIM 220
English
ENGL 228 to ENGL 380
ENGL 324 to ENGL 325
ENGL 326 to ENGL 327
ENGL 328 and 330 to ENGL 329
ENGL 3and 334 to ENGL 333
ENGL 344 and 348 to ENGL 347
ENGL
356
and 358 to ENGL
357
ENGL 374, 376 and 378 to ENGL 376, 377 and 378
ENGL ?
to ENGL 392 and 394
History
HIST 495 to HIST 400
Earth Sciences
(1
S
ctt,_ i-.)
EASC 408 to EASC 304
Environmental Science C
?
- ?
ENPL 200 to EVSC 200
