Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31

For Information

S.93-40

. ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC ?

MEMORANDUM

To:

Senate

From: ?

J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic

Date: ?

July 9, 1993

Subject: ?

External Review - Department of Psychology

Attached for the information of Senate is a summary of the external review of the

Department of Psychology which was carried out in April, 1992. The report and the

response of the Department were reviewed by the Senate Committee on Academic

Planning at its meeting on July 7, 1993 and the Committee approved a motion to

receive the report. The full report and the response by the Department are available

from the Secretary of Senate for senators to review.

The review team had the following membership:

Chair: ?

Dr. Terrence P. Hogan

Professor and Vice-President (Research and External Programs)

The University of Manitoba

Members: ?

Dr. Robert S. Lockhart

Professor

University of Toronto

Dr. Sandra W. Pyke

Professor and Dean of Graduate Studies

York University

Dr. Phil Winne of the Faculty of Education was the internal member of the

committee.

External Review - Department of Psychology

O ?

March, 1992

Summary

The report indicates that the Department is regarded as an important Department

both inside and outside the University. The Department's undergraduate

programs and service teaching are highly valued, and the Department is seen as a

key research unit in the University. In general terms, the review committee

noted that the size of the faculty was marginally adequate for the tasks required

of them; they also expressed concern about computing resources and the extent to

which the Department is being served by the new distributed computing strategy.

Library resources were also of concern to the review committee. The external

reviewers recommended attention to the following areas:

Undergraduate Program - the reviewers supported the Department's progress

towards increased structure of the undergraduate curriculum; they addressed the

issue of the lack of pre-requisites for many upper level courses, an initiative

which the Department has moved to address with recent curriculum changes. In

addition, the committee suggested that the Department should consider ways to

broaden the basis of teaching assessment away from reliance on student

• evaluations. Since the review, the Department's Undergraduate Studies

Committee has discussed suggestions for including external evaluations and other

measures. The Department has considered the recommendations concerning the

use of graduate students as teaching assistants and is considering the issues of

training and evaluation carefully.

Graduate Program - the reviewers commented that the recent faculty hiring has

strengthened the graduate programs and there is an uneven distribution of

graduate student supervision in the Department. Initiatives under consideration

to define specific areas of concentration within experimental psychology, such as

developmental psychology, were noted by the review committee. The

Experimental Program Committee is undertaking an examination of the structure

of the program and has developed a weekly seminar series and an e-mail forum,

in addition to planning workshops on publishing and grant writing.

Academic Staff - the recent hiring of a number of new high calibre and energetic

faculty has caused some tensions in the department. The value of all faculty

contributions needs to be clearly addressed and understood. The reviewers noted

that fewer than one third of the

senior faculty currently hold a research grant

from a major granting agency, and encouraged more faculty to seek external

research grants. Concern was also expressed about off-campus consulting and

clinical responsibilities of some members which take them away from active

Page 1

July 9, 1993

participation in departmental activities. As part of a

communication between faculty and between faculty and

committee recommended that the Department should

colloquium series.

broader concern for

graduate students, the

reinstitute a regular

Sexual Harassment and Discrimination - serious issues of sexual harassment and

discrimination arose in a graduate student survey immediately prior to the

review. At the request of the University, one of the reviewers undertook a

separate investigation and made a series of recommendations concerning

harassment and discrimination. The Department has subsequently responded by

undertaking many of the suggestions, including scheduling educational and

awareness sessions, circulating the Canadian Psychological Association's policy

statement concerning harassment, and setting up a special ad hoc committee

chaired by the University's Harassment Policy Coordinator to deal with issues.

Space - the reviewers noted the lack of common space which might encourage

interaction and communication between department members. In addition, the

committee indicated that there may have been bias in the allocation of

offices, and the Department has put in place a more representative

process for space allocation.

Departmental Governance - a new process for selecting members for

departmental committees was suggested by the reviewers and has been adopted by

the Department. The reviewers also encouraged a greater amount of information

be provided to staff and students about decisions and the reasons upon which they

are based.

Page 2 ?

July 30, 1993

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT REVIEW

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION

The following report details the results of the external review of the Department

of Psychology at Simon Fraser University. The review committee was made up

of the following:

Dr. Terrence P. Hogan,

Professor and Vice-President (Research and External Programs)

The University of Manitoba

Dr. Robert S. Lockhart,

Professor

University of Toronto

Dr. Sandra W. Pyke,

Professor and Dean of Graduate Studies

York University

•

The site visitors spent March 2-4, 1992 in the Department of Psychology. We

would like to note the cooperation we received from members of the University

• administration and the various constituencies in the Department of Psychology

during our visit. We were provided complete information about the Department;

and both individuals and groups openly and frankly shared their views of the

Department and the issues facing the Department with us. In particular, we

would like to thank Dr. Roger Blackman, Chairperson of the Department of

Psychology, for establishing our schedule and for providing us with whatever

information or aid we required during our visit.

Our information base for the review consisted of the internal self-study of the

Department, copies of the curricula vitarum of all of the academic staff in the

Department, and a variety of descriptive materials concerning the University, the

Department and its graduate programs. In addition, interviews were held by

Committee members with the majority of the Psychology Department staff either

individually or in groups, with representatives of the undergraduate and graduate

student bodies, and with both the clerical and secretarial support staff and the

technical support staff within the Department. Finally, the site visitors toured the

whole of the Department including its basic space in the academic complex, the

new space for the psychological clinic operated by the Department and the animal

research space in the animal care facility on campus. In addition, the site visitors

were given a tour of the space recently made available to Professor H. Weinberg

•

in Discovery Park, a research park adjacent to the Simon Fraser University

campus.

This report is primarily structured around certain major issues that evolved

during the site visit. Prior to our discussion of these major issues, other elements

in the "Charge to the Psychology Review Committee" that were presented to us

will be discussed more briefly under "General Comments."

I. GENERAL COMMENTS

The Psychology Department at Simon Fraser University is a large and important

department in the context of that University. The size of its staff and student

body place it amongst the largest academic departments in the University. Its

importance to the University is seen not only in its size but in the perceptions of

the Department held by other parts of the University and by the general

community. The Department was described as "one of the best" in the University

by one of the University's administrators. The Department's undergraduate

programs are both highly valued and have large enrolments. It is a primary

source of service courses to many other departments and faculties in the

University. In addition, the Department is seen as a key research unit in the

University in regard both to the grants and research contracts it receives and its

research output in terms of publications in refereed journals and presentations at

prestigious academic conferences. In general, the Department is respected both

inside and outside of the University and this respect has been earned by its

members and students. This overall positive view of the Department should be

kept in mind by readers as they examine subsequent portions of this report that

examine areas where improvements in the Department's functioning might be

achieved.

The Department's faculty as a group are competent and well-trained. The size

of the faculty, however, is at best marginally adequate to meet the needs placed

upon them. While the new staff recently added to the Department are clearly of

some help, the increase in the growth of the staff complement has lagged behind

the increase in student numbers both at the graduate and undergraduate levels.

While the issue of the relationship and integration of new staff members into the

rest of the Department will be dealt with in greater length later in the report,

there is little doubt that the competencies of the new staff as a group are clear

and have served to improve the Department. The faculty members as a whole

are meeting an immense teaching demand with hard work and dedication. As

well, research productivity and the amounts of monies being received for the

support of research externally are reasonably good. At the same time, there are

great differences between various members of the Department both in terms of

their teaching loads and, in particular, in regard to their research productivity.

While this is not totally atypical in a large department, it certainly is a problem

that was brought to our attention with some frequency.

The administrative, secretarial and technical support staff complement is in the

average to above-average range when compared to departments in other

comparable institutions. While some individuals remarked to us about the lack

of certain types of expertise in the current support staff, there generally was

praise for the support staff and for the contributions being made by all of the

support staff groups to the development of the Department.

The relationships of the Department of Psychology with individuals and groups

both within Simon Fraser University and outside of the University appear to be

quite good. Members of the Department appear to be doing their fair share in

regard to University service and governance and, as well, members of the

Department appear to be valued as scholars and as professionals by members of

the greater Vancouver community.

A number of comments were made to us concerning the adequacy both of the

library and of the computing resources in the University. Both of these key areas

of academic support received criticism from academic staff, undergraduate and

graduate students, and, to a lesser degree, support staff. The Department itself

is reasonably well-served in terms of numbers of personal computers. There is

some question, however, about how well the Department is being served by the

new distributed computing strategy of the University administration. We

certainly received complaints about network adequacy, the lack of access to

mainframe computing and the incompatibility of computer systems both within

the Department and in the Department's interaction with the University

computing environment. While the site visitors believe that some of these

complaints are due to the implementation of the change-over in computing

environments in the University, some of them are also more basic and likely

should be examined in discussions between the Department and the central

authorities.

The library also was a source of concern to many people, in particular, graduate

students. This is touched on later in the section of the report concerning graduate

programs but should be noted in a general sense as well. The perception of most

of the students to whom we talked as well as several of the faculty is that the

Simon Fraser library does not meet the needs of psychological researchers to any

reasonable extent. This affects not only those individuals with active research

programs (in fact, it may affect them less than others as their operating grants

may serve as a cushion) but is a particular problem for graduate students and

senior undergraduates, such as those in the honours program. Most people

viewed the library at the University of British Columbia as the "real" library that

serves their needs. While this might be acceptable if UBC were handier to SPU,

it is not. Hence, students and staff are faced either with a lengthy commute to

the UBC campus or to inter-library loan which while effective puts a time lag into

accessing most library materials. There were particular vexations noted by

students in regard to how materials can be obtained from the UBC library and

how they are to be returned. If the UBC library is to continue to be a major

source of research materials, more efficient methods of transporting materials

have to be developed to serve the SFU student body. While not currently at a

crisis point, the University needs to consider carefully how well the library and

the computing centre are serving graduate students and active researchers. It is

dear that a number of serious problems currently exist in both of these areas.

UNDERGRADUATE MATTERS

Psychology at SPU suffers from the problem of large undergraduate enrolments

as do most psychology departments in North America. Also common is the fact

that many of these enrolments are students whose specialty is something other

than psychology. At SF0, for example, 50% of upper level enrolments are non-

psychology students. We heard some complaints from undergraduates majors of

being unable to get into seminar courses, with preference sometimes being given

to non-psychology students. Although these problems are common to psychology

departments, two circumstances at SF11 make the situation more difficult than at

most universities.

1. The Tutorial System

This admirable system is an integral part of the founding philosophy (and

even the architecture) of Simon Fraser and we are certainly not about to

suggest its abandonment. It is a system, however, that is acutely sensitive to

enrolment pressures and thus poses special problems for the SF0 Psychology

Department. Under these circumstances, there is a cost to such a system

beyond the obvious ones of money and space.

There is a cost to the graduate program. As mentioned elsewhere, the need

for teaching assistantships to support the undergraduate tutorial system has

a strong steering effect on the graduate program. TAs provide a means of

financial support for graduate students that seems to have helped undermine

the motivation to provide graduate students with Research Assistantships.

Experience in undergraduate teaching is a desirable part of graduate training

but at SFU it would appear to occupy more graduate student time than is

optimal.

The heavy reliance on graduate students as TAs creates certain difficulties for

undergraduate teaching itself. There are problems of unevenness in the

aptitude, experience, and motivation of graduate student TAs, a problem that

is especially apparent in laboratory classes and large courses with many TAs

operating in parallel. In some cases, training TAs is time-consuming for

instructors. In general, the training of TAs is a problem that warrants

attention. Some undergraduates felt that too much responsibility is sometimes

given to TAs, especially in matters of grading.

enrolment. Neither of the latter solutions seems realistic in the near future.

The Lack of Pre-requisites in Many Upper Level Courses

This situation in conjunction with the unilateral restrictions imposed by some

programs (Criminology was the one most frequently mentioned) results in

what has been termed an "underfiow." The underflow consists of students

who have been excluded from their program of choice because of their low

academic standing and who enrol in Psychology courses often in the hope that

by so doing they will be able to improve their grades and then be readmitted

to their preferred program. This strategy is possible because Psychology has

no corresponding restriction, and because its upper level courses have few

pre-requisites. Not only are classes thereby overcrowded, the underflow

represents students who presumably have lower grade point averages and are

typically less committed to the discipline.

The Issue of Undergraduate Course Pre-requisites

A partial solution to this problem advocated by some is to impose tighter pre-

requisites on 300-level and 400-level courses. The question of pre-requisites,

however, raises deeper issues than that of controlling class sizes. Controlling

enrolments by the use of pre-requisites in the absence of a sound pedagogical

rationale is a questionable practice. In fact, differences of opinion within the

department on the question of pre-requisites have less to do with class size

than with different views about the goals of undergraduate education. The

core issue concerns the relationship between undergraduate teaching and

research.

The question of course pre-requisites and program structure is a source of

tension within the department. SF0 has a tradition of placing a strong

emphasis on teaching. Some members of the department feel that this

emphasis on teaching is threatened by new faculty who are seen as wanting

to shift the balance away from teaching and onto research. On the other side,

we heard expressed the view that too much of the undergraduate teaching at

SF0 follows a 'junior college" model rather than presenting psychology as a

rigorous research-based scientific discipline.

The distinction between teaching and research can never be a sharp one.

There is some justification for the claim that at the university level, high

quality teaching presupposes the teacher's active involvement in research and

that the lack of such an involvement communicates itself to students in a

perceived lack of commitment to, and enthusiasm for, the subject matter. On

the other hand, students also complain about the attitude of instructors for

whom teaching seems to be an unwelcome intrusion into their research

activities. We heard expressions of both these sentiments, the former mainly

from graduate students, the latter from undergraduates.

In analyzing this problem, it is important to distinguish two aspects. The first

concerns the relative weighting of excellence in teaching versus research

achievement in matters such as annual salary increments, tenure, and

promotions. This does not seem to be the main issue; we found general

agreement that undergraduate teaching is important and we did not hear the

view that an increased emphasis on research was to be achieved at the

expense of down-playing the role of undergraduate teaching. The critical

issue concerns the matter of course content and the closely related matter of

what kind of teaching will count as excellent. That is, the debate seems not

to be over the importance of undergraduate teaching as such, but rather over

what style of teaching should be valued, what kind of courses should be

offered, and the degree of structure that the undergraduate curriculum should

have. In its crudest form, this issue pits a "general education" or "liberal arts"

model of the undergraduate curriculum against one that is more tightly

structured and more oriented towards research and research training.

Some members of the department feel satisfied with things as they stand,

apart perhaps from some minor adjustments. Others feel that the

undergraduate curriculum is too "junior college" in its orientation and that the

style of teaching most rewarded is whatever proves entertaining among

undergraduates. On the other side, the view was expressed that the

curriculum and teaching methods should not be overly weighted towards the

very small minority of students who plan to go on to graduate school.

These issues are the subject of current discussion within the SFU department

and progress towards their resolution is being made, although perhaps less

quickly than some would like. Any solution requires a distinction between

the needs of the three groups of undergraduates that enrol in psychology

courses: non-majors, majors who are not honours students and, of course,

honours students.

In serving the needs of non-majors within the context of the Faculty of Arts

curriculum, Psychology has a responsibility to offer courses that will add

breadth to the education of students from other programs. It is reasonable

that such courses should have few pre-requisites. The 100-level "issues"

course is a good example of a general interest course, but clearly there might

be a selection of upper level courses as well. More controversial are course

requirements for majors who are not honours students. How research-

oriented should their curriculum be? In contrast, it is relatively non-

controversial that honours students, typically aiming at graduate school

admission, should have a program with a strong methodological and research

orientation. Majors are unlikely to go on to do graduate work. But many

faculty members seem to hold the view that although they may not continue

into graduate' work, these students have chosen psychology as their area of

specialization and that a strong case exists for a program with a more

hierarchical structure through more course pre-requisites. A reasonable

supporting argument is that although most majors may never conduct

research, they should have a firm grounding in the methodological skills

needed to evaluate research and to appreciate the nature of psychology as a

scientific discipline.

In sum, it is essential to recognize the legitimacy of the diversity represented

by the interests of three groups. One suggestion is that the Department

explore ways of introducing increased structure into parts of the

undergraduate program through greater "streaming" of the undergraduate

curriculum. By streaming, we mean courses and course sequences designated

for each of the three groups. Whereas there may be some (perhaps

considerable) overlap of courses available to the three groups, the overlap

would not be complete. The educational needs of the non-specialist must be

recognized in courses with appropriate content and few pre-requisites. But

psychology majors, even those who do not plan to enter graduate school,

should receive training in the basic research methodologies of the discipline

in which they have chosen to specialize, and it seems reasonable for upper

level courses for such students to require such training as pre-requisites.

4. Teaching Assessments

Several of the recently appointed faculty expressed dissatisfaction over the

way in which teaching is assessed, particularly over the fact that teaching

evaluations are based almost exclusively on undergraduate ratings. It was felt

by some faculty members that such ratings often reflect little more than

the influence of factors such as the generosity of the instructor in grading.

Some also felt that insufficient weight was given to the amount and quality of

research supervision in directed study courses and the like. Consideration

should be given to ways of broadening the basis of teaching assessment.

III. GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PSYCHOLOGY

The graduate program in the Department of Psychology is bifurcated into two

quite different programs (reminiscent of the traditional schism between clinical

and experimental psychology), each with its own set of concerns.

1. Quality

A number of recent hires in the department have strengthened the faculty

complement considerably and have contributed to further enhancement of the

quality of both the experimental and clinical graduate programs. In addition

to faculty resources, another index of graduate program quality is the time

taken for students to complete their graduate degree requirements. Although

masters students in psychology have a shorter average time to completion

than most masters programs in the University, 2.7 years (8.2 semesters, Table

5.1 of the Internal Report) is not exceptionally fast. The average time taken

to complete the doctoral program at 5.7 years (17.1 semesters, Table 5.2 of the

Internal Report) is quite comparable to the average for psychology doctoral

students in the Ontario university system. Yet another measure of quality is

the assessment of external examiners of the dissertations produced by the

students in the program. The Dean of Graduate Studies observed that the

comments of external examiners are almost uniformly laudatory.

As a consequence of various improvements over the past few years, there is

now a very consistent and clear perception, both within the program and

beyond, that the clinical program is of high quality. Contributing to or

supporting this perception is the fact that, given the very large applicant pool,

the program can be highly selective in admitting candidates and once

admitted, the number of students completing the program is reasonably good

(low attrition rate). Also contributing to this positive perception is the success

of the program in achieving accreditation from both the Canadian

Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association.

Further, the recent creation of the Clinical Psychology Centre is seen as a

enormous boon to the program.

In contrast, the experimental program is considered to be weaker, in part as

a consequence of: 1) attracting a smaller number of outstanding applicants;

2) its heterogenous (apparently less structured) character; 3) longer time taken

by students to complete all degree requirements; and 4) the small number of

graduands obtaining tenure track positions. The differential popularity of

clinical versus other areas of psychological specialization is not peculiar to

Simon Fraser and should not in and of itself be viewed as a consequence of

quality differences. In addition, the average GRE scores (Advanced form) of

admitted students reveal that the experimental and clinical students are more

or less equivalent on this measure (Internal Report). With respect to structure

(point 2 above), there is some interest among members of the experimental

program in developing more clearly defined areas of concentration or fields

or foci under the experimental umbrella, or perhaps creating new free-

standing programs equivalent to the clinical program (eg., a developmental

program). Impediments to such an initiative are difficult to identify but there

seems to be an assumption that a critical mass of interlocking faculty research

interests is an essential prerequisite. Certainly there is sufficient faculty

strength to sustain a graduate program in developmental psychology and this

would appear to be an appropriate initiative to pursue. No doubt additional

applications from good quality candidates would be attracted were

developmental psychology to be identified as a separate and distinct graduate

program on a par with the experimental and clinical programs.

2. Load

Sizeable differences between the clinical and experimental programs exist with

respect to work load, for both faculty and students. The clinical program has

imposed a significantly greater number of requirements on students. If the

calendar description is accurate, it appears that clinical masters students in the

two years of the masters program, must complete 16 courses in addition to the

thesis. By contrast, experimental masters students must complete 6 courses

plus a thesis. This differential extends into the doctoral program as well.

Although the clinical students were well aware of this differential and

regarded their work loads as extremely heavy, there did not seem to be any

strong desire to reduce requirements. And, if requirements were restricted in

some way, this might impact negatively on accreditation renewal.

Contributing to the heavy work load is the program decision to require

doctoral candidates coming into the program with masters degrees from other

universities, to complete masters level courses in addition to the regular

doctoral requirements. This suggests that the program has reservations about

the merits or quality or appropriateness of masters level training in

psychology as provided in other universities. Given this orientation in

combination with the design of the clinical program as a relatively seamless

progression from the undergraduate degree to the Ph.D., it may be preferable

to restrict admission of external candidates to the masters level.

Clinical faculty are clearly stretched given the necessity for servicing the

myriad graduate courses and the supervisory responsibilities for a significantly

larger student complement for both thesis/ dissertation research and clinical

case work. Fewer than a third of the faculty have responsibility for about 60%

of the students. Interestingly, reducing enrolment or limiting the number of

supervisees held little appeal to faculty. Rather, implementation of some form

of teaching credit for supervisory activities was seen as a way of responding

to the heavy demands. Nevertheless, there are great inequities in numbers of

students supervised with some faculty supervising as many as 10 or 12

students while others supervise none or one. Understandably, there is

reluctance to admit experimental students into clinical courses and this is a

bone of contention for some of the students.

3. Financial Support

It is difficult to determine, from the data provided, the average amount of

financial support allocated or available to the graduate students. It is not clear

whether any students are unfunded although given the number of teaching

assistantships available, this would seem to be unlikely. As is the case for

most if not all graduate programs in psychology, the principal source of

internal support is via teaching assistantships. The stipends described appear

to be roughly comparable to what is allocated for teaching assistantships in

the Ontario university system. Detailed information permitting comparisons

on funding variables in graduate psychology programs across the country are

not available, however, the funding described in the Internal Report appears

to be appropriate and students did not complain about inadequate levels of

support.

4. Comprehensives

10 ?

•

Another area of difference between the two graduate programs concerns the

design of comprehensives. Among clinical students, comprehensives are a

source of considerable anxiety. They perceive inequities here both across the

programs and within the clinical program itself.

5. Supervisors/Supervision

Assignment/selection of supervisors is perceived as problematic by some

students. A few students have experienced difficulties in arranging a

supervisor switch and hence other students are reluctant to attempt a change

even when current arrangements are unsatisfactory. Students must be

reassured that assigned supervisors are truly temporary and that students

have the right and are encouraged to establish the most appropriate

supervisory relationships possible within the constraints of research interest,

faculty availability and the like.

Inequities in supervisory load and the absence of a formal system for some

form of recognition of supervisory responsibilities in the teaching load

computation have been alluded to earlier. Faculty also note a failure to

include supervision responsibilities (and to evaluate individual supervision

practices) in considerations of salary adjustment, merit assessment, and so on.

Students and some faculty report a lack of commitment to the supervisory

process on the part of some professors who are rarely on campus and/or who

are unavailable during the summer. Some of these difficulties might be

ameliorated through the development and adoption of supervision guidelines

which would define in general terms, at least minimal expectations for both

students and faculty. This is a project which may be pursued at the national

level by the Canadian Association of Graduate Schools.

In the past,

all

supervisory committees for doctoral students included an

expert on statistical design and analysis. Although the rationale for this

regulation is very sensible and persuasive, the department simply does not

have the requisite faculty resources to sustain it given the size of the graduate

program. As noted in the Internal Report, regulations have been changed in

an effort to correct this major workload imbalance.

Communication

spite of the wealth of orientation materials provided to students, they

complain that communication on a number of issues is "opaque." To illustrate,

they regard the process of assigning ranks for scholarship purposes as quite

allowed to see their scores on the comprehensives. And, some students report

that often parts of meetings are held in camera and although the students are

legitimate members of the committee in question, they are not allowed to

•

remain for the discussion nor are they informed of the decisions made at the

meetings.

It is important that the faculty meet with the students and clarify these

matters. A sufficient level of detail in written materials must be provided so

that potential sources of ambiguity are eliminated. In the case of in camera

meetings, perhaps, as a minimum, the agenda items could be identified. In

this regard, the Committee was pleased to note plans for revision of the

graduate program brochure which is out-of-date.

IV. ACADEMIC STAFF

1. Appointments -- New and Old

The Psychology Department has made eight (nine if R. Mistiberger is

included) new appointments in the past four years. All these new appointees

are of the highest calibre and are energetic researchers who will greatly.

strengthen the research reputation of the Department. SFU is to be.

•

congratulated on what has clearly been a highly successful period of faculty

recruitment. The creation of so many new positions in so short a time has,

• however, created something of a "generation gap" in the Department.

Although many departments across Canada suffer from a similar generation

gap created by low levels of hiring over the period that spans the late 1970s.

through the 1980s, the SFLJ Psychology Department presents something of an

extreme case. The median year of appointment of the 25 faculty, excluding

those recently hired, is 1973. Apart from the recent hirings, only four

appointments had been made since 1977. The situation at SPU is not without

its problems. In our discussion with faculty and graduate students, we were

repeatedly made aware of a number of sources of tension between the recently

hired faculty and those of longer standing.

The tension has several dimensions but its major source is the perception on

the part of recent appointees that the entrenched tradition of the Department

is one that undervalues research. As the major source of evidence, they point

to what they consider to be a lack of research activity among many of the

more senior faculty. There are, of course, many notable exceptions to this

generalization. But, that said, it is possible to point to symptoms (of which

recently hired faculty seem to be acutely aware) that support the perception.

The record of promotion is unimpressive: only 10 of the 21 faculty appointed

15 years ago or more have the rank of full professor. Several faculty members

. pointed out that very few Ph.D. graduates over the past decade or so have

obtained academic appointments. A further point is the relatively low rate of

external grant support, a matter discussed at greater length later in the report.

A question we asked ourselves as site visitors was why this situation was the

energetic researchers, but their fate is usually to be ignored rather than

becoming a focus of tension. Furthermore, it should be noted that the above

points notwithstanding, most faculty have a considerable involvement in some

form of research. Nor is it the case that the energy and ambitions of the

younger faculty are unappreciated. We heard many senior faculty express the

view that they welcomed the influx of new appointees and the energetic

research orientation they have brought to the Department, even if, as one

person observed, the Department might as a consequence be "a less gentle

place."

The answer to our question would seem to lie in several points. There is the

perception that it is the relatively inactive researchers who also hold much of

the power and who have the greatest investment in the status quo. A second

issue is that of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, a matter that is

clearly of deep concern to the younger faculty. There is also the perception

that the undervaluing of research is reflected in the undergraduate program

curriculum and in the basis on which teaching is evaluated. This matter is

also discussed elsewhere. But perhaps the chief source of the intensity of

feelings was the perception that the reward structure within the Department

does not reflect research achievement. Annual salary step-increases, allocation

of resources such as summer challenge research studentships, and other forms

of internal research support are seen as being allocated in a way that does not

reflect, and therefore, does not reward research achievement. Put bluntly, the

view expressed on several occasions was that in terms of these rewards "it

doesn't matter whether you do research or not; there are no real consequences

of not doing research or of never being on campus."

As a review panel, we do not have the data necessary to evaluate the details

of this claim. But regardless of whether the perception is valid or an

exaggeration based on a few atypical isolated instances, the perception that

excellence in research is not rewarded in itself is an important reality and

constitutes a problem that needs urgent attention.

2. Other Matters Pertaining to Research Activity

Research Grants

Fewer than one-third of the 25 senior faculty currently hold a research grant

from a major granting agency. Some faculty are able to conduct publishable

research without the benefit of such grants, although the resulting publications

tend not to be in the major mainstream refereed journals. Internal means of

support for research is an enviable resource, often allowing a researcher to

pursue lines of research that are unfashionable or high-risk. Indeed, a number

of senior faculty expressed their appreciation of the fact that SPU allowed

them to pursue their own line of enquiry without undue external pressure.

• Over-reliance on internal support, however, is not without risk. Not the least

is that internal support is likely to be less available in the future than it has

been in the past. More important, application for research grants to major

agencies such as NSERC or SSHRC exposes both the research proposal and the

applicant's publication record to the scrutiny of a broader peer review than is

typically the case with internally allocated funds. Although there must always

be allowance for individual cases and special circumstances, especially for new

faculty, a good argument can be made for a policy that links internal awards

to the parallel application for external funds. It is disheartening to those who

work to obtain outside funds if they see internal resources being allocated to

colleagues who have made no such effort.

A further aspect concerning external grant support relates to the support of

graduate students. In most departments, grant funds are a major (often

major) source of support for graduate students. At Simon Fraser the use of

undergraduate RAs seem more common. This strategy is economical and

undoubtedly beneficial to undergraduates but it forces graduate students to.

seek income from sources unrelated to research and this in turn extends the

time necessary to complete the degree.

Post-doctoral Fellows

The research atmosphere in many departments is strengthened by the ability

of its senior members to attract and support Post-doctoral Fellows and

Research Associates, usually in conjunction with a major grant. The Simon,.

Fraser Department would seem to have few researchers in these categories.

Colloquia

A weakness in the intellectual life of the SFU department is the absence of a

regular department colloquium series. Some faculty members we asked

attributed the failure of past efforts to hold regular colloquia to a lack of

interest reflected in poor attendance. We recommend that serious

consideration be given to the possibility of re-instituting a regular colloquium

series. Given the limited funds available, such a series may have only

occasional outside speakers (perhaps arranged in coordination with UBC), but

if intra-departmental "in-house" speakers from other Simon Fraser

Departments and from UBC were used, it could result in a successful weekly

colloquium. A key to the success of such a series is that (a) it become a

regular part of people's schedules and (b) that it successfully serve the social

function of bringing together faculty and students (especially graduate

students and honours undergraduates). It seems likely that many of the intra-

departmental tensions, so apparent in our discussions with faculty and

students, are exacerbated by the lack of a regular opportunity for research-

focused departmental meetings. On this matter, the question of departmental

space, discussed elsewhere in this report, becomes relevant. Departmental

retreats have served a useful purpose but they are infrequent and can do little

to foster understanding and mutual respect among faculty members for each

other's research interests.

Off-Campus Activities

A serious concern was expressed both by a number of faculty and graduate

students about the physical availability of a small number of senior faculty in

the Department on campus. Essentially the concern is that some faculty

members are not "pulling their weight" in Department activities and in their

personal scholarly and research careers. Two scenarios were posited by

individuals who talked to the site visitors. The first is that these faculty have

essentially pre-retired from their positions; hence, they are now fulfilling only

their basic teaching requirements and are doing relatively little else as

members of the Department. The second was a focus on individuals who are

spending large amounts of time away from campus either consulting or doing

clinical work. In either situation, the faculty members involved are relatively

unavailable to students and, as well, have external interests that dominate

their professional and personal lives and which are in dear competition with

the University for the faculty members' time, attention and professional

responsibilities.

The site visitors do not believe that it is their role either to make judgements

about individual faculty members or to deal with significant personnel issues.

At the same time, we would like to underline the fact that these concerns are

held fairly widely amongst the group with whom we talked and in our view

this is an issue which should be examined by responsible individuals within

the Department. We also view a homogeneous model for a faculty member's

workload as unrealistic. Some faculty members will put more time on

teaching than they do on research and vice versa. We do believe strongly,

however, that full-time faculty members should be serving the Department

and the University on a full-time basis even though the balance of activities

might vary from one person to the other. At the same time, we believe it is

appropriate and often academically helpful for individuals to use their

professional and scientific expertise in serving the community and recognize

that this type of service is often done for remuneration. We would note again,

however, that full-time faculty members owe the bulk of their professional

time to the University and that the University should not be seen as a

supplementary activity for those individuals holding full-time appointments.

V. SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION

A survey conducted by the graduate student caucus included two questions

dealing with sexual harassment. Of the 100 students in the program, 50

completed and returned the questionnaire. Approximately 25% of the

respondents (12 or 13 students) reported experiencing some form of sexual

discrimination or sexual harassment. It seems likely that the proportion of

students exposed to sexually harassing experiences is an underestimate given the

high level of anxiety about the consequences of disclosure. Indeed, some students

commented verbally that they did not respond to these questions for fear of being

identified and subjected to subsequent reprisals. Additionally, some students

may have failed to respond to these items because of a sense that such reporting

would not yield any positive outcome—i.e., the problem is perceived as

intractable. In any event, as described in the summary report of the survey

results, the types of harassing behaviours observed or experienced included:

"faculty telling sexist jokes in classes;" "suggestive and inappropriate sexual

comments" from supervisors; "sexual pursuit of students;" and "personal and

inappropriate comments regarding appearance."

Although the graduate student survey questionnaire did not specifically probe for

instances of sex-based discrimination, it seems clear from the responses in general

•

that there is a perception that faculty members are more supportive of male than

female students (especially in the area of future career opportunities). There is

• also a sense that there is a lack of recognition and/or understanding about

differential commitments and concerns (eg., the significance of family issues for

women students).

At a meeting with a small number of honours students, we specifically asked

about the students' experience or perception of so-called "chilly climate" factors

in the context of their undergraduate program participation. ("Chilly climate"

factors are those aspects or characteristics of the academic environment which

tend to marginalize or alienate women such as, ignoring women in the classroom,

expression of stereotypes or demeaning attitudes toward women, use of sexist

language, etc.) Although some examples were provided, the students did not see

this as a big issue, regarding SFU as no better or worse than any other academic

institution.

Women faculty clearly recognized the difficulty of unequivocally labelling or

identifying any given behaviour as sexist or discriminatory. Nevertheless, the

number and nature of many of the incidents described support a conclusion that

women professors are indeed both harassed and discriminated against. Women

faculty observe or report one or more instances of: salary anomalies; sex

differential in research start-up funds for new faculty; priority given to male

colleagues in the assignment of available laboratory space; contributions or input ?

at meetings ignored; support of male faculty in male/female disputes; the

awarding of internal grants; favouritism of male faculty toward attractive female

students; anecdotal accounts that feminist/women's studies content is not well-

received; and with the exception of a very recent exception, no women faculty are

full professors. Some of the younger male faculty members were in full

agreement with their female counterparts that sexist behaviour was not

uncommon in the Department.

The observation of sexist and harassing behaviour and the experience of

discrimination, in combination with other factors, have seriously eroded the trust

and confidence of the younger faculty in the operation and governance of the

department. Deprivation (eg., lack of research space) is sure to breed discontent

but if discrimination is seen as a factor contributing to the deprivation, the effect

is much more intense.

Individual faculty reactions and/or the stance of individual faculty on these issues

varies considerably. There are the faculty who claim personal experience of

gender discrimination and there are those who support these claims although not

themselves recipients of or parties to discrimination. Other faculty appear to be

completely nonplussed by the charges of sexual discrimination. In the case of

some of those alleged to have behaved in a discriminatory fashion, it is clear that

they view themselves as both unbiased and sensitive /responsive to women's

issues. Still others, especially some of the more senior women faculty, are well

aware of the "chilly climate" characteristics but are resigned and/or accepting

and/or tolerant, in part because they have a longer time perspective and

recognize the significant improvements in the status of women students and

faculty that have occurred over the years (e.g., implementation of employment

equity policies). In times past, concerns about sex-based discrimination and

sexual harassment would have been dismissed out-of-hand. The seriousness with

which the student survey results were treated was noted as a case in point. Some

faculty are reluctant to apply the sexual harassment label to incidents and

behaviours involving adults even when one of the adults is a student. Given an

Ombudsperson as well as a Sexual Harassment Office at the University, some

faculty have assumed that any difficulties in these areas would be and are

handled elsewhere (a perception which appears to be inaccurate). Finally, there

seems to be a category of faculty (which includes both women and men) who

appear to lack even a modest appreciation of the issues. They can't understand

what all the fuss is about. One male faculty member, who observed that he could

see no evidence in the Department of any "chilly climate" features, went on to

comment, 'Women are so ready to become victims."

In general, there would seem to be sufficient evidence that both sexual

harassment and gender discrimination are not rate events in the Psychology

Department. There is a clear sense at least among more junior faculty that

women don't get a fair shake and among the graduate students that although

discrimination and harassment have been debilitating, disclosure will produce not

resolution or respite but rather retribution and reprisal.

There is obviously a need at the faculty level for the introduction of some form

• of educational program on these issues. Further, a University, Faculty of Arts,

Graduate Studies, and Department public statement on the importance of

maintaining professional relationships between faculty and their students and the

absolute unacceptability of other forms of relationships might help to protect

future students from harassing experiences. Finally, special sessions should be

held with the students to inform them of the options /services available through

the Harassment Office and elsewhere and to provide them with a repertoire of

coping strategies and behavioral alternatives designed to enhance their ability to

deal with these situations in less damaging ways.

VI. SPACE

The Committee was told on several occasions during its site visit of the problems

the Department of Psychology has with the amount and quality of space available

to it. The space needs for the Department as explained to us were for research

space, particularly for new faculty members, social space for graduate students -

and for the Department as a whole, and for conference room facilities. The site

visitors are in substantial agreement with the notion that additional space is

•

required for the Department. At the same time, the site visitors were impressed

by the amount of space and the quality of the space already available to

• Department members and the new space that has come on stream within the last-

couple of years to the Department (for example, the space available to animal

researchers in the animal holding facility, the new clinic, and the space being:

rented for activities in the Discovery Park). As well, there was some evidence in,

our minds of a dysfunctional distribution of space in the Department, some of

which is not due to the Department but rather is related to the tutorial instruction

program at the undergraduate level.

In discussing space with a number of individuals, a strong desire and high

priority was given to obtaining space that was contiguous to the current space

under the control of the Department. In our view, the contiguity of space

holdings is desirable if it is possible. If non-contiguous space, however, is more

readily available we would urge the Department to give this possibility (as it has

in regard to animal and clinical space) its fullest consideration.

In the opinion of the site visitors, the need for an improved social and working

climate in the Department should take a priority at this time over other space

needs. In our view,

is vital that Department members and graduate students

have space available to them in a lounge or a similar environment for the

informal contacts that are so vital to professional and scientific discussions

amongst colleagues. A number of faculty members told us that they use the

Diamond Club for social space. We would only note that the environment of the

• ?

Diamond Club could prove intimidating for some graduate students even if those

students could afford to become members when living on a graduate student

sorely needed. The socialization of the Department is clearly being negatively

affected by space constraints. For many staff and students the inavailabiity of

space where they can visit informally with other students or with colleagues is

a real detriment to both the education of students and the intellectual

fermentation necessary for research to progress.

We recommend that the University administration give a high priority to

allocating increased space to the Department of Psychology. In our view, the

Department should consider giving precedence to lounge and conference space

in their considerations of the allocation of space within the

Department.

VII. DEPARTMENT GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

A significant

number of concerns were noted by faculty members and students

concerning the governance and administration of the Department. Most of these

concerns were focused either on the degree of democratization of the Department

and its procedures or on the "opaqueness" of a number of Departmental practices,

procedures and decision-making processes.

The democratization issue largely focused on the fact that Departmental

Department as a whole or by the membership of the committee. The general

feeling of most of the staff and students who discussed this issue was that

committee chairs and other similar positions should result from an electoral

process rather than a selection process by the head. We would note in this regard

that most of the input we received addressed the process of selection rather than

the qualities of current or past committee chairs.

The "opaqueness" of practices and procedures essentially addressed the problem

of access to information about how decisions are made. Examples that were

brought to the attention of the site visitors included the hiring of sessional or

part-time staff (how are they selected, using what criteria, with what sort of

consultation), the determination of salaries for new staff (the concern being that

of equity), the prioritization of research space, etc. Again, the concerns that were

expressed did not always touch on the outcome of the decision process but rather

on the openness of the environment in which the decision was made.

The site visitors recommend that the Department consider a greater

democratization of its internal governance system, and, as well, the provision of

as much information as is practicable to staff and student representatives on how

decisions are made in the Department and why one process versus another is

used by the Department administration in making these decisions.

Submitted by:

Dr. Terrence P. Hogan, Chairperson

Dr. Robert S. Lockhart

Dr. Sandra W. Pyke

April 29, 1992

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

RESPONSE TO EXTERNAL REVIEW

GENERAL

1.1 In the prefatory section of their report, the external 

reviewers paint a broadly positive picture of the Psychology 

Department: 

"...The 

Department's 

undergraduate

programs are highly 

valued 

and

have large enrolments. It is a primary source of 

service courses to many other departments 

and

faculties in 

the University. In 

addition,

the Department is seen as a 

key research unit in the University in regard both to the 

grants 

and

research contracts it receives and its research 

output in terms of 

publications

in refereed journals and 

presentations at prestigious academic conferences. In 

general, the Department is respected 

both inside and outside

the

University, 

and

this respect has been earned by its 

members 

and students" (p.2).

The external review team did have some concerns about our 

programs, policies and practices, which they addressed in 

the remainder of their 19-page report. These concerns were 

only occasionally accompanied by suggestions for 

improvement; no "recommendations," as such, were offered. 

The Psychology Department offers the following responses to 

the reviewers' concerns and suggestions. 

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM

2.1

The problems with our undergraduate program identified 

by the external reviewers reflect in large part the openness 

of much of our curriculum. These problems include: 

"underflow" students who fail to meet the requirements 

of other programs; 

overcrowded courses; 

absence of streaming and prerequisites; 

inaccessibility of seminar courses to majors. 

1

2.2

As acknowledged by the external reviewers, the 

Psychology Department had identified these problems prior to 

the external review, and was in the processes of adopting 

measures to redress them. Such measures, and more, have now 

been approved by Senate for implementation in 93-3. We have 

revised our undergraduate curriculum in ways designed to: 

create a more coherent course sequence that reflects 

the cumulative nature of knowledge in psychology; 

offer a representative set of courses that introduce 

the main areas of psychology to majors and non-majors; 

constrain the "underflow" problem; 

decrease the size of 300-level courses; 

increase the sophistication of students in 300-level 

courses; 

give upper-division priority access to psychology 

majors (or students willing to fulfill the requirements 

of at least a minor); 

rationalize our community college transfer credit 

system. 

More specifically, PSYC 201 (Research Methods in Psychology) 

is now a prerequisite for all. 300-level courses. Five new 

200-level courses have been created, most transferred from 

the 300-level - (PSYC 221: Cognitive; PSYC 241: Abnormal; 

PSYC 250: Child; PSYC 260: Social; and PSYC 270: 

Personality). These, with our two Introductory Psychology 

courses, will provide the prerequisites for corresponding 

upper-level courses. We have added a breadth requirement: 

majors must complete one of PSYC 221, 280, and one of PSYC 

241, 250, 260, 270, plus 30 credit hours of upper division 

courses, including PSYC 307 or 308 (this is over and above 

the requirement of PSYC 100, 102, 201 and 210). 

2.3 The external reviewers commented on the varying views 

of faculty members on curriculum philosophy. Such divisions 

exist in all psychology departments; we believe that they 

are no more extreme in ours. Indeed, as a measure of 

consensus, 23/33 faculty surveyed after the curriculum 

changes responded positively to the statement "the proposed 

revisions will solve most problems" (in the undergraduate 

program); another five were neutral. 

2

2.4 A 

number of concerns about the tutorial system were 

expressed by the reviewers: 

the amount of time graduate students spend on TA work; 

reported unevenness in the quality of TA performance; 

the amount of responsibility given, to TAs, especially 

in grading; 

TA training. 

In response to these concerns, the departmental 

Undergraduate Studies Committee (UGSC) is (a) preparing a 

survey that will assess student satisfaction with their 

tutorial experience, (b) examining graduate student TA 

records, and (c) discussing ways of improving the tutorial 

system. Among the suggestions the UGSC are considering are 

the following: 

a system should be developed to offer training for TA5 

before and during their first tutorials; 

all graduate students who receive poor TA evaluations 

should be required to take remedial training before 

they are assigned additional TAships; 

a teacher-training course should be offered for 

graduate students. 

2.5

The final set of problems relates to the assessment of 

faculty teaching, in particular an over-reliance on student 

evaluations. The UGSC is discussing the following 

suggestions with regard to these concerns: 

a survey of 4th-year undergraduate students regarding 

their needs and experiences; 

additional bases for evaluating teaching: external 

evaluations; evaluations of course materials; evidence 

of updating; information from TA5 and graduate student 

supervisees; records of meetings with TA5 and graduate 

students; and evidence of efforts to improve teaching. 

3

3. GRADUATE PROGRAM

Experimental 

3.1 We agree 

Program; 

with the 

it

reviewers' 

is not as 

comments 

strong as 

on

we

the

would 

?

like, 

and over the past few semesters we have taken a number of 

steps to improve it. We have strengthened our recruitment 

efforts to admit more and better experimental students, both 

through the publication of an updated and more informative 

Graduate Program Brochure (this was underway at the time of 

the review), and through the use of personal interviews in 

the final stages of the graduate student admission process. 

We are engaged in an active self-study of the Experimental 

Program, collecting information concerning the best programs 

in Canada to consider as models, as well as reviewing the 

structure of our current program. We also held a half-day 

faculty retreat in 93-1 to initiate the development of 

distinct Experimental Program streams involving specialized 

requirements. To contribute momentum to these discussions, 

the Experimental (Program) Committee has taken the following 

initiatives designed to raise the profile of the 

department's experimental researchers and to stimulate a 

greater sense of an active research community: 

During 93-1, a weekly seminar was held in which an 

experimental faculty member described current research 

activities and in which all experimental faculty and 

students discussed research values, policies and 

practices. 

An e-mail forum was established for the sharing of 

relevant information and opinion. 

Planning

is underway for workshops on publishing in 

journals, getting an academic job, and writing 

successful grant proposals. 

3.2

The reviewers recommended that graduate admissions be 

restricted to Master's candidates in light of our relatively 

seamless program design with respect to masters and doctoral 

requirements. This is consistent with existing policy in 

both programs, although each wishes to preserve the 

possibility of admitting the occasional doctoral student 

when a truly exceptional applicant is identified. 

3.3 New 

Guidelines for the Experimental Comprehensive 

Examinations 

have been developed within the GSC, approved by 

the department, and circulated to all experimental students 

S

and faculty in order to clarify expectations of the nature 

and magnitude of the requirement, and to reduce the 

likelihood of inequities across the Experimental and 

Clinical Programs. Detailed comprehensive examination 

guidelines have existed for some time within the Clinical 

Program. In response to complaints noted in the external 

review from some clinical students who wanted to see their 

detailed comprehensive examination scores, the Clinical 

Program has changed the grade format to an S/U basis in 

order to reduce excessive grade-orientation among students. 

3.4

Regarding graduate supervision, the reviewers observed 

that, even though all students are matched to a temporary 

supervisor at the time they are admitted, some students had 

difficulties obtaining a good continuing match with a 

faculty supervisor. This problem involves a relatively 

small number of students. The temporary assignment 

procedure is designed to allow transfers to occur easily 

when the student wishes, and students do make use of the 

procedure occasionally. The reviewers' concerns that some 

faculty members are not sufficiently available to their 

students is accepted as legitimate. Remedies are partly a 

matter for action by the Department Chair and the Department 

Tenure Committee (DTC), although in addition the GSC has 

developed Guidelines for Students and Su 

p

ervisors that will 

outline in general terms the expectations for both. 

3.5

Significant imbalances across faculty members in 

graduate student supervisory workloads were the subject of 

comment in the review. It was noted that affected faculty 

preferred to have this problem solved through receiving 

credit for their heavy supervisory workloads rather than 

through unduly restricting student numbers. This is a 

problem that has no simple fix. Nevertheless, discussions 

are underway, both in the Department and at the Faculty of 

Arts level, on a set of policies and procedures regarding 

faculty workload. The goal is to reduce the variation in 

overall workload across Psychology faculty. A greater 

weight will probably be accorded to student supervision. 

3.6

The reviewers concluded that information about some 

matters was "opaque" to graduate students and recommended 

that faculty meet with graduate students to provide 

information. This criticism was received with some 

puzzlement. From Department's early days, graduate students 

have-had formal representation on the GSC and on the 

Clinical Committee, and have been able to attend 

departmental meetings. Our graduate secretary is a full- 

5

time employee who constantly provides help and information 

to students who seek it. A formal graduate orientation 

meeting is held each fall for new and returning students at 

which all key staff are introduced, their roles explained, 

and resources described. Information is provided concerning 

the criteria for graduate student participation in relation 

to open and .closed department and committee meetings. This 

information has been freshly provided to the graduate 

students. The criteria and methods used in ranking Graduate 

Fellowship applications had already been under review in 

open meetings of the GSC. Details were distributed to all 

graduate students for information before the external review 

was conducted. As an annual routine the DA publishes a 

lengthy information document for all graduate students 

providing great detail about available resources and general 

operations, and this is regularly updated and distributed to 

all graduate students each fall. 

3.7 The small number of graduate students supported by 

RAships, which drew comment from the reviewers, is a 

function of a number of factors, including graduate student 

preferences for the higher salaries of TAships. We 

established a central information service with the graduate 

secretary that each semester provides names of students who 

are interested in PA work and of faculty members with PA 

positions. 

4.

?

SPACE 

4.1 The external review had two criticisms of space-related 

matters within the department. One was the lack of any 

common area where faculty and students can meet on an 

informal basis; the other was concern about the possibility 

of gender bias in the allocation of space. 

4.2

Regarding the issue of common space, negotiations have 

been in hand with the Dean for some time to acquire space 

for a common room. These negotiations are continuing: at 

the moment, it appears likely that the department will 

acquire a common-room-cum-seminar-and-meeting-roóm within 

the next year. 

4.3 Regarding the issue of gender bias in space allocation, 

it is true that during the recent rash of hirings the 

research space needs of some new women faculty were not 

accommodated rapidly enough. This delay had a negative 

impact on the research programmes of these faculty members, 

but it was generally accepted not to reflect intentional 

discrimination on gender lines. The Department in general 

.

6

' ?

and its Space Committee in particular are committed to the 

principle of equity in the allocation of space. The only 

relevant criteria for allocation are the needs of the 

facultymember, the availability of space, and the needs of 

other members of the Department. In order to guard against 

the possibility of discrimination in space allocation in 

future, and against the perception of discrimination, the 

Department Chair will exercise critical, attention to the 

allocations made by the Space Committee. We will also 

ensure that specific space assignments to newly appointed 

faculty will be made in writing. 

5 • DEPARTMENT GOVERNANCE 

5.1 Having made a relatively large number of junior 

appointments in the past few years, the Department was faced 

with a dilemma in familiarizing these new faculty with 

departmental and university policies and practices. The 

most efficient way to achieve this goal was to involve new 

appointees in departmental administration. That, however, 

would have impeded their efforts to establish research 

programs, prepare courses, and develop instructional 

competence. In retrospect, we erred by giving these latter 

. ?

goals higher priority and failing to devise alternative 

means of educating new faculty in the ways of the 

department. We also have not moved far or fast enough, in 

the opinion of some, to modify administrative policy and 

practice in response to the fresh ideas and expectations of 

the new faculty members. Change is occurring in response to 

these pressures, and more can be expected when the current 

department chair hands over to his successor in 93-3. 

5.2

We have responded to one specific issue raised by the 

reviewers. The membership of standing departmental 

committees, and in particular the committee chairs, are now 

chosen by the DTC. 

6. HARASSMENT

6.1 In preparation for the external review, our graduate 

students conducted an extensive survey of the experiences 

and preferences of graduate clinical and experimental 

psychology students. Two of the questions asked were: 

"Have you experienced what you would consider to be blatant 

sexual harassment from faculty?" and "Have you experienced 

situationsthat were more subtle but in which you still felt 

a degree of sexual harassment from faculty?" Of about 100 

7

graduate students polled, 50 responded to the questionnaire. 

Of these, about 25% (12-13 students) reported experiencing 

some form of sexual harassment. These findings, which were 

reported to the department about a week before the external 

review was due to start, warranted an immediate response. 

The administration asked York University Graduate Studies 

Dean Sandra Pyke, a member of the external review team, to 

come early and stay late to hear from any students (or 

faculty and staff) who wished to talk about their sexual 

harassment concerns. In order to preserve confidentiality, 

arrangements were made for off-campus and telephone contact. 

Ten different students and faculty responded to the 

invitation to talk to Dr. Pyke. In addition, she met with 

the Director of the Counselling Service, the Coordinator of 

the Harassment Policy, the Dean of Graduate Studies, the 

Director of Academic Relations, and the Director of Academic 

Planning Services. 

The external review report included a brief section on 

sexual harassment and discrimination. The topic was more 

thoroughly addressed by Dr. Pyke in a separate 7-page 

report. 

6.2

In response to these concerns, the Department 

established an 

Ad Hoc Committee on Discrimination and 

Harassment 

(AHCDH) to which were elected or selected two 

undergraduate students, two graduate students, two staff 

members and two faculty members. The Committee was chaired 

by Dr. Patricia O'Hagan, the University's Harassment Policy 

Coordinator. This Committee was asked to respond to the. 

concerns raised during the external review regarding 

allegations of harassment and/or discrimination in the 

Psychology Department. The Committee has met several times, 

and is tackling the issues in a number of ways. One is 

through faculty/staff/student workshops. The first of 

these, on the topic of "boundary setting," was held on 

January 21st, 1993. In attendance were some 90% of 

available faculty and staff and more than 50% of available 

graduate students. Based in part on discussion at the 

workshop, a set of guidelines has been drafted covering the 

setting of boundaries in supervisory, instructional and 

other relationships. In separate referenda for faculty, 

staff and students, these guidelines were recently approved 

by more that 96% of those voting. 

8.3

In other actions taken in response to recommendations 

in the Pyke report... 

The University Harassment Policy Coordinator has met 

with Psychology graduate. students as a group to discuss 

their concerns and explore ways of dealing with them. 

8

I .

The University, through the Harassment Policy 

Coordinator, scheduled a number of educational or 

informational awareness sessions for faculty, staff and 

.

??

students that addressed the question: 

What constitutes 

harassment and how can it be 

avoided

and prevented? 

The 1981 policy statement of the Canadian Psychological 

Association concerning harassment will be included in 

our Graduate Brochure and in material describing our 

programs to undergraduates. 

The Harassment Policy Coordinator will do a specific 

workshop as a part of departmental orientation for new 

graduate and honors students in the fall. 

More effort will be put into the existing "buddy 

system" for new graduate students. 

The CPA Guidelines for the Elimination of Sexual 

Harassment are being widely distributed. 

9. OVERVIEW

9.1

The Department was dismayed that the external review 

not only included very few specific recommendations, but 

that it also lacked a summary. Since the tenor of many 

. ?

sections in the report was rather critical, it would have 

been useful to repeat the external reviewers' cautionary 

comment offered in the introduction to their report: 

"This overall positive view of the Department 

should

be kept 

in mind by readers as they examine subsequent portions of 

this report that examine areas where improvements in the 

Department's functioning might be 

achieved" (p.2).

\xrev7 \depres f 

9