For Information
?
S92-27
. ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Office of the Vice-President, Academic
Memorandum
To: ?
Senate
From: ?
J.M. Munro, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Planning
Subject:
?
External Review - Department of Archaeology
Date: ?
19 March, 1992
Attached is a summary of the report of the Department of Archaeology External
Review committee for the information of Senate. The review was discussed at the
Senate Committee on Academic Planning, and the committee voted to receive the
report.
The report of the Review Committee and the response of the Department, is
available in Secretariat Services, Registrar's Office, for any Senator who wishes to
read the complete documents.
Attachment
0
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
?
EXTERNAL REVIEW
17-19 February, 1991
Reviewers:
Dr. Nicholas David, Chair
Chair, Department of Archaeology
University of Calgary
Dr. Paul Healy
Department of Archaeology
Trent University
Dr. Emöke Szathmary
Department of Archaeology
and Dean, Faculty of Social Science
University of Western Ontario
. ?
Dr. Arthur Roberts, Internal member
Department of Geogrphy, SFU
Executive Summary
Departmental Resources
The Department of Archaeology boasts a first-rate faculty, whose
publication and external funding records are excellent, and who enjoy
well-deserved national and international reputations. An obvious
gender imbalance (8.5:0.5) needs to be corrected.
2.
The existing faculty complement is inadequate to support the current
undergraduate and graduate programs. The Committee recommends
the appointment of two new faculty, the first in the area of physical
anthropology (human genetics), the second in archaeology (complex
societies).
3.
The Department has been well-served by its administrative and clerical
support staff. Restructuring of duties will be required at the retirement
of the DA. The University's Financial Services should offer better
support to the Department and its members, especially in the area of
grant accounting.
4.
A third member of technical
staff
is urgently required whether or not
the mandates of the Museum and Laboratories of Archaeology are
revised in order to realize their potential contributions to the
University and public at large.
5.
While space for teaching, research and offices is very inadequate,
renovation of existing space (mainly the Museum and Loading Bay)
combined with provision of storage away from the main campus
would solve immediate problems relatively cheaply, and do more than
anything else for departmental well-being and productivity.
6.
The Department is fairly well supplied with equipment of all kinds.
However, lack of funds for maintenance and replacement is resulting
in a major debt to the future.
7.
While the Museum and Radiocarbon Laboratory operating budgets are
inadequate to ensure effective functioning, in other respects the
operating and capital budgets, although small and diminishing in real
terms, are unfortunately not out of line with those of similar programs
at other Canadian universities.
8.
Retention of the TA and Sessional budgets in the hands of the higher
administration results in greatly reduced capacity of the Department
Chair to plan the strategy and tactics of departmental development.
9.
Library holdings in archaeology are not keeping up with the needs of a
Department with active graduate and research programs.
The Undergraduate Program
10.
The strength of the undergraduate program lies in its strong focus on
methods and techniques and on North Western North American
archaeology.
11.
The high proportion of courses currently taught by sessional
instructors devalues the degree. The addition of two faculty would, in
conjunction with the provision of larger teaching laboratories, largely
solve this problem besides adding anew dimension to the
.archaeological side and rendering the physical anthropology program
fully viable.
2
3
12.
Increased enrollment in Archaeology courses requires increases in
S ?
faculty, teaching laboratory space and the Department's efforts in
advertising their courses throughout the University.
13.
The redesign of the undergraduate program currently in progress
should result in restructuring of prerequisites and course sequences,
greater consistency in expectations and grading, and reassessment of
the division of labour between continuing faculty, sessionals and TAs.
14.
The Committee recommends that certain graduate courses be made
available to senior undergraduates.
15.
Initiatives such as the Co-op program and possible joint degrees with
Anthropology and the Biological Sciences are to be welcomed. A BSc
in Archaeology would be appropriate given the makeup of the
Department.
16.
While relations between staff and students are generally good, the
faculty must guard against gender bias.
17.
Both the academic and social aspects of the field school require to be
more formally stated in order that faculty and students expectations
S
may coincide.
The Graduate Program
18.
By the measures of research, publications and marketability of
graduates, the MA and PhD programs are demonstrably successful.
19.
Nonetheless the course offerings are inadequate and contribute to an
excessive average length of time spent in program. Many of the
constraints here are the same as in the undergraduate program and
must be similarly overcome.
20.
The reassessment of the Graduate Program presently in progress
should include reconsideration of the necessity for formal colloquia
and possibly also supervisory committees at the MA level, and in any
case emphasize the supervisory committee's collective responsibility
for guidance of students.
21.
The benefits in terms of future job opportunities of greater exposure of
students to cultural and social anthropology and anthropological
linguistics also require reassessment.
S
.22. ?
The departmental
Guide to the Archaeology Graduate Program
should
be expanded and made available to all applicants for admission.
23.
Long completion times and high drop
out
rates in the
MA
prograth
have complex causatioii that we lack evidéncé to diagnOse in detail.
HoWever, lack of availability of graduate courses áitd in seme cases
excessive demands by fIcu1tj are certainly cOntributOry fctOrs,
as
is
inadequate financial support.
24.
No doubt similar fadtors also contribute
to
the long comietiOñ times
and a high withdrawal rate among male students enrolled in the Phl
program. Some restructuring is also required iii thisaféá.
25.
Present sources of graduate funding are inadequate: A
spa!i
dOWn:
sizing of the MA program Until such timd
as gr
i adiiatd funding
Call
b
improved should be seriously considered
26.
To encourage excellence, any additional Graduate Fellowships that thay
be instituted should be awarded on the basis of studeht and
departmental quality.
The Laboratories and the Museum
27.
The present radiocarbon laboratory should be rècdllfigured as all
Archaeometry Laboratory under the dirëcti011 of Di. Erle Wëlsbn.
28.
The Museum had failed in
terms
'
of itspfesent thándtë We befOre the
recent appointment of an enegetic Arid ififtov'atiVO
curator. It and the
'Laboratories of Archaeology should now be ihtegi'ated iht a
'Museum of Archaeological Scieñc& for which thi ékitih fütüie
seems assured if some renovations an be irndértàkell áñd a third
member of technical staff recruited.
Administration and Governance
29.
The Chair requires increased authority ill order tO xércis leadership
and to oversee effectively the fütuie ithplethëiitátion Of tile hijor,
reappraisal of the teaching and related functionsof tlie Dëpartnellt
that is presently underway.
30.
Membership of departrnehtâl cOmmittees should be revièWëd With a
view to substantial reductiohs in their thembétshi:
31.
External relations of the Department both Within and bèyönd the
University appear excellent.
4.
S
.
0
ScPP
4
[1
THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
An External Review?
12 April, 1991
submitted to Simon Fraser University?
by
Nicholas David (Chair),?
Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary
Paul Healy,
?
Department of Anthropology, Trent University
Emöke Szathmary,?
Department of Anthropology and Dean, Faculty of Social Science,?
University of Western Ontario
0
k
. Contents
PART I - INTRODUCTION
1 Preamble
?
1
II The review of 1975
?
2
PART Ii - RESOURCES
III The Faculty
?
3
1.
Size and background in relation to
responsibilities and workload
?
3
2.
Research and teaching contributions, and external
research support
?
5
IV Support staff
?
6
1.Administrative,
Secretarial and Clerical
?
6
2. Technical ?
7
V Physical plant and other material resources
?
8
1.
Space
?
8
2.
Other resouces: budgets, equipment, computers,
library ?
9
PART III
?
-
?
PROGRAMS AND ORGANISATION
VI
The Undergraduate Program
12
1. Program and course structure
12
3. Staff-student relations
17
4. The Field school
18
•
5. Appeals and Consistency
19
6. Undergraduate support
19
VII
The Graduate Programs
20
1. Introduction and quality of graduate student
research
20
2. Program content and structure
21
3. Graduate supervision and guidance
23
4. Graduate student progress
25
MA level
26
PhD level
27
5. Adequacy of support for graduate students and
the size of the program
29
VIII
The Laboratories and the Museum
30
1. The Radiocarbon/Archaeometry Laboratory
30
2. The Museum and the 'Laboratories
of Archaeology'
31
IX
Administration and Governance
33
1. ?
Internal
33
2. University relations
34
3. Beyond the University
34
X
A Brief Conclusion
35
PART IV - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Departmental Resources ?
35
• ?
The Undergraduate Program
?
36
The Graduate
p
rogram ?
37
The Laboratories and the Museum
?
37
Administration and Governance
?
38
S
PART I - INTRODUCTION
I Preamble
The members of the 1991 Review Committee of the Department of
Archaeology were Dr. Nicholas David (University of Calgary), Dr.
Paul Healy (Trent University), Dr. Emöke Szathmary (University of
Western Ontario) and Dr. Arthur Roberts (Geography, Simon Fraser
University). The Committee decided that Dr. Roberts should
participate in all of its activities except the interviews held
with members of faculty, staff and students of the Department of
Archaeology. Preparation of the Review Report was the
responsibility of the external members of the Review Committee.
Members of the Review Committee assembled on the evening of
February 17 for a preliminary consultation with Dr. J. M. Munro,
Vice-President (Academic). During the next two days interviews
were held wjti Dr. R. C. Brown (Dean of Arts), Dr. B. P. Clayman
(Dean of Gradiate Studies), and with members of faculty, staff and
undergraduate and graduate students of the Department of
Archaeology.
Professor J. D. Nance, Chair of the Department of Archaeology
served as the Review Committee's guide to the Department.
Interviews were held with Professors D. Burley, R. Carlson, J.
Driver, K. Fladmark, B. Galdikas, B. Hayden, P. Hobler, J. Nance,
E. Nelson, H. Skinner. Time did not permit an interview with
Professor Emeritus R. Shutler, although informal discussion was
possible. Meetings were also held with particular
responsibility/interest groups. These included the Undergraduate
Curriculum Committee (all faculty, but with Professors Driver,
Hayden, Nance, Nelson and Skinner [Chair], and Mrs. I. Nystrom
[Departmental Assistant] actually present); the Graduate Committee
(all faculty, with Professors Carlson, Driver, Hayden, Hobler,
Nance, Nelson [Chair] and Skinner actually present); undergraduate
students (speakers: K. Berry, L. Erickson, P. Merchant, S.
Montgomery, J. Turner); graduate students (spokespersons: C. Knusel
and W. Prentiss); the Curator of the Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Barbara Winter; the Departmental Assistant, Mrs. I.
Nystrom, and technicians and secretarial staff (L. Bannister, A.
Barton, J. Breffit, and D. Kask, a former member of the clerical
staff, recently transferred to another department). The review
concluded with a final meeting of the Review Committee with Dean
Brown and Vice-President Munro, and Ms. A. J. Watt, Director,
Academic Planning Services.
I
The Review Committee wishes to acknowledge its appreciation to
the administrative officers of the University and to the members of
the Department of Archaeology for their frankness. In particular
we wish to thank the faculty and students for the courtesy shown to
us, and for their prompt and satisfactory responses to our requests
for more detailed, supplementary information.
.
2
(
?
?
Documentation sent to the members of the Review Committee
prior to the review visit included the
Internal Review Report
prepared by the Department of Archaeology, the
Internal Review
Appendices,
and the
1990-91 Calendar.
Materials received during
visit included a written submission (40 pp) from the Archaeology
Student Society (undergraduate students),
A Guide to the
Archaeology Graduate
p rogram
(revised, 1990), the
Collective
Agreements between Simon Fraser University and the Teaching Support
Staff
the
Graduate
union,
the
Studies
Simon
Fact
Fraser
Book
University
(Jan. 1991).
Fact
Dean
Book
Clayman
(Dec.
also
1990), and
provided the Review Committee with current Archaeology graduate
statistics, and Professor Nance assembled a set of data on past and
Present graduate student enrollments and outcomes together with a
file of recent CVs of MA and PhD graduates of the programme. We
later also received the tripartite external review of the
Department carried out in 1975.
II The review of 1975
The first external review of the Department was carried out in
1975 by Professor R. D. Daugherty (Washington State U.), Professor
R. B. Forbis (U. of Calgary) and Professor Emeritus C. E. Borden
(UBc), each of whom responded individually. At that time the
Department had seven continuing full-time staff (CFL) if we count
Dr Mark Skinner, who was about to replace the recently deceased Dr
S
McKern. The Department today numbers eight CFL, plus one half-time
(Fladinar]c) and one one-third-time (Galdikas) CFL faculty.
If one discounts some apparent rivalry between UBC and SFU,
there was substantial agreement between the external reviewers who
considered that:
a)
the Department had excellent faculty and (in spite of gross
inequities in funding between the Faculties of Arts and of
Science) offered one of the best archaeology programs in Canada
and the best in British Columbia,
b)
after an initial period during which the prime concern had been
to establish the teaching programs of the Department, it was
time to emphasize research,
C)
more faculty (up to three), support staff and space were
required (the Department was about to move into its present
accommodation and this was already perceived as inadequate),
d)
the undergraduate program was generally satisfactory and
produced good students even though course offerings were
somewhat irregular. In CEB's view more integration of
anthropology
sensu lato
was needed and the field school raised
particular concerns,
e)
the products of the graduate program were appreciated in the job
market (which CEB seriously underestimated), however
f)
the graduate program itself was too unstructured and the ratio
•
of faculty to supervisees was too low,
g)
resulting in various problems regarding the funding of graduates
and their length in program.
3
(
?
?
Fifteen years later the Department has amply demonstrated its?
collective ability to conceive and carry out first class research
and its members enjoy well-deserved reputations within the
discipline. In this respect the wheel appears to have turned full
circle, and it is time to turn
attention
again to the teaching
function. Otherwise, it is our contention, the same issues that
exercised the reviewers of 1975 are of
concern
today -- though we
lack the information to track their trajectories in the intervening
years.
PART II
?
- ?
RESOURCES
In Part II we consider the resources available within the
Department, and amongst them the faculty members themselves. For
convenience sake, the research carried out by faculty members is
also discussed here, rather than in part III.
III The Faculty
1. size and background in relation to responsibilities and
workload
There are eight (8) continuing full time faculty and two (2)
continuing part-time faculty in the Department. These individuals
constitute the core of the archaeology program
?
efforts are?
supplemented in the areas of teaching and supervision by one
• professor emeritus, three associate faculty (of other departments)
an adjunct professor, and a significant and growing number of term
appointments.
The background of the continuing, regular faculty is strong,
All
with
but
some
one
members
have doctorates,
Internationally
with a
recognized
good
institutional
in their discipline.
representation (primarily from major
Canadian
universities, but
also from the U.S. and England). Overall, the regular faculty are
at mid-career (average age: 43.3 years) with only one retirement
likely in the next seven years (when another external review is
scheduled).
All
faculty ranks are represented in the Department but
with a larger proportion in the senior levels (1 Asst Prof, 3
Assoc. Prof, 6 Full Prof). There is an obvious gender imbalance in
the Department faculty with 10 men and only 1 woman (a part-time
faculty member). The imbalance is all the more serious in that
female students compose about half of the undergraduate and
g
raduate enrollment in archaeology, and a number of these expressed
a strong desire to see the imbalance alleviated through new
appointments.
It was apparent from the
Internal
Review Report (IRR) and from
separate committee meetings with both undergraduate and graduate
students that the continuing full-time faculty complement in
A
rchaeology is inadequate to maintain either the current
•
u
ndergraduate or graduate programs (per the SFU calendar). The
four course workloads (eight class hours/week In two of the three
t
rimesters), to which must be added substantial graduate student
supervision, are normal. As indicated in Table 2.3 of the IRR the
4
Department has been forced, more and more, into the less
satisfactory position of employing short-term appointments
(sessionals). In recent trimesters up to 45% of regular
archaeology undergraduate courses were taught by sessionals and the
never
committee
had
heard
the opportunity
negative comments
to take
from
a senior
students
course
claiming
from a
to
regular
have
faculty member on staff. Some complained bitterly of being
disadvantaged in their applications for graduate school admissions
because of the heavy usage of sessionals in the Department. See
VI.1 below.
While part of the problem is related to the tradition in the
Archaeology Department of permitting faculty to operate multi-
credit summer field courses, thereby nearly satisfying in one term
their annual teaching workload obligations, it remains apparent
that the program needs additional faculty.
At the graduate level the problem is equally serious, and
compounded by the part-time status of two senior faculty. Graduate
students complained of an inadequate number of graduate-level
course offerings in any trimester due to undergraduate teaching
commitments by current full-time faculty. Given the small number
(8) of continuing full-time faculty the program has a large number
of graduate students, and attracts strong applicants from across
Canada. There was serious student interest expressed during our
S
meetings in the
expansion
of the physical anthropology component of
the Department, and a strong desire (expressed by students and
faculty alike) for one additional archaeologist (with a
specialisation in
ancient
civilizations according to the IRR).
With additional appointments in these areas the teaching load
Problem could-be alleviated, regularization of graduate courses
would be possible, as would a greater diversification of
undergraduate offerings.
The committee is of the view that the Department, in order to
continue its current undergraduate and graduate course offerings,
must be provided by the University with additional faculty as soon
as possible. As will be described in the next section (111.2), the
Department has done an excellent job in attracting external funds
and publishing its research. It is a first-rate academic unit and
made a strong case, in the committee's view, that for curricular
renewal, and to handle the growing number of students enrolled in
archaeology, they need at least two additional positions (above the
current com
p
lement). it was the view of the external committee as
well that the first of these new appointments should be in physical
anthropology, to provide real critical mass in an area that has
long been under serious pressure, and the second in archaeology.
With regard to the former, the addition of a new physical
anthropologist to the faculty would alleviate one of the current
S
human resource problems in the Department. Professor Skinner is
overextended, as he does a very considerable amount of graduate
supervision (MA and PhD) and disproportionate undergraduate
teaching in his field. From a disciplinary perspective, a third
person would add depth and variety of course offerings. With three
physical anthropologists on faculty, Simon Fraser would have the
largest a
gg
regation of physical anthropologists In the province,
and would be the only BC university that could easily supervise
students through a reasonably balanced graduate program. The
Departmental brief indicated preference for a human biologist.
This makes good sense, given the Department's focus on British
Columbia which contains a large and diverse Native population whose
genetics and biology are virtually unknown. A laboratory-oriented
person with a genetics focus would be equally useful, given the
research potential offered by excavated human remains. Modern
techniques in molecular biology permit determination of inherited
traits from mummified tissue as well as bone. The addition of such
an individual would put the Department at the frontier of research
currently undertaken by physical anthropologists.
As to the additional archaeological position, we are of the
view that a specialization in the archaeology of complex societies
would, by adding an important topical domain, offer the most
benefit a Department that specializes in the archaeology of hunter-
gatherer and other relatively simple societies. The Department's
request for a third additional member of faculty is less pressing,
though a palaeoethnobotanist would nicely round out the range of
topical expertise presently existing in the Department.
.
2. Research and teaching contributions, and external research
support
The publication and external funding records of the continuing
faculty are excellent. In the 5-year period from 1985-1990, the 10
regular faculty produced 12 authored or edited books, 85 refereed
articles, 29 book chapters, and collectively delivered more than 60
professional papers. The journal publications include some of the
most prestigious outlets available to the disciplines of
archaeology and physical anthropology. Similarly, external
funding, awarded from major federal research councils (SSHRC or
NSERC), or provincial contracts, has been both frequent and
substantial during this same period. More than half of the regular
faculty, for example, have been awarded in excess of $100,000 each
(some twice that amount, one individual three times the amount).
From 1985-1990, the average external funding (grants and contracts)
Per faculty member/annum was about $29,000. Every member is
actively involved in on-going research. It is a
very
productive
faculty, and one which has brought considerable national and
international recognition to Simon Fraser University.
While the research and publication contributions of the
faculty is uniformly impressive, the committee received somewhat
more mixed reports from students about the teaching in the
D
e p
artment. Certainly most faculty received, overall, quite
.
favorable ratings and it is clear that the faculty are regularly
developing and introducing new academic courses, while dropping
less effective ones, to enhance the Department curriculum. These
are important, and time
consuming,
measures which deserve
recognition and activities which should be continued. A review of
course syllabi, required texts, and final examinations in
archaeology, revealed fairly standard topical coverage and
exp
ectations for the course levels indicated. Despite these
efforts, there were some consistently negative remarks by both
undergraduate and graduate students which hint at problems In the
teaching area. These complaints ranged from faculty indifference
to problems with grading. The committee also received some
disturbing comments about gender bias, and has alerted the
Department chair to concerns in this area for internal follow-up.
See Vl.l below.
Obviously, in a brief site visit such as the one undertaken
here, it is difficult to differentiate between what are fairly
typical student grumblings (found to some degree on all university
campuses) and what are actually more serious, deep-seated local
academic problems. Part of the teaching malaise in this particular
Department almost certainly derives from insufficient continuin
full-time staff. The current complement, particularly younger
members, indicated frustration with their teaching loads, and their
collective sense of being unable to satisfy student needs under the
working Conditions which exist in the Department. There was a
general sense that there were simply too many students and too few
full-time staff to service satisfactorily the varied interests and
needs of those students.
IV Support staff
1. Administrative, Secretarial and Clerical
The Department has been exceptionally well served by its
Departmental Assistant, Ingrid Nystrom, who is shortly to retire,
and has an efficient Chair/Graduate Program Secretary in Linda
Bannister. At the time of our visit the third position, that of
Clerk/Typist, was held by a temporary employee. The IRR has called
for an additional Receptionist/Clerk position and upgrading of the
Clerk/Typist to Secretary. Such changes may be justifiable, but the
review committee regards them as low priorities. While the faculty
expect and receive no more secretarial assistance than they perhaps
deserve, it is nonetheless more than in many other comparable
departments. Faculty also have relatively easy access to assistance
from students under the Work Study program. Furthermore the central
administration should provide better service to the Department in
the area of research grant budgeting.
The DA, in part by virtue of long service and her role as
'mother of the Department' at present has an extraordinary range of
responsibilities that include management of the Department
office, the de
p
artmental accounts and the research grants of
faculty members, scheduling and, to some extent, staffing of
•
courses, academic counselling of students, and 'primordial source
of important information'. The Chair/Graduate Program Secretary
serves as condjdentjal secretary to the chair and for the graduate
program.
It would seem highly unlikely that the DA's replacement,
6
7
however talented, will be able
to take
over all her roles, and a
significant redistribution of tasks and responsibilities is
inevitable. The details of such a reorganisation go well beyond our
mandate and we limit ourselves below to a few suggestions.
First, it will probably be necessary on Ms Nystrom's
retirement for the next DA to work more closely to the Chair, and
preferably to act also as his confidential secretary. The present
Chair/GPs would then work to other members of the Department and in
Particular to the two Program Chairs. To facilitate this, the
responsibilities of the administrative and clerical staff could,
and in our view should, be reduced in a number of areas, thus
relieving some of the pressure resulting from increasing
enrollments. First, as implied above, research grant accounting
should not pass through the departmental office but be a matter for
the University's Financial Services Department working with the
individual faculty member. Second, undergraduate advising would be
more appropriately handled by a member of the faculty; whether the
Undergraduate Program Chair or another, rather than b' one of the
support staff. Third, we were informed that an inordinate amount of
clerical time is taken up in copying documents for faculty and
students on an out of date machine that incidentally blocks
movement move about the main office. Rental of one machine for
office use and of another easily accessible to both faculty and
students and to which access would be by card would allow the
• support staff to work more efficiently. The cards purchased by
students would also bring revenue to the Department.
2. Technical
Both Mr Barton, the Archaeology technician, and Mr Breffitt,
the Manager of the Radiocarbon Laboratory, are Archaeology graduate
students 'on leave' from the program. They have given good service.
In a Department as large as this one and with such a substantial
e q
uipment-dependent science component, the responsibilities
attributed to Mr Barton's position as specified in Appendix 2.1 of
the IRR are quite beyond the capacities of any one person. It is
apparent that the technician has not had the time to devote to the
servicing and maintenance required by much of the Department's
equipment. Mr Breff it's title is a misnomer; he is the sole member
of the Radiocarbon Laboratory staff, but does not have full
managerial authority.
It is noteworthy that the departmental support staff do not
include a
draf ts p
erson/cartographer/jllustrator. Neither does the
Museum boast a full time Curatorial Assistant/Preparator.
We argue below that the mandate of the Museum should be
rewritten to incorporate the 'Laboratories of Archaeology' and that
the Radiocarbon Laboratory be transformed into an Archaeometry
• Laboratory. We strongly support the Department's request for a
third technical position and, if
our recommendations are accepted
would see these as being: an overall Laboratories and Equipment
Manager, a curatorial /technical assistant/preparator with
particular responsibility for that part of the Laboratories of
Archaeology associated with the Museum, and a technician with
particular responsibility for the Archaeometry Laboratory.
This we
regard as a minimal level of staffing. As
the IRR demonstrates, a
fourth technician would certainly not be underemployed.
The Department should also consider upgrading the positions of
both the existing technical staff, the range of whose
responsibilities may well be militating against their career
progress.
V Physical plant and other material resources
1. Space
According to the section on departmental history in the IRR
( p
. 3), on the very day that the MPX was dedicated, Dr Carlson
wrote to the Dean of Arts protesting that new building was
inadequate. Ever since, the Department has suffered from the
results of a 'last minute pre-construction shuffle [that] resulted
in the loss of the physical anthropology teaching lab., graduate
student space, the geoarchaeology lab and that part of the Museum
that is now the outdoor museum patio.' In the intervening years
substantial increases in research and teaching have not been
accompanied by attribution of new space to the Department, and lack
• of usable space is now the factor that most impedes departmental
Performance in all areas and that most contributes to lowering of
morale.
In the present economic climate it would be futile for the
review committee either to
.
advocate a new building or the takeover
by Archaeology of space presently occupied by another Department or
Faculty, say, Education. Instead we recommend that Museum space be
reassigned to incorporate some of the Laboratories of Archaeology
and that the large MPX 8617 loading bay area be renovated to
accommodate teaching, research and office space. A renovation plan
exists, although we have not seen it.
Given the comparability in size of the two programs, a crude
comparison of space distribution in the SFU and Calgary Archaeology
departments will be instructive.
Approx. areas in square metres
SFU ?
UC
Teaching labs, classrooms,(
reading rooms, commons
299
741
Faculty offices
140
238
Dept. and support staff offices
55
99
TA, Grad, student offices
120
338
Faculty and research labs
435
523
C/Isotope labs
87
?
'7 \
54
Museum
•
370 ?
. 34
Totals*Storage
1910
404'
2061
34
8
9
*Note These totals do not include trailers which are used at both
universities though for different purposes.
Despite strikingly similar totals, space is used quite differently
in the two departments. The figures go a long way towards
explaining
why there are stresses and strains at SFU and
limitations on departmental performance that are felt to a much
lesser extent at Calgary. In particular: at Calgary quite large
laboratory classes can be accommodated within the Department; there
is a large departmental reading room; the Department office is less
cramped;
students have
TAS have
far better
rooms in
accommodation;
which to meet
the
with
museum
students;
is reduced
graduateto
?
a /
/
storage area; and expensive space in the Department is scarcely
used for storage.
The reality of the many difficulties and dissatisfactions with
existing space noted in the IRR is given strong support by these
statistics, and lack of space s a leitmotif underlying discussion
in many of the following sections. For example, the small size of
the teaching lab (20 students) necessitates the teaching of certain
courses more often than is otherwise required, an extremely cost-
inefficient use of faculty teaching time. But the statistics also
suggest that if only the University can find a warehouse or other
cheap storage space for vehicles and equipment and for collections
that are not sensitive to humidity and temperature changes, and if
funds for renovation of the museum and loading bay can be made
• available, the Department probably has sufficient space in its
current inventory to support a major increase in productivity, and
an accompanying rise in departmental, and especially graduate
student, morale.
2. Other resources: budgets, equipment, computers, library
For purposes of the external review the committee has included
the following under the rubric of other 'resources': departmental
o perating
budget, capital equipment budget, instructional computing
budget, field and laboratory equipment, as well as computing
facilities and library holdings.
a) It is clear that the departmental (excluding museum and
radiocarbon laboratory) operating budget for Archaeology has
declined strikingly since the high reached in 1980 ($63,865).
While the Department operating budget has increased since 1986, the
present (1990) budget ($54,400) remains almost $10,000 below the
level of 15 years ago, and is very considerably lower in terms of
real dollars. While it could be argued that the Department budget
was unrealistically high in 1980, the restraint measures which the
Department has dealt with since then, and the cutbacks it has
endured in the past decade, have had a cumulative negative impact.
The 1990-91 departmental operating budget is inflated by
S
attribution to the Department of a
.
$6000 line item for 'Telephone?
Services - Supplement' which in fact represents university
infrastructure. The amounts attributed to materials and supplies
• ($3,350), software ($750), minor equipment ($2000) and especially
• ?
maintenance of equipment ($3000) are extraordinarily small given
the importance of the field program and the strong science
component in research and teaching (see item c below).
Overall, the Department seems to have managed its diminished
resources well and warrants continued increases at least in line
with those available to other programs in the School of Arts.
Indeed, as will be noted below, given the nature of archaeological
research it could be easily argued that budget increases should be
somewhat greater in Archaeology than in some other departments that
have not been nearly as successful in research grant competitions
nor in achieving external funding for the University. There was a
clear sense in the Department that despite their successes in these
areas, on behalf of the University, the Department was expected to
skimp along on a less than satisfactory operating budget. Members
of the Department also expressed fears that the higher SFU
administration was tending to favour new programs and initiatives
from less successful units at the expense of established high-
achieving programs.
The stable and insignificant budgets of the museum ($3600) and
radiocarbon laboratory ($7000), steadily being eaten away by
inflation, testify to the need for renewal in these areas.
b)
The Department has received regular, and often substantial,
• funding through the capital equipment budget to cover both major
and minor equipment expenditures. Because archaeology and physical
anthropology are, by their nature, e
q
uip
ment-intensive disciplines,
the Department will continue to need at least the same level of
support that it has recently received. The purchase of two
vehicles, and a major Department commitment to the Geographical
Information System (GIs), plus more than $62,000 in minor equipment
since 1985, suggests the Department is being well served. Indeed,
the amounts and types of equipment expenditures by the Department
appear reasonable. However, if the replacement value of all major
and minor capital equipment were divided by $17,120, the average
capital budget over the past eight years, we suspect that the
result would represent an unacceptably long lifespan for the
average piece of equipment. This is potentially very serious given
the unusually high rate of research activity in the program.
c)
Over the past 20 years the Department has accumulated a
large inventory of field and laboratory equipment (Appendices 9.1
and 9.2). The former is used primarily in the operation of
multiple summer field schools, for which the Department has gained
a national reputation for excellence. From the Internal Review
Report (Chapter 9), and the site visit, it is apparent that the
Condition of some of the equipment has deteriorated due to
e
intensive,
q
uipment (lab
rugged
and
use
field)
and
can
simply
be lefrom
g
itimately
age. While
acquired
some department
by faculty
through external research grants and contracts, the University
O
bviously has an important obligation to
maintain
suitable
10
11
equipment levels, and adequate maintenance of that equipment, for
•
purposes of classroom, laboratory, and field school instruction.
The present budget for this type of instructional field and
laboratory equipment is inadequate to meet the needs of a
department as active as this one. The Department is not receiving
sufficient
inventory
of
funds
equipment,
from the
and
University
requires
to
additional
maintain
funds
its present
to upgrade
(Cr replace) the aging and obsolete equipment now in use. The
current department practice, for example, of requiring students to
double up on and share laboratory equipment is hardly desirable.
d)
All faculty in Archaeology own one or more desktop
microcomputers, with assistance in financing from the University.
In addition, the Department received $10,700 in 1989 and 1990 for
the acquisition of instructional computing equipment (IRR Table
2.9). The Department has usedthis funding to establish a modest
microcomputing facility, which receives heavy student use. Some of
the equipment the committee examined during the site visit was non-
functional, and in need of repair.
Unfortunately,
the Department
finds its Minor Equipment component of the capital budget to be
inadequate for keeping the machines operational, despite obvious
demand. On the positive side, the external review committee was
favorably impressed with the larger university computing facilities
in the nearby Academic Quadrangle. While perhaps
less
convenient
than a departmental facility, these were obviously being heavily
used by many SFU students. The facility was staffed by technicians
and computing equipment appeared (superficially at least) to be new
and fully operational.
e)
The committee has serious concerns about the level of
funding for library holdings in archaeology. A review of recent
expenditures in archaeology (unnumbered last IRR appendix)
demonstrates a growth of about 21% in archaeology purchases over
the last five years (1985-1990), or an average of about 4.2% /year.
This was less than the rate of inflation and, considering the rapid
rate at which book and journal costs have risen during this same
Period, library purchases in archaeology clearly have not kept
pace. The situation is particularly disturbing in the area of
serials where there has been a 30% decline (from $3665 to $2550)
over the same 5-year period. Despite assurances from Collections
Management that these expenditures 'reveal a stable acquisitions
pattern' there is inadequate growth in this area. There is
evidence that even some senior undergraduate courses cannot be
properly supported at this time. Given the importance of a first-
rate research library to the preservation of quality undergraduate
and graduate programs, and to the maintenance of doctoral programs
in archaeology in particular, greater support from the University
in this area is required.
Before leaving the topic of resources, it is worth considering
what does NOT form part of the Department's
annual
budget. The
• retention of the funds for sessionals in the hands of the Vice-
President (Academic) and of those for TAS in the Dean's necessarily
reduces the capacity of the Department Chair to cope with the ups
12
and downs of university budgeting and to develop departmental
•
strategy and tactics. It is ironic that in a university where the
allocation of resources is heavily influenced by enrollments, the
Chair is denied one of the critical tools needed to modify and
increase them. For it is the
last
TA and the
last
sessional
appointee that have the most effect on the numbers of students
accommodated and courses offered.
PART III - PROGRAMS AND ORGANISATION
VI The Undergraduate Program
1. Program and course structure
The Department offers a varied undergraduate program leading
to BA and BA (Hons) degrees with a strong focus on the topical
areas of expertise for which the faculty are well
known
in the
discipline. A Co-operative Education Program is a new and exciting
initiative that will be closely observed and, if successful,
emulated at other institutions. Other offerings at present include
a Joint Major with Latin American Studies, a valuable minor in
Quaternary Studies and a variety of Certificates (on which we do
not feel
qualified
to comment).
According to data provided by-the Chair, in the last four
sessions, the numbers of regular courses (i.e. excluding evening
[e.g. 101E] and correspondence [biD]) offered during the 3rd and
1st trimesters have been as follows:
Session
?
Courses [with n & (%) taught by sessionals)*
87-88
?
24 ?
4
?
(16)
88-89
?
28 ?
5 ?
(18)
89-90 ?
26 ?
11
?
(42)
90-91 ?
29 ?
13 ?
(45)
* in each of these sessions one undergraduate course was
Professor Emeritus R. Shutler as a sessional. Students
much
employees
higher
in
p
1990.
ercentages of courses were actuall
y
tucrht
taught by
claim that
by contract
The courses are fairly well distributed between the two main
trimesters and are sufficient in numbers. Physical anthropology and
p
rirnatology, considered in some detail below, are at present
clearly secondary and complementary to the main interests of the
strjcto,
Department.
there
In
is
terms
a strong
of subject
focus on
areas
archaeological
within archaeology
methods and
sensu
techniques, and on the archaeology of North Western North America.
These are
dep
artmental strengths, and it would be unreasonable to
expect any department to cover the full archaeological range,
moreover the strengths of the SF1.1 Department usefully complement
those of other programs in Canada. Nonetheless, it would be
desirable to increase the teaching of substantive areal
archaeology, of the archaeology of complex societies, and of the
history of
a
rchaeology in its broad anthropological context. The
13
addition of a faculty member specializing in the archaeology of
complex societies would mark an important first step in correcting
existing imbalances in the archaeological component of the program.
Of the 42 undergraduate courses listed in the Calendar
only 6 focus on Physical Anthropology. The courses include 131
(Human Origins), 344 (Primate Behaviour), 373 (Human Osteology),
385 (Paleoanthropology), 432 (Advanced Physical Anthropology) and
442 (Forensic Anthropology). It should be remembered that there are
only two physical anthropologists in the Department: B.M.F.
Galdikas, whose research specialty is nonhuman primate behaviour,
and M.F. Skinner, whose specialties include odontology, osteology
and forensic anthropology.
Physical Anthropology is a discipline in itself, with a focus
on the evolutionary biology of the Order Primates. The divisions
of Physical Anthropology encompass paleontology, skeletal biology,
anatomy/morphology, human and nonhuman primate biology (growth,
development, physiology), genetics (cytogenetics, molecular,
Population) and nonhuman primate behaviour. Most North American
departments of Archaeology and of Anthropology normally include
Physical Anthropology in the curriculum, and have physical
anthropologists on faculty. To do justice to the diversity within
the discipline at least two full-time physical anthropologists are
required to provide an adequate variety of undergraduate course
offerings. it is difficult to conceive of a solid graduate
Program, especially at the doctoral level, without three physical
. anthropologists on faculty. In addition, formal relationships with
faculty in departments of Anatomy, Biology or Zoology (as adjuncts,
associate members, etc.) are highly desirable.
Given the features of the discipline it is commendable that
Professors Galdikas and Skinner offer undergraduate and graduate
instruction. However, because Professor Galdikas has reduced
responsibility within the Department (one trimester of teaching;
six months away from campus), the larger part of the actual
workload falls on Professor skinner. Three of the
six
undergraduate courses fall specifically in his areas of expertise;
one reflects Professor Galdikas' focus; the remaining two (131 and
432) could be offered by both. In fact, since 1987 Arch 131 has
been offered 12 times - 5 times by physical anthropologists, and 7
times by archaeologists.
The disadvantages of having too few physical anthropologists
in the Department is reflected In the structure of the
undergraduate program. Non-specialists have taught the Human
Origins course more often
in
the past four years than the
specialists. There is no 200-level Physical Anthropology course at
all,
which means either that the 131 introductory course is too
elementary for any of the 300-level courses available, or that 131
is too advanced for the first year students enrolled in it, thereby
discouraging their
initial Interest in the discipline.
14
The teaching of physical anthropology courses by non-
specialist faculty members of course reduces the latters' ability
to teach in the areas in which they are themselves specialists. In
this connection, not only is an increasing reliance on sessionals
disturbing in that it inevitably devalues the degree, but it is
clear .that sessionals are disproportionately responsible for
teaching areal archaeology courses, and, more recently, even the
senior undergraduate Archaeological Theory (471), which perhaps
more than any other should remain in the hands of regular faculty
members. Undergraduates and faculty also share justifiable concerns
regarding
a)
the lack of an overall planned structure of prerequisites and
courses leading to an orderly progression of students through
their degree programs,
b)
the lack of consistency in certain courses, especially
Archaeology Laboratory Techniques (372), and irregular
offerings of others, e.g. Regional Studies in Archaeology:
North America - Northwest Pacific (474) and Lithic Technology
(485), that are desired by students, and
C)
the field school (treated in a separate section below).
Some causes of these imbalances are not far to seek.
1.
Certain courses including 471, 372 and (on occasion)
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (376) have been taught by
regular faculty in both the fall and spring trimesters, in part for
lack of adequate facilities for larger classes. Otherwise these
courses need be offered at most once a year.
2.
Certain courses such as Special Topics in Archaeology (333/344),
Introductory zooarchaeology (340), Indian Cultures of North America
(360), Quantitative Methods(376) and Archaeological Dating (411)
are taught every (or almost every) year rather than every other
year, which might well be sufficient, in large part for lack of
equipment, specimens or laboratory space.
3. There has been some
courses (besides field
Although the number of
regular faculty during
reduced. Summer course
taught by sessionals.
tendency for regular faculty to offer
school courses) in the 2nd trimester.
such courses is small, the offerings of
the main academic sessions are thereby
; (excluding the field school) could well be
4.
Dr Hayden's energies have been disproportionately taken up with
the Introduction to Archaeology (101D) correspondence course that
he developed but which might well be handed over to a sessional.
5.
Better coordination of administrative, sabbatical and other
research leave is
required to even out the number and offer a broad
range of courses in the third and first trimesters.
Undergraduates complained that they were able to proceed
• ?
through the program with so little, contact with regular faculty
that they had difficulty in obtaining three references from them at
15
the end of their programs. Although such cases must, according to
the data before us, be exceptional, they are nonetheless indicative
of a need for reassessment and restructuring of the undergraduate
program. Inasmuch as this process' has already begun and there
appears reasonable hope that two new faculty members, one
specializing in human biology and the other in the archaeology of
complex societies, will be appointed within two years, It is
appropriate that the external review committee limit its comments
on restructuring of the undergraduate program to generalities and
to questions on which its advice has specifically been sought.
First, we concur that limited restructuring is needed, and we
support and applaud the process of rethinking that Undergraduate
Program Chair has already initiated. It is the development of a
patterned
yet not overly constraining
structure of prerequisites
and sequences of courses of increasing difficulty that needs most
attention. The requirements of both the BA and BA Hons programs and
the disciplinary balance between archaeology courses And ones taken
in other departments appear quite satisfactory. The wide range of
courses in other departments that are recommended to Archaeology
students offers them more than adequate scope for developing their
particular interests within the general framework of the degree.
(We are unclear as to whether undergraduates receive sufficient
guidance in choosing amongst this
embarras de richesses.,)
Second and following from the above, it is clear that the
ideas put forward by faculty regarding joint degree programs with
. Anthropology and Biological Sciences are certainly worth further
exploration and consideration. Indeed the makeup of the Department
is such that it would be entirely appropriate for it to offer
combinations of courses leading to a BSc degree in Archaeology,
with an optional concentration in Physical Anthropology (that might
with the addition of another physical anthropologist one day become
a degree in Physical Anthropology and Archaeology).
Third, since it appears that course offerings have in the past
been somewhat uncoordinated if not at the whim of individual
faculty members, it should be firmly established that it is the
responsibility of the Chair (acting in conjunction with the
Undergraduate Program Chair) to ensure both equity in the
distribution of teaching loads between faculty (an undergraduate
course plus graduate add-on is not the equivalent of two courses),
and that the mix of undergraduate courses offered in the two
regular trimesters of any session adequately covers the range of
junior and senior, topical and areal, etc. courses, required to
service the undergraduate body.
Fourth, while it is no doubt necessary that certain 100-level
Courses be offered twice a session, this should not be the case
with higher level courses, some of which could be offered once
every two sessions without, theoretically at least, denying
students access. In this regard, the provision through renovation
of existing space of at least two teaching laboratories, one able
16
to hold up to 40 and the other up to 30 students, must be regarded
as an urgent priority.
Fifth, we recommend a reassessment of the division of labour
between regular faculty, sessionals and TAs. It appears that while
certain topical science-oriented courses demand that the faculty
member responsible take direct charge of both lecture and
laboratory components, in several courses TAs could take more of
the tutorials and labs. This should free faculty to teach other
courses that are at present taught by sessionals - who may indeed
be graduate students.
Sixth, while it is apparently not part of SFU undergraduate
culture to take courses developed for graduate students, there are
definite advantages if certain courses can be made available both
to high performers among the senior undergraduates and to graduate
students. we commend to the Undergraduate and Graduate Program
Chairs this idea, which (besides having obvious benefits for small
departments) is particularly suited to adiscipline such as
archaeology in which breadth of knowledge contributes greatly to
depth of analytic interpretation.
As to specifics of individual courses:
Human Origins (131): examination of course outlines and
examinations suggests to us that this course as presently taught is
too specialized for a 100-level course (and too limited in scope to
serve as a general introduction for students wishing to specialize
in physical anthropology).
Archaeology Laboratory Techniques (372): the problem with this
course is that it is not a course with a specified content. Rather
it is, as taught by a variety of instructors, a variety of courses
that have in common the provision to undergraduates of useful
'hands on' experience. This is indeed valuable, but it might be
preferable to offer a standardized -- possibly team-taught --
introductory course at the 200-level that could be followed up by
more advanced courses taught by faculty under the 33x Special
Topics or other labels.
Advanced Archaeometry (410) and Dating (411): we agree with faculty
that it would be appropriate to offer 411 as a 300-level course.
410 might well be a candidate for redesignation at the 600level,
where it would be available to both senior undergraduates and
graduates.
Museology course: a senior undergraduate course on Museology taught
by the new Curator should be introduced as soon as possible.
2. Enrollments
While the present number of undergraduates majoring in
. archaeology appears very satisfactory, it is clear that many
advantages accrue to departments with larger overall course
17
enrollments. The Archaeology Department has taken various measures,
7 ?
including the development of The Evolution of Technology (105), to
attract enrollment both within and from beyond the Faculty. The
faculty members' belief that no large lecture halls are available
is apparently mistaken. More could be done in this area by
aggressive advertising of archaeology courses (and of their value
in satisfying faculties' breadth requirements), and perhaps also by
redesigning as necessary certain courses so that they would be
acceptable to the Faculty of Science as Science courses.
One mechanism the Department might consider in seeking larger
undergraduate enrollment (a need expressed by Dean Brown) is the
restructuring of the undergraduate curriculum discussed above.
From the perspective of Physical Anthropology a more desirable
program structure would have a one 100-level course that serves as
a general introduction to Physical Anthropology
and
to Archaeology.
Such courses exist in most departments of Anthropology, for
example. The current 131 course could be refashioned into a 200-
level course taught in the 4fall semester which would focus in depth
on the major fields of Physical Anthropology, with enough
information provided that students should be able to understand the
fundamentals of the literature in the major branches of the
discipline. This might also be done with Arch 101 (Introduction to
Archaeology), for balance. The sequence of availability of 300- and
400-level courses should be spelled out in either the Calendar, or
in a departmental handout available at registration time.
Of course if certain senior courses could be taught less often
to larger numbers of students, freeing faculty members to teach
other courses, overall enrollment might also increase. As noted
above, two large, dedicated archaeology teaching laboratories are
needed for this purpose.
3. Staff-student relations
Relations between staff, both faculty and support, and
students are generally very good with students appreciative of the
efforts of staff members on their behalf. Naturally opinions of
individual staff members varied, with the dedication of Drs Driver
and Burley frequently being singled out for especially favourable
mention.
We must also report that during the course of our visit we
received from all categories of departmental membership indications
of gender bias that has resulted in women feeling discriminated
against or intimidated in their interactions with certain faculty.
This feeling even extends to certain men students who do not
conform to a traditional male image - call it 'macho', 'cowboy' or
or just 'good old boy'. The allegations are neither limited to one
faculty member nor do they extend to all. The undergraduates'
written presentation contains specific allegations regarding the
field school that must be taken seriously. The conduct of the field
S
school is discussed separately below. With regard to the larger
issue of gender bias, it appears clear that some faculty members
18
require sensitizing regarding
sexism,
overt and covert, conscious
and unconscious, and the damage it can do to faculty-student
. relationships. To this end we have already strongly suggested that
the Chair invite the University sexual harassment officer to
address a faculty meeting.
While it would perhaps be easy either to ignore or to
exaggerate the allegations of gender bias within the Department, we
believe that the Department should do neither. There clearly is a
problem, but one that we think can be dealt with quickly and
effectively and without leaving scars.
4. The Field school
An archaeological field school is a vital element in the
credibility of an archaeological program, and the one at SFU,
requiring a semester's full time study, has a long tradition and a
substantial reputation. Its four course structure (433, 434, 435
and 436), whch comprises preparatory work undertaken before going
into the field and a field report completed after return, is
excellent. Nonetheless it is clear that over the years it has had
its ups and downs (see C. E. Borden's comment in the 1975 review),
and the undergraduate brief contains elements of both appreciation
and criticism.
We do not accept all the criticisms of the students, who have
not sufficiently understood the differences between the classroom,
is and it is generally possible to build a course over a trimester,
and the field in which the archaeologist in charge is constantly
having to cope with unique and often unexpected excavation and
other problems. Nevertheless there have clearly been failures of
communication between faculty and students, and several of the
requests of the undergraduates regarding the field school appear to
us to have considerable merit.
While the faculty will no doubt wish to include detailed
consideration of the field school in the context of the
restructuring of the undergraduate program, we recommend that as
soon as possible
a)
minimum prerequisites for participation in the field school be
established,
b)
students be supplied with a clear written statement of the
skills to be learned and of ancillary tasks to be performed at
any particular
field school,
C)
that they be similarly informed of the nature of both the
formal and informal instruction they may expect to receive in
the field, and
d) before going into the field, students be formally apprised of
their grades in preceding coursework, and that they receive
regular feedback on their performance at intervals during the
field school itself.
•
?
?
Second, since on the one hand, an archaeological dig is both an
experiment and a social institution and there have been specific
19
complaints, we recommend that a code of
field school
Conduct be
developed, preferably by a committee of faculty and students
working together, and agreed to by both no later the start of the
field portion of the 1991 field school. Such a code of conduct
should include description of the day to day camping, cooking, etc.
tasks -to be undertaken by students taking the field school, and
guarantees of privacy, including separate lodging and washing
facilities, for men and women.
We also recommend that more attention be paid to safety, for
example in training students to use chain saws (even in BC this is
not necessarily part of their cultural heritage !), and to ensuring
that adequate first aid skills and equipment are available.
We commend the initiatives the Chair has already taken in
regard to the field school and in the matter of appeals, treated in
the next section.
5.
,Appeals and Consistency
Undergraduates have complained of the lack of a formal and
accessible appeals procedure. While it does not seem that there is
any general dissatisfaction with grading procedures or grades, it
would appear easy enough to make information regarding the appeal
process easily available to students. This has already been taken
up by the Chair.
Student concern is in fact not so much with appeals
per se
as
with inconsistencies in grading between faculty members and
especially in courses taught by sessionals. Departmental standards
for course outlines, exams, and grading should be established
during the discussions of the undergraduate program, and the Chair
or Undergraduate Program Chair should make a special effort to
discuss expectations and to explain grading procedures to sessional
instructors.
In this connection, we agree with the suggestion that certain
especially important pieces of undergraduate work, and in
particular the Honors Essay, be graded by more than one faculty
member.
6. Undergraduate support
We sympathize with the undergraduate student complaint that
access to work study programs is limited to single students from
British Columbia who live apart from their parents. It seems
incongruous that the provincial government should in this manner
discriminate against the nuclear family.
20
VII The Graduate Programs
1. Introduction and quality of graduate student research
The graduate program in archaeology has been operational since
the inception of the Department in 1970. The Department offers both
MA and PhD degrees in Archaeology and has produced 17 PhDs,
beginning in 1977, and about (statistics vary) 54
HAs,
the first in
1973. A review of the titles of theses and dissertaions (IRR
Appendix 4.1) shows that a large majority of the databases on which
these theses are based are North American, and mostly Western
Canadian. While most discuss substantive issues of regional
prehistory, the methodological strengths of the Department are very
evident in the choices and treatments of materials. The average
length of M.A. theses (205 pages, n = 50) and Ph.D. disserations
(424 pages, n = 13) seem, on the whole, to be reasonable for the
discipline (although there were about 6 M.A. theses 300 pages or
more, which is a bit worrisome). While time constraints of the
visit to the university did not permit any sort of thorough
examination of theses, one member (P. Healy) cursorily reviewed two
Archaeology M.A. theses and two Ph.D. dissertations (chosen on the
basis of interest) and found each of these to be of high calibre.
Many of the theses/dissertations are obviously based on self-
directed student research (i.e. quite distinct from on-going
faculty research projects) and this reflects (at both the masters
and doctoral level) considerable student initiative, independence,
and capability.
The Internal Review Report of the Department also provided a
partial list of publications by current and former archaeology
graduate students (Appendix 4.3). This was supplemented during the
site visit by a set of up-to-date CV's of nearly two dozen former
graduate students. It is apparent from these that significant
number of program graduates remain actively involved in
archaeological research activities and in disseminating their
results in a range of published media, including various refereed
professional journals. While the occasional publication is jointly
authored with current (or former) graduate supervisors or other
Department faculty, this is not particularly common. In this
regard, and since we received hints of one or two disagreements
over ownership of intellectual property, we would urge the faculty,
whose own reputations are well-established, to be uniformly
generous in assignation of senior coauthorship and even single
authorship to students. Concerns of this kind should probably be
addressed by the Department, and internal guidelines and procedures
considered.
Another measure of the success of the graduate program, and
indirectly of the quality and quantity of graduate student
research, is the diversity of current career positions in
.
archaeology held by these former graduate students. The list
includes positions
in university
and college teaching, provincial
government archaeology, federal government agencies, consulting,
21
museums, and others. Many of the program graduates have also
garnered major research grants from federal granting councils
(SSHRC
and
NSERC)
and some SFU graduates are prominent young
scholars in Canadian archaeology and physical anthropology and hold
positions In a diversity of instituions across Canada (e.g.
Memorial, Waterloo, Alberta, the Geological Survey of Canada and
SFU itself).
Overall, the graduates of the SFU M.A. and Ph.D. program in
Archaeology have proven themselves to be a very professional,
articulate, and successful group. They are obviously well trained,
and many are quite productive scholars who have displayed
excellence (or potential for excellence) in their chosen careers in
archaeology and physical anthropology. These are substantial
guages of the success of the graduate program.
As to the future, the Department receives an adequate number
of good quality applicants for admission to its graduate programs.
Trent and Calgary faculty (among others) regularly recommend SFU to
their graduates who wish to enrol in MA or PhD Archaeology
programs.
2. Program content and structure
In spite of the program's overall success in producing good
•
graduates, there are several areas that have been identified by
either faculty or graduate students or both as needing improvement.
If not actually low, graduate student morale could stand raising.
Its present state is a complex function of inadequacies, real and
perceived, in program structure, academic and financial support,
and space and facilities. The fact that only 14 graduates completed
the
q
uestionnaire is both indicative of a lack of cohesion of the
student body and a caution against taking its somewhat pessimistic
reading as necessarily representative. We shall consider first the
structure of the program and the effectiveness of its delivery.
The number of courses that are required to be taken by
students in the MA and PhD programs, the PhD comprehensive exam and
other requirements for advancement to candidacy appear generally
satisfactory. Problems arise rather with delivery of the program.
If we exclude the Graduate Seminar (872 and 873), which together
constitute the departmental seminar at which talks are given by
faculty, students and visitors, and M.A. Thesis (898) and Ph.D.
Thesis 899), reserved for thesis writing, there are left eleven
graduate courses listed in the calendar. Very few are actually
offered in any academic session, and six -- including two of the
only three concerned with substantive areal prehistory -- have not
been offered at all in at least the last four sessions. Graduate
students can, and occasionally at least do, pass through the system
with virtually no formal graduate coursework other than the
required Selected Topics in Archaeological Theory (871). The
. following table excludes ARCH 872 'and 873 and reading courses
offered on an
ad hoc
basis to one or two students.
22
881, 895)
Session
Courses
3rd
(excluding 872
1st trimester
and 873)
87-88
2
3
(840,
?
871, ?
876,
88-89
1
1
( ?
871, ?
876)
89-90 -
2
2
(840, ?
871,
?
876,
90-91
1
3
( ?
871 twice,
895)
881, 895)
In this year 871 was taught once as selected topics in
archaeological theory and once as selected topics in physical
anthropological theory. North American Prehistory (881) appears to
be taught as a graduaate-level add-on to ARCH 476. Special Topics
(895) was offered but not taught for lack of registrants.
The problems of understaffing in the area of Physical
Anthropology are also reflected at the graduate level. Of the 13
courses listed in the 1990-91 Calendar, only one focuses on
Physical Anthropology (875 - Seminar in Paleoanthropology).
Recently a seminar in 'Physical Anthropology Theory' has been
substituted for the required 871 course (Selected Topics in
Archaeological Theory) for students who specialize in Physical
Anthropology. ARCH 875 does not appear to have been offered for at
least four years. Given understaffing, it may be impossible to
offer this course annually. However, at least one graduate course
in Physical Anthropology should be taught either in the fall or in
the winter trimester of each year. Course 875 itself should be
available at least in alternate years.
While deficiences in regular listed courses can to some extent
be made up by reading courses, the number of graduate courses
regularly taught is inadequate; the paucity of offerings must
certainly contribute to the difficulty reported by graduate
students in completing course requirements. it is probably
significant that the Department's self-study failed to include any
graduate course outlines. (These were subsequently received and
vary enormously in content from a few lines (881) to, and more
commonly, extensive and informative listings of topics and
accompanying reading lists (e.g. 871).) Recommendations made above
regarding less frequent teaching of certain senior undergraduate
courses and the opening up of certain graduate courses to the best
among the senior undergraduates should simultaneously result in the
freeing of regular faculty to teach more graduate courses and help
to increase enrollments so that it becomes worthwhile to teach
them. We are unclear as to why so many graduate seminar courses are
for 5 rather than 3 credit hours.
The content of graduate courses again reflects the great
strengths of the Department in methods and techniques. It is
unlikely that there will ever be sufficient student interest to
make it worth while offering areal courses other than 881 (North
America) on a regular
basis,
but it would be desirable to introduce
regularly numbered courses on, for example, the Origins of
. A g
riculture and the Archaeology of-Complex Societies, since these
are both important foci of archaeological analysis and concern.
With regard to the ARCH 871 course on Archaeological Theory and its
23
Physical Anthropological version, we consider that all graduates
who expect to receive degrees in Archaeology should take this
course in its original and intended form. A graduate course on
current issues in Physical Anthropology and Primatology is Indeed
most desirable, and should be given its own number but should not
be considered an alternative to the course on archaeological
theory. Furthermore, since the interests and expertise of Drs
Skinner and Galdikas are very different, there would seem to be no
reason why each should not teach a separate course.
Like the undergraduate program, the graduate program is
presently being reassessed by the Department under a new Graduate
Program Chair. One topic that we have not addressed is the extent
to which graduate students do or should receive instruction, formal
or informal, in cultural and social anthropology and in
anthropological linguistics, the subdisciplines of anthropology
that, with archaeology and physical anthropology, constitute the
syllabus of the typical North American Anthro 100 general
introduction to anthropology. A willingness and ability to teach
such a course certainly adds significantly to the marketability of
holders of PhD and MA degrees. The current reassessment will no
doubt also include consideration of an in part related matter, the
students' comments on the comprehensive exam.
Several of the suggestions made above are already under
consideration, and further comments by us on this aspect of
graduate studies are unnecessary -- except to insist that after a
Phase of frequent changes of Graduate Program Chair, during which
there may have been some degree of failure to press the
Dep
artment's case in various forums, there is paramount need for a
period of stability and
consistent
development. We must admit that
at our meeting with the Graduate Program Committee - which is a
committee of the whole - we were struck by two things: the near
unanimity of the faculty on the need for restructuring, and the
major disagreements on the strategy and tactics of that
restructuring. it was as if there had been little or no prior
discussion on these issues. The Graduate Program Chair clearly has
his work cut out.
We recommend below (see IX.1) that the Graduate Program
Committee be reduced in size. However it would be advantageous in
our view if the streamlined committee were to include, for all
matters not involving individual students, one representative of
the graduate students.
3. Graduate supervision and guidance
As of January 1991, there were 23 MA and 10 PhD students in
p
rogram, some of whom were on leave. Students are distributed among
supervisors as follows:
24
0
MA
PhD
Burley
4
3
Carlson
2
1
Driver
1
2
Fladinark
2
Galdikas
1
Hayden
2
1
Hobler
2
Nance
1
Nelson
1
Shutler
1
Skinner
2
1
Unassigned
?
5
?
1
It is clear from these statistics that, with the
exception of Burley, faculty are not overloaded, nor
become so when the six recent entries are assigned to
very evident
will they
supervisors.
Upon entering the program, graduate students are subjected to
a ritual of interrogation by assembled faculty that is designed,
through detection of their strengths and weaknesses, to match them
with the appropriate supervisory committee and program of
coursework. This 'big' or 'initial meeting' is perceived as
•
fearsome by the graduate students, and indeed it seems unlikely
that all faculty are as familiar with each and every student's
transcripts and records as they should be in order to make the most
of this evaluatory process. We would favour a less intimidating
induction involving a tour of the Department, informal
introductions to faculty members and support staff, and subsequent
evaluations by groups of three or possibly four faculty, some of
whom would continue as members of the student's supervisory
committee. The meeting would be chaired by the faculty member
provisionally designated as supervisor at the time of the decision
to admit, and would lay out a provisional program of coursework and
study.
While students rate their supervision in the program as good
to excellent overall, they are somewhat disatisfied with their
supervision in the first and second years. We believe that these
disatisfactjons are largely functions of the lack of graduate
courses and of the lack of definition of the role of the
supervisory committee in the early stages of graduate work. The
external reviewers are divided regarding the necessity for formal
supervisory committees for MA students. On the one hand the
student's interests are better protected by a committee, especially
if, as we were told was the case, faculty vary in the effort they
expend on supervision and in their expectations. On the other hand
students might be better served by a closer relationship with one
faculty member and access to others as needed. Narrower focussing
of individual
faculty members' responsibilities on the work of a
smaller number of students could also have advantages. Students
might receive more feedback, and perhaps benefit more from their
p ?
25
• advice during the critical period during which they are developing
their research projects. However this may be decided, and we
suspect that the present system will be maintained, the
collective
responsibility
of the supervisory committee should be emphasized.
Once students have embarked upon a research project, the
supervisory system generally works well. Students do complain about
exaggerated expectations on the part of certain faculty regarding
the amount of research students are expected to conduct and to
incorporate into their theses and dissertations. While this is not
peculiar to SFU, it is noteworthy that neither in the General
Regulations of the Faculty of Graduate Studies nor elsewhere (as
far as we can determine), are expectations for theses or
dissertations specified in even the most general terms. This is a
matter for the Faculty. our very hasty observations suggest that
some MA theses go beyond, whether in range or depth, what we regard
as the requirements for this degree. No doubt this is an area in
which the supervisory committe.e and the student should work
together in order to define the requirements for acceptability --
while recognizing that ultimate publication of the results may at
one and the same time include both much more and much less than the
actual thesis.
A booklet,
A Guide to the Archaeology Graduate Program,
which
shows signs of having been hastily thrown together, is intended to
• guide graduates through the program. We recommend that a fuller and
more informative text, including details of areas in which faculty
members are prepared to supervise and of course offerings, and of
the support available to graduate students, be made available
to
all students considering entry
into the graduate program.
4. Graduate student progress
The interview with the Graduate Committee revealed that the
Department did not consider the data in the
Graduate Studies Fact
Book to be accurate. Thus, although the Department's own
Internal
Review Report
stated that 'Students have tended to remain in the
program for much longer than the University average' (
p
. 33),
several members of faculty rejected the 'official' data, which
nevertheless revealed the same pattern as the Department's own
record!
In an effort to determine the reasons behind this discrepancy
of opinion, the Department's graduate student record was compared
with data provided by Dean Clayman. The Department's record did
indeed contain 42 more MA and 8 more PhD students than did the
Dean's list. However, all of these additional students earned
their degrees before trimester 85-3.
The
Graduate Studies Fact Book
data on degree completion times
and withdrawal rates pertain
only
to the period 85-3 through 90-2
Dep(as
artment's
of January
existence.
7/91) - that
The University's
is,
not for the
baseline
entire
begins
period
with
of the
g
raduands completing degrees in 85-3. While this does not capture
I
?
*
?
26
all of a Department's performance history, the standard baseline
does permit comparisons of performance across departments.
Furthermore, because departmental faculty complements and programs
have shifted over a 25 year period, it may be more relevant to look
at current performance history, as does the 'official' University
record.
The Review Committee was able to examine the published data on
graduate performance (85 through 90-2) for all departments, and
Dean Clayman also provided information for the period 85-3 through
91-1 for Archaeology alone. The latter differed only marginally
from the data for 85-3 through 90-2.
MA level
At the MA level, Archaeology graduate students are older on
average than their,peers at Simon Fraser. However, analysis by sex
shows that only woien students are older. The men on average are
younger than other male MA students. Withdrawal rates by sex
differ only slightly (women = 40%, men = 38%) as do degree
completion times (women = 14.56 semesters; men = 13.75 semesters).
The fact that women students tend to be older (average = 38 years)
may be a factor in 'chilly climate' issues articulated by the
graduate students, and may be a factor in the slightly higher
female withdrawal rate and slower degree completion time. So may
the demands of motherhood, etc.; we lack evidence.
Quality of scholarly performance may also be a factor, but
female students in Archaeology (MA + PhD) displayed slightly higher
average, median and weighted cumulative grade point averages
(CGPAs) than the men. ordinarily, higher performance scores would
predict a faster progress through the program and a lower drop-out
rate than what is observed among the women.
Having said this, an important caveat also needs to be noted.
Without knowing what the CGPAs and age of those who earned degrees
and who dropped out, we cannot be certain that it is valid to
extrapolate backward from
observed
ages and CGPAS of student
currently in the program. Dean Clayman's office should gather and
tabulate age and CGPA data on those who completed degrees and on
who dropped out to rectify this problem. Without it, any
conclusion about the roles that 'climate issues' and other factors
may play in the progress of female MA students must remain
tentative.
With respect to the very long completion times for MAs
regardless of
sex,
there is no question that the requirement of
coursework, fieldwork and thesis constitute an impediment to rapid
progress to degree completion. While we accept the components of
the program, the coursework portion is a major stumbling block
because there is no defined structure to the pattern of course
.
offerings. Many courses are listed in the Calendar, but few are
available in any one year. Students cannot plan their sequence of
courses because they do not know what courses
will be offered. If
27
.
members of faculty choose to offer their courses during the summer
trimester, students entering the graduate program in the fall will
be at a decided disadvantage. From the faôulty's perspective the MA
program offers flexibility and permits tailoring of the program to
individual student needs. In practice the small size of the
faculty and the absences of faculty during the third or the first
trimester of a calendar year greatly limit the courses available.
Both students' and faculty members' abilities to plan would benefit
from a listing of courses to be offered over the next two years.
An additional stumbling block in the time it takes for
students to complete their degrees is the timing of the Colloquium
- a student's presentation of his/her thesis problem to the
Department. This commonly occurs near the end of the student's
second year, and only after the proposal is accepted can fieldwork
begin. Some faculty suggested that the Colloquium could be held
much
1
earljer, perhaps at the end of the second trimester spent in
the MA program. This would permit students to go into the field
during the summer of their first year of graduate study. It seems
to us that a fairer thing may be not to require formal Colloquia of
MA students at all, on the premise that MA fieldwork and theses
should not be of either the breadth and depth of PhD theses.
Provided that the student has satisfied his/her graduate committee
that the thesis problem is appropriate, the goals realistic and
methods adequate, wholesale scrutiny by the Department of the
• project proposed seems superfluous at this level.
Faculty and students wish to retain the fieldwork and thesis
components of MA training, and with this we agree. However, taking
a whole year to do fieldwork (as many graduate students do) is
simply too long an expenditure of time. Fieldwork at the MA level
should be restricted to one trimester's effort, with no more than a
Year assigned to subsequent analysis and write-up. An MA program
that takes three years for completion (9 trimesters) is generally
considered long, yet Simon Fraser's track record for Archaeology is
even longer than this.
Finally, the Department needs to consider whether its annual
intake of graduate students is not too large, preventing the close
supervision that normally facilitates rapid progress through a
graduate program. If the Department feels that one of its
strengths is its ability to draw students (including international
ones) and that student intakes should not be reduced, then the
faculty must also consider streamlining its program, for example
requiring a set number of supervisory meetings and performance
reviews of students during the course of the year.
PhD level
At the doctoral level, the age distribution is similar to that
observed for the MA students. Archaeology female doctoral students
are older on average than other female doctoral students, and the
Archaeology male doctoral students are younger than their peers.
Here the similarity with the MA students stops. The two female
28
•
doctoral students who completed the program between 85-3 and 90-2
required only 13.0 semesters, compared to 23.67 semesters for the
six males who completed the PhD over the same time period.
Withdrawal rates by
sex
also differ, with no women, but 40% of the
men dropping out of the program. (In the period 85-3 to 91-1,
completion times for three women were 17 semesters, and for seven
men, 22 semesters. No data on withdrawals were provided.)
Even speculation about the cause of these sex differences is
precluded by the data available in the
Graduate Studies Fact Book.
Thesis titles suggest an explanation for their fast progression
through the program; one female student did a laboratory-oriented
thesis and the other a library-based one.
With respect to the long completion times among the men,
several factors could be responsible. However, one likely problem
is what has already been stated for the MA program. There is an
absence of structure in the pattern of course offerings. In
addition, there does not appear to be a stated time frame within
which the comprehensive examination must be passed. If students
receive reading lists for the comprehensives, the Review Committee
was not advised of it. The time frame within which the Colloquium
must be held is also undefined.
Members of the Graduate Committee noted that many students
•
take time out from their studies to do contract research, or they
begin paid employment before competing their theses.. These factors
contribute to the delayed degree completion times. However, such
behaviour is not unique to Simon Fraser's Archaeology doctoral
students. A more likely factor is the flexibility and 'tailor-
made' doctoral program lauded by certain professors, but perceived
as rudderless by many doctoral students. The general impression
given by several members of the Graduate Committee was a refusal to
consider that there may be fundamental problems with the
unstructured doctoral program, and that this may be the overriding
factor responsible for the slowness of their doctoral students.
There is no question that the graduates of the Archaeology
graduate programs are talented individuals, and that many have
demonstrated their abilities to continue to carry out research and
to earn a living practising their specialty as archaeologists. The
Review Committee acknowledges that there are strengths in the
Program. Nevertheless, for financial reasons, the pressure in all
universities today is for graduate students to complete their
studies in a shorter time than they have tended to do in the past.
Simon Fraser is not an exception in having this view. Accordingly,
the Department needs to find an appropriate compromise between what
the University wants done, and the education the Department wishes
to give its graduate students. Perhaps a more structured program
will accomplish this, and it might also lower the very high
withdrawal rates at the MA and PhD levels.
••
5. Adequacy of support for graduate students and the size of
the program.
The total number of trimesters of support required for the 23
MA and 10 PhD students presently in program would be 99 units.
Inasmuch as many students can find alternative sources of funding
during the summer term, it would seem reasonable to hope --
assuming that all graduates are deserving of funding -- for about
75 units. In recent years graduate students actually received
trimester support from the sources and in the approximate amounts
shown below:
TAships:
?
19 (@ 4 base units each)
Graduate Fellowships: ?
9
Sessional Appointments: ?
4
Field School Lab Instructor: ?
1
Scholarships: ?
3?
PhD stipend ?
1?
Faculty Research Grants ?
0?
37 approx.
The difference of 38 units, presumably made up mainly by
loans, salaries and wages, goes a long way towards explaining the
long average duration of students in program.
•
Comparison with graduate support in the
Archaeology
Department
of the University of Calgary is again instructive since the
graduate student bodies are of identical size. At Calgary the large
majority of students receive at least 2 units of support per annum,
and these derive, in descending order of frequency from
scholarships, TAships and (the equivalent of SFU's) Graduate
Fellowships. There are far fewer provincial scholarships in BC, and
it appears that SFU graduate students have not been successful --
and it would seem have not been particularly energetic -- in going
after national scholarships and fellowships (SSHRC, lODE and the
like). In spite of the efforts of the Dean of Graduate Studies,
SFU also has considerably fewer Graduate Fellowships.
It seems clear from the above that present sources of graduate
funding are inadequate and in part responsible for the long
durations of students in program. Recent changes in SSHRC
regulations now make it easier for faculty to build student support
into their research grants, and no doubt they will take advantage
of this wherever possible. Students must also be encouraged to
apply for all the scholarships for
which
they are eligible, if
necessary by sanctioning those that do not.
The review committee was surprised to learn that Graduate
Fellowships were distributed to graduate students not on the basis
of student and program excellence, but as a simple function of
•
departmental enrollment in graduate programs. Now that a floor of
fellowship funding has been established in this manner, it would
seem highly desirable to distribute any increase In the number of
fellowship units on the basis of scholarship. Otherwise how can
29
30
superior performance be stimulated and rewarded? The quality of the
Archaeology Department is such that, given some restructuring of
programs, it could not fail to benefit from such reforms.
However, even if the number of units of support can be
Increased by a variety of means, it is quite unlikely that the
present shortfall of 38 units will be made up in the near future.
An alternative would be to downsize the graduate program and
concentrate support on fewer students, who would move more rapidly
to the degree. It is clear that a reduction of even 4 students --
which might result in the loss of one unit of Graduate Fellowship,
but a net reduction of about 9 units in graduate student needs --
would be resisted by the Department. We sympathize with that view
but are of the opinion that, until such time as more units of
support for graduate students can be found, a small decrease in the
numbers of students, achieved through limitation of admissions to
the
MA degree, would
on balance be advantageous. In any case, no
increase in the number of graduate students should be envisaged,
even with additional faculty to take on part of the supervisory
load, until more graduate student support units are forthcoming
from whatever sources.
VIII The Laboratories and
the Museum
1. The Radiocarbon/Archaeometry Laboratory
Chapter 8 of the Internal Review Report presents a case for
relocating and refunding the
11 C
laboratory. There is no question
at all that the present laboratory is underfunded, nor that its
equipment is antiquated and operates under conditions that are
unsuitable and indeed potentially dangerous to the staff. Although
we have not had access to the accounts and there is disagreement as
to the numbers of dates run for fees in recent years, it appears
certain that the laboratory does not pay for itself. But lack of
faculty interest is the prime and it itself sufficient argument for
discontinuing the '-c laboratory. Dr Nelson, the faculty member
originally hired to develop it in 1978, has shifted his main area
of research to new forms of
11
C
dating in which he is indeed one of
the leading Innovators. Even though the laboratory continues to
provide a moderate level of service to Archaeology and other
departments and institutions, it cannot continue to do so for more
than a little longer without a substantial input of fund-raising
and management effort from faculty that is neither presently
available nor among the strategic priorites of the Department.
If the
1 c
laboratory is at the present time a white elephant,
it is most emphatically not the case that the scientific capital
and expertise that it and its manager represent are excess to
departmental requirements. On the contrary, there is a very urgent
need for a departmental
Archaeometry
laboratory which Dr Nelson
• would head and in which he could carry out some of his own
research, besides providing expertise In archaeometrlc aspects of
other faculty and student research. Given the interests and
expertise of present faculty, such a facility would constitute a
31
' valuable and highly productive Complement to Department resources,
and would reaffirm the Department's unique position among
archaeology programs in Canada.
-The present space allocated to the c laboratory is equally
unsuitable for an Archaeometry Laboratory and should be allowed to
revert to the storage function for which it was originally
intended. In any new building or renovation of departmental space
an Archaeometry research laboratory should have high priority. It
should be able to accommodate up to four research programs
(
stu
dent/faculty/visitor). A cost very provisionaly estimated in
the region of $165,000 (renovation) to $264,000 (new construction)
for the absolute minimum required, a 600 square foot laboratory
with standard physico-chemical equipment would appear a first rate
investment for the University and faculty.
2.
The Museum and the 'Laboratories of Archaeology"
Like the Radiocarbon Lab, the existing Museum is an anomaly.
It takes up a great deal of space and contributes very little to
the Department and not much more to the University as a whole. The
Northwest Coast exhibits, while well laid out and presented, have
not changed for many years and are in any case better done
elsewhere in Greater Vancouver. From the account in chapter seven
of the Internal Review Report, it would appear that failures in
' conservation of organic materials have been little short of
scandalous. A large part of the existing collections is effectively
uncatalogued. A very high proportion of the material excavated from
archaeological sites and legally deposited in the Museum is in fact
not curated but merely stuffed into a variety of insecure campus
locations. The program of outreach to schools and the general
public has been in abeyance since the loss of the Curator of
Education position in 1983. With a bare minimum of resources, the
Museum has failed in its task and can provide little in the way of
service.
In stark contrast to the Museum, an institution without a
program, are the 'Laboratories of Archaeology', an entity not
recognized administratively but which comprises some of the most
lively and innovative research activities in the Department. Under
this heading fall the Zooarchaeologica]. Identification Laboratory
and collections, the Human Osteology collections, the Historic
Archaeology Type Collection, the Lithics and the Paleoethnobotany
collections.
It was a considerable relief to the review committee to find
that not only did their preliminary appreciation of this Alice in
Wonderland state of affairs correspond to that of a large majority
of the Department faculty, but that they and the energetic,
experienced and highly competent Museum Curator recently hired by
40
say,
the Department,
they propose,
were
and
all
we
thinking
concur, a
along
radically
similar
altered
lines.
Museum
That is to
Policy, one that will incorporate the vitality of the Laboratories
of Archaeology into the Museum, that will involve students directly
32
. in
museum activities through one or more Museology courses, and
that might well be renamed, following Dr Hayden's suggestion, a
'Museum of Archaeological Science'
While the primary goal of the museum should be to contribute
to the work of Department, and secondarily to the university
community, the public are not to be excluded from such a museum. on
the contrary, visitors would be offered the opportunity to observe
what most museums still keep behind the scenes but which some of
the more innovative (e.g. La Brea Tar Pits Museum, Head-Smashed-In
Buffalo Jump) are revealing, and thereby often recruiting a useful
cadre of volunteers. So far as we are aware, such a restructured
Museum would not have competitors in Greater Vancouver, and would
bring favorable attention to the Department and SFU. Furthermore,
one thrust of the Museology course(s) might well be towards
training students in the development of public archaeology programs
aimed at schools and other audiences. Indeed the Curator's work
with the History Department may already be tending in this
direction. The students, under the guidance of the Curator, would
benefit from becoming ambassadors of archaeology to the public at
large.
Incorporation of the Laboratories of Archaeology -- excepting
the Human Osteology Collections which for other reasons are best
kept apart -- into the museum would provide them with
• administrative recognition and some curatorial support, besides
precious space much of which would at one and the same time be
laboratory and exhibition space -- inasmuch as laboratory
activities would be a significant part of the museum display. This
implies that only a small part of existing museum space would be
retained for traditional display, and probably also that a
substantial portion of the existing museum inventory be
deaccessjoned and redeployed to other museums in the province that
have the necessary facilities for conservation and curation.
With regard to the materials from archaeological sites,
excavated and analyzed by members of the Department, the University
must acknowledge by the provision of adequate resources that, if it
wishes to have an active archaeologicy program, it is accepting
legal and financial responsibility to see to the proper housing of
the excavated materials
in perpetuity.
Changing the mandate of the museum along the lines suggested
above will require a major input in terms of planning, and
considerable renovation of existing museum space, though probably
not, at least in the immediate future, of an extension into the
patio area immediately east of the existing museum where footings
for a building are already in place.
The developments suggested in this section would be
• impractical without the the addition of a curatorial assistant!-
preparator to the Department's support staff. However much part-
time student and volunteer assistants can help, and it is a great
deal, they cannot supply the necessary long term supervision and
33
.
other services of a full-time technician working under the
Curator's direction.
IX Administration
and Governance
1. Internal
Professor Nance is the
has been in office for about
time Chair of Archaeology, '
external review Professor N
changes suggested here; he I
resource problems faced by ]
all constituencies within it
his authority and set his os
the explicit support of his
increasingly difficult tas].
current Chair of the Department, and
a year. His predecessor, and long-
as Professor Carlson. Even before the
nce had initiated a number of the
as a clear understanding of the
is Department, and is appreciated by
As a new Chair, he needs to establish
n leadership style. He also deserves
colleagues in carrying out the Chair's
S
The Department has the usual committee structures and
procedures found in most academic departments. There is a
Department Tenure Committee, an Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
and a Graduate Program Committee. What is unusual about the
Department is that the composition of the former committee includes
seven members of faculty and of latter two committees
all
full-time
members of faculty. A committee meeting then is not much different
from a regular meeting of faculty, and the ability to resolve
issues within committees is rendered difficult. Furthermore, by
devolution of almost all policy and management decisions to
committees, the Chair's authority is minimized. He becomes a
facilitator rather than a leader.
It would be prudent for the Department to consider
streamlining its major departmental committees in the interests of
greater efficiency. It is hard to see how the Departmental Tenure
Committee, on which sit all but three members of the faculty, can
operate effectively. If the Department has a written constitution
or a written set of procedures regarding biennial reviews of
performance, decisions on hiring, and recommendations for tenure
and promotion, the Review Committee was not informed of it.
The Undergraduate and Graduate committees could have elected
representatives, perhaps two members of faculty and an elected
Chair. The Graduate Program Committee might consider having an
elected student member who participates in all deliberations except
those involving individual students. Terms of office could be
overlapping to produce continuity of experience and build
institutional memory. Each committee could have the mandate to do
much of the work required within its jurisdiction, and to make
recommendations to the Department.
Regularly scheduled (and more frequent) Departmental meetings
are an easy
way to consult and to distribute information,
incidental as well as major. The graduate student representative
(or representatives) should be invited to these meetings, so that
34
.•
the students develop the sense that they are junior partners in a
worthy intellectual enterprise. Presumably all issues brought to
Departmental Meeting are decided by majority vote. A consensus
approach, while presumed workable for a small unit, often merely
ensures the preservation of the status quo. If there are strong
differences of opinion among faculty, much needed change may be
virtually impossible to attain, especially if prima donna attitudes
are not set aside for the good of the unit as a whole.
2. University relations
The members of the higher administration with whom we met
regard the Department as a strong academic unit, capable of
improvement certainly, but worthy of increased support. While it
may be that the University's priorities have militated somewhat
against Archaeology's achievements in research receiving sufficient
recognition n terms of resource allocation, there can be no doubt
that any and,all efforts on the part of the Department to increase
undergraduate enrollments and to reduce the completion times of
graduate students will be very favourably received and quickly
rewarded. Although the Dean of Graduate Studies can not and does
not wish, it would appear, to exercise much influence over the
assignation of faculty positions to departments, we were pleased to
obtain a strong indication from the higher administration that,
contingent in part upon the Provincial Government's
maintenance
of
• its Access Program, the Department is likely to gain two new
faculty positions in the very near future.
During the course of our site visit we obtained little
information on inter-departmental relations, and none that this was
an area of
concern,
on the contrary, the Quaternary Studies group,
relations with Kinesiology and Geography, the involvement of the
Museum with History and the number of Adjunct appointments all
constitute indications of a healthy level of interdisciplinary
activity.
We did not enquire into the contribution of Department members
to university governance, although it is clear that in the case of
senior members, and in particular Professor Carlson, this has been
very considerable.
3.
Beyond the University
Several members of the Department of Archaeology have played
important roles within the scholarly community at the national
level and international levels. Professors Carlson and Fladmark
have each served on the SSHRCC Archaeology Review Committee.
Professor Burley has been Vice- and Interim President of the
Canadian Archaeological Association. Dr
Galdikas is Professor
Extraordlnaire at the Universitas Nasional in Jakarta. Several
• faculty are or have been involved in various capacities with
scholarly journals. virtually all regularly serve as external
reviewers for funding agencies, as referees for professional
Journals and academic presses.
35
•
??
At the provincial level the Department has developed and
maintained good relations with the Archaeology Branch of the
Ministry of Culture, British Columbia. The Department serves as a
repository for artefacts unearthed in the province by individuals
and groups not affiliated with scholarly institutions. Over the
years it has made an immense contribution to understanding of the
archaeology of the province, and cannot have failed to have
informed and involved the public in ways highly favourable to the
University as a whole. The development of the undergraduate Co-op
program will lead to further contacts and interaction with various
communities and institutions outside the University.
X A
Brief Conclusion
Simon Fraser has in its Archaeology Department an extremely
talented group of individuals who have, as requested by the last
set of external reviewers, individually and collectively
demonstrated their capacity to carry out, energetically and
effectively, innovative and important research in their various
areas of specialisation. This work has received favourable national
and international attention within the discipline and reflects well
on and has brought credit to the home institution. However, in part
because the Department's achievements have not been sufficiently
rewarded by the University in terms of resources, and in part
because successful and creative research in archaeology is so often
• the product of individual imagination, drive and ambition, the unit
at present lacks a certain synergy and departmental vision. As a
result, its teaching function, which demands a collective and
cooperative effort on the part of all staff, has fallen somewhat
behind and now needs both some restructuring, which is an internal
matter, and additional resources in the form of staff and funding
(largely for renovations), which must come from the University.
Under its new Chair, with some administrative and spatial
improvements, and with a renewed committment on the part of an
augmented faculty, the Department is ready to achieve that balance
in its achievements that will make it a truly excellent all-round
institution, offering programs in archaeology and human and primate
biology that have their own distinctive character and are among the
very best anywhere.
PART IV - EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Rather than a listing of recommendations, many of which must
be read in context to be meaningful, we summarize below our major
findings and suggestiions for the future.
Departmental Resources
1. ?
The Department of Archaeology boasts a first-rate faculty,
• ?
whose publication and external funding records are excellent,
and who enjoy well-deserved national and international
reputations. An obvious gender Imbalance (8.5:0.3) needs to be
corrected.
36
,4 o
?
2. ?
The existing faculty complement Is Inadequate to support the
current undergraduate and graduate programs. We recommend the
appointment of two new faculty, the first in the area of
physical anthropology (human genetics), the second in
a-rchaeology (complex societies).
3.
The Department has been well-served by its administrative and
clerical support staff. Restructuring of duties will be
required at the retirement of the DA. The University's
Financial Services should offer better support to the
Department and its members especially in the area of grant
accounting.
4.
A third member of technical staff is urgently required whether
or not the mandates of the Museum and Laboratories of
Archaeology are revised in order to realize their potential
contributions to the University and public at large.
5.
While space for teaching, research and offices is very
inadequate, renovation of existing space (mainly the Museum and
Loading Bay) combined with provision of storage away from the
main campus would solve immediate problems relatively cheaply,
and do more than anything else for departmental well-being and
productivity.
6.
The Department is fairly well supplied with equipment of all
kinds. However lack of funds for maintenance and replacement is
resulting in a major debt to the future.
7.
While the Museum and Radiocarbon Laboratory operating budgets
• ?
are inadequate to ensure effective functioning, in other
respects the operating and capital budgets, although small and
diminishing in real terms, are unfortunately not out of line
with those of similar programs at other Canadian universities.
8.
Retention of the TA and Sessional budgets in the hands of the
higher administration results in greatly reduced capacity of
the Department Chair to plan the strategy and tactics of
departmental development.
9.
Library holdings in archaeology are not keeping up with the
needs of a Department with active graduate and research
programs.
The Undergraduate Program
10.
The strength of the undergraduate program lies in its strong
focus on methods and techniques and on North Western North
American archaeology.
11.
The high proportion of courses currently taught by sessional
instructors devalues the degree. The addition of two faculty
would, in conjunction with the provision of larger teaching
laboratories, largely solve this problem besides adding a new
dimension to the archaeological side and rendering the physical
anthropology program fully viable.
12.
Increased enrollment in Archaeology courses requires increases
In faculty, teaching laboratory space
and
the Department's
efforts in advertising their courses throughout the University.
13.
The redesign of the undergraduate program currently In
progress should result in restructuring of prerequisites and
course sequences, greater consistency in expectations and
37
grading, and reassessment of the division of labour between
continuing faculty, sessionals and TA5.
14.
We recommend that certain graduate courses be made available
to senior undergraduates.
15.
Initiatives such as the Co-op program and possible joint
degrees with Anthropology and the Biological Sciences are to be
welcomed. A BSc in Archaeology would be appropriate given the
makeup of the Department.
16.
While relations between staff and students are generally good,
the faculty must guard against gender bias.
17.
Both the academic and social aspects of the field school
require to be more formally stated in order that faculty and
student expectations may coincide.
The Graduate Program
18.
By the measures of research, publications and marketability of
graduates, the MA and PhD programs are demonstrably successful'.
19.
Nonetheless the course offerings are inadequate and contribute
to an excessive average length of time spent in program. Many
of the constraints here are the same as in the undergraduate
program and must be similarly overcome.
20.
The reassessment of the Graduate Program presently in progress
should include reconsideration of the necessity for formal
colloquia and possibly also supervisory committees at the MA
level, and in any case emphasize the supervisory committee's
S
collective responsibility for guidance of students.
21.
The benefits in terms of future job opportunities of greater
exposure of students to cultural and social anthropology and
anthropological linguistics also require reassesinent.
22. The de
p
artmental Guide to the Archaeology Graduate Program
should be expanded and made available to all applicants for
admission.
23.
Long completion times and high drop out rates in the MA
program have complex causations that we lack evidence to
diagnose in detail. However, lack of availability of graduate
courses and in some cases excessive demands by faculty are
certainly contributory factors, as is inadequate financial
support.
24.
No doubt similar factors also contribute to the long
completion times and a high withdrawal rate among male students
enrolled in the PhD program. Some restructuring is also
required in this area.
25.
Present sources of graduate funding are inadequate. A small
down-sizing of the MA program until such time as graduate
funding can be improved should be seriously considered.
26.
To encourage excellence, any additional Graduate Fellowships
that may be instituted should be awarded on the basis of
student and departmental quality.
The Laboratories and the Museum
27.
The present radiocarbon laboratory should be reconfigured as an
Archaeometry Laboratory under the direction of Dr Erie Nelson.
38
y28. The Museum had failed in terms of its present mandate well
S
before the recent appointment of an energetic and innovative
curator. It and the 'Laboratories of Archaeology' should now be
integrated into a 'Museum of Archaeological Science' for which
an exciting future seems assured if some renovations can be
undertaken and a third member of technical staff recruited.
Administration and Governance
29.
The Chair requires increased authority in order to exercise
leadership and to oversee effectively the future implementation
of the major reappraisal of the teaching and related functions
of the Department that is presently underway.
30.
Membership of departmental committees should be reviewed with
a view to substantial reductions In their memberships.
31.
External relations of the Department both within and beyond
the University appear excellent.
Department of Archaeology
Simon Fraser University
Response to the Report of the External Review Committee
?
October 1991
Introduction
We begin by expressing our thanks to the ERC for their
efforts in what is at best a difficult task. The Chair also
thanks those faculty and staff who provided written comments
on the Report.
Our overall reaction to the report is that generally
those things most important to an academic program, namely
quality of faculty, teaching, quality and level of research
and publication, success of graduands, etc., have been
accurately evaluated, and in fact are rated very highly by
the Reviewers. For example, on page 4 the Department is
described as " . . . a first-rate academic unit." We are
gratified to learn that the ERC feel that our program is on
target.
The reviewers identify also some deficiencies in the
.
?
?
graduate and undergraduate academic programs, most of which
we were aware of as a result of our internal review. Some
of these are due to a need for additional faculty, while
others require remedial action on our part. The required
actions have begun already, and some were in process prior
to the visit of the ERC.
We feel, however, that many details of the Committee's
comments and recommendations (mostly those relating to less
significant aspects of the review) often are based on
misinformation, and/or reflect the fact that the Committee
come from academic/administrative environments that differ
from the SFU system. We are not convinced that the
reviewers attained a complete understanding of how the
University and the Department function.
We have attempted to keep our response brief. Below we
go through the report piece-by-piece, but do not comment on
the myriad details contained in it.
PART I - INTRODUCTION
In this part of the report the ERC summarize particulars
of their visit to SFU and the last external review of the
Department (1975). No comment is necessary here, except to
note that Dr. Galdikas' holds a half-time appointment, not a
one-third appointment as stated by the ERC (p.
2; Section
II).
I
PART II - RESOURCES
,qj
?
III The Faculty
• 1. In this section the ERC make five major points. These
are listed and commented on below:
a.
Lack of women faculty - We are aware of the fact
that female representation on faculty is inadequate and
would welcome the opportunity to consider women candidates
for appointment were new faculty positions to be allocated
to the Department. Indeed, we consider addition of women
faculty to be a priority. (NOTE: subsequent to the review
the Department was authorized to initiate a search for an
additional tenure-track faculty member. We are making every
effort to attract applications from women candidates.)
b.
The current CFL complement is inadequate and
addition of two (possibly three) new faculty positions is
desirable - Certainly we are in agreement with this
conclusion and the recommendation. It can be noted,
however, that, with regard to specializations of new
faculty, the ERC reverse priorities set by the Department in
our recent Five Year Plan. We are not unanimously in
agreement with the Committee's priorities.
c.
Inadequate faculty numbers have led to an
undesirable dependence on term appointments to meet
undergraduate teaching requirements. There is an element of
truth in this conclusion. Increased use of term appointments
in recent trimesters is related to several factors. Recent
enrollment increases, especially in upper levels courses,
have dictated that some courses required for the archaeology
major be scheduled more frequently. These courses must be
given priority and certainly this has made course scheduling
problematic. At the same time, our attempts to accomodate
the University's desire to increase summer trimester course
offerings have drawn faculty away from fall-spring teaching,
when student demand is highest. When these of factors are
combined with the need to accomodate sabbatical leaves,
release-time stipends provided through SSHRC, administrative
leaves, sick leaves, etc., a complex picture emerges.
However,
it is definitely not the case,
as stated by the
ERC
(p.
4), that faculty have been able to satisfy in one
term their annual teaching obligation by teaching
fieldschool during the summer trimester.
We are mystified
as to how the Committee arrived at this conclusion.
Faculty
members who teach the summer fieldschool also teach either
the fall or spring trimester, hence two trimesters per year,
the same as any other faculty member.
Is
d. Graduate course offerings are inadequate - We
acknowledge that our graduate course offerings require in-
depth review, and we have begun this process (see Part VII;
Section 2). However, we are unsure about the complaint "of
an inadequate number of graduate-level courses in any
trimester . . ." (
p.
4). It is a fact, as stated in the
Report, that demands of the undergraduate teaching program
make it difficult to schedule numerous graduate courses.
Moreover, given the number of faculty in the Department, it
is impossible to provide all the courses that graduate
students might desire. Scheduling of graduate courses is a
difficult undertaking that involves consideration of many
factors: undergraduate program demands, required graduate
courses, courses recommended by supervisory committees,
special courses that graduate students may desire, small
number of faculty, faculty interest, and the number of
students who may desire a particular course, among others.
It is difficult to convince sufficient numbers of graduate
students to enroll in elective courses (we have refrained
from coercion) and under these circumstances scheduling
courses is risky because if a course must be cancelled due
to lack of student interest it is difficult, if not
impossible, to arrange last minute, alternate faculty
teaching assignments. In spite of such problems we have
offered an average of 1.6 formal graduate courses per
?
. ?
trimester over the last nine trimesters (for fall and winter
trimesters, 87-1 through 91-1, excluding the non-credit
graduate seminar and directed readings courses). Clearly,
course offerings have been sufficient for numerous students
to complete their graduate degree programs. Therefore, we
are not convinced with the ERC's conclusion that the number
of graduate courses has been inadequate.
Judging from the statement about "serious student
interest . . . in the expansion of the physical anthropology
component of the Department . . ." (
p.
4) and following
statements in the same paragraph, we are led to believe that
student dissatisfaction with graduate course offerings
actually centers around the
variety
of topical areas covered
in formal (non-readings) graduate level courses. We agree
with the report that with additional faculty positions it
would be possible to offer additional graduate courses and
improve the depth and variety of graduate offerings.
2. Research and teaching contributions, and external
research support
We are pleased that the ERC found the publication and
external funding records of faculty to be excellent. And we
believe that the ERC's conclusion that we "are a
very
?
,S ?
productive faculty, . . . [that) has brought considerable
national and international recognition to Simon Fraser
University" is accurate. As we noted in our internal report
all faculty are active researchers who have been very
4
S
?
successful in attracting research funding from a variety of
sources. We place much value and emphasis on research and
publication, and are proud of this record which we feel
would compare favorably with any department
in N. America.
We are pleased also to learn that faculty teaching is
viewed overall as "quite favorable", and by the fact that
the Committee found course syllabi, texts, examinations,
topical coverage, and expectations for courses to be
satisfactory. It comes as no surprise that there are
teaching-related complaints -- simply, some faculty are
better teachers than others. And we, like the ERC, find it
difficult to differentiate between "fairly typical student
grumblings" and real academic problems, but do not agree
that there exists a "teaching malaise" of serious magnitude
in the Department. Indeed, the Committee's use of this
phrase is inconsistent with their conclusion that "it is
clear that the faculty are regularly developing and
introducing new academic courses, while dropping less
effective ones, to enhance the Department curriculum. These
are important, and time consuming, measures (that] deserve
recognition . . ." (bottom
p.
5; top
p.
6).
Faculty in the Archaeology Department take teaching
seriously and work hard on their courses. We do believe,
however, that recent enrollment increases and demands of the
trimester system, coupled with a long period of restraint
0 ?
have taken their toll on faculty morale, and have resulted
in considerable feelings of frustration. We agree that
additional faculty would go a long way towards reducing
these frustrations.
The remarks at the end of the first paragraph on
p.
6 are
commented on later in this document (see Part III; VI; 3.).
IV Support staff
i. Administrative, Secretarial and Clerical
A reading of this section reveals that the ERC did not
obtain a very good understanding of the demands of the
trimester system, the nature of the academic support system
at SFU, and working relationships among administrative
personnel in the Department. For example, in suggesting
that faculty should look to the Work Study Program for
additional secretarial assistance, the Committee are unaware
of the fact that Work Study students may not be employed to
perform duties belonging to AUCE personnel. Similarly, the
Committee seem to be under the impression that the Chair and
Department Assistant do not work closely with each other,
which of course is not the case.
While we agree that the D.A. has an extraordinary range
of duties and responsibilities, we do not see the suggested
,
?
?
reorganization of tasks and responsibilities as realistic
unless the University undertakes a complete overhaul of the
SFU job classification system. The changes suggested are
beyond the Department's authority.
"it
2.
Technical
The thrust of this section is that the Department is
uriderstaf fed in terms of technical personnel. We agree with
this conclusion. With regard to the suggested
reorganization, it can be noted that the Chair and a
committee of two faculty have been engaged in a review of
the "Laboratories of Archaeology", Radiocarbon Lab, etc.,
and it is expected that a plan involving reorganization of
duties and responsibilities of technical staff will result,
and that requests for additional technical personnel will be
forthcoming. The possibility of developing an Archaeometry
Lab, as suggested by the ERC, is being considered.
Two misconceptions in this section need to be corrected.
First, Mr. Barton, the Archaeology Technician, is not a
graduate student "on leave" from the program. Mr. Barton
has held the technician position for almost 13 years and
only recently was admitted to our M.A. program. Second, the
Committee's impression that the Manager of the Radiocarbon
Lab does not have managerial authority probably resulted
from the fact that Mr. Breffitt is a temporary appointee,
appointed upon resignation of the former Manager, while the
above-noted review is in progress. It can be noted also
that subsequent to the ERC's visit Mr. Breffitt resigned
this position and that the Lab currently is inactive,
pending the outcome of the above-noted review.
V Physical plant and other material resources
1. Space
The first paragraph of this section is somewhat
misleading in that the Committee are unaware of the fact
that the physical anthropology teaching lab, geoarchaeology
lab, and forensic lab were constructed during the second
phase of expansion of the MPX building, in spite of the fact
that they were conducted on a tour of these facilities. At
the time of the ERC's visit the geoarch lab was temporarily
functioning as a lab for analysis of artifact collections,
and this perhaps contributed to the Committee's confusion.
The lab has since been returned to its original function.
A significant point made in the remainder of this section
is that considerable space on the 8000 level of the MPX is
being used for storage of equipment and archaeological
collections, and that, were storage space made available
elsewhere, this space could be renovated to provide
additional laboratories and other badly-needed facilities.
This is a good and realistic recommendation. As noted by
the ERC, a plan for such renovations exists, and the
'
?
?
Department has been asking for "warehouse" space for some
time. It can be noted also that the Department was
contacted recently by the Associate Vice President Academic
regarding this issue and apparently plans are afoot to
5
.
provide some kind of storage facility. We look forward to
- ?
this and to being able to proceed with plans for renovation
of existing space that would be vacated.
2. other resources: budgets, equipment, computers,
library
a.
Operating budget - The ERC has recognized correctly
that the Department's operating budget has declined over the
last decade and that, given the importance of field
operations, the strong science component of the discipline,
and the overall level of activity in the Department, this
budget is severely strained to keep up with the demands made
on it. While we would not argue that we should be given
special treatment in budget allocations, the Committee is
correct in noting that there is a feeling within the
Department that new programs in the University are favored,
and that too little attention is paid to allocation of
resources in such a way that demonstrably successful units
can further develop, improve, and round out their programs.
The observation that the operating budgets of the
Museum and Radiocarbon Laboratory are inadequate is accurate
and requires no further comment.
b.
Capital equipment budget - We agree with the
Committee that the amounts allocated to the Department over
the last few years are "reasonable", but that given the
equipment-intensive nature of archaeology, the demands of
fieldschools, and the high level of faculty and graduate
student research in the Department, in real terms these
amounts may be marginal.
C.
Condition of equipment - The Committee are correct in
their assessment here. Much of our equipment is old, in
poor repair, and in need of replacement. Funding over the
last few years has not been sufficient for maintenance and
replacement requirements.
d. Computing equipment - Again, the ERC are accurate in
noting that while allocations to the Department have
permitted development of a modest computing lab, funding has
not been sufficient for adequate maintenance of computing
equipment. The high obselescence rate of computing
equipment has made it impossible to improve and develop the
lab and at the same time maintain existing equipment, given
current levels of funding.
6
that library
over the last few
Department has
the Library Review
e. Library - It is undoubtedly true
expenditures attributed to Archaeology
Pe ?
years can be viewed as inadequate. The
communicated the ERC's comments here to
Committee.
7
?
. ?
f. TA/SI allocations - The ERC argue that TA and
Sessional Instructor budgets should be decentralized and
placed in the hands of Department Chairs to accoiuodate more
effective planning. The point is well taken. With regard
to TAs the Department has not experienced any particular
problem here. Usually when additional TA5 have been
required, they have been allocated, albeit at the last
moment after final course enrollments for a particular
trimester are known. The situation with SIs has been
somewhat different. It has been difficult at times to
effectively plan course offerings two or three trimesters in
advance (as required by the Registrar) without knowledge of
the number of Sessional Instructor positions that will be
available in upcoming trimesters.
PART III - PROGRAMS AND ORGANISATION
VI The Undergraduate Program
1.
Program and course structure - In this section the
ERC consider many details of the archaeology undergraduate
program. Our response here is a general one and does not
address all these details.
We agree generally with the ERC that limited
restructuring of the undergraduate program is in order and
that certain deficiencies could be remedied by additional
faculty appointments. We have undertaken already a review
of course prerequisites, and the Undergraduate Program Chair
will be bringing forward in fall
1
91 a comprehensive
proposal for modification of the existing course offerings,
program structure, course content, etc. As well, the
Department Chair has begun discussions with the Chair of
Sociology/Anthropology regarding a joint Archaeology-
Anthropology major.
While it is true that existing prerequisites have been
added or deleted in something of a haphazard manner over the
years, we believe that the Committee have overstated a
perceived lack of program structure. The requirements for
the Archaeology major include specific course requirements
beginning at the 100 and 200 levels plus specific course and
course-group requirements at the 300 and 400 level. The
structure thus provides specific requirements to direct
students to courses thought by us to be essential to the
degree, as well as providing students with flexibility in
choosing electives to satisfy individual interests.
2.
Enrollments - The Committee propose that the
frequency with which certain upper levels courses are
?
DID
?
offered could be reduced by increasing class size, thus
relieving some of the pressures associated with small
numbers of faculty. In theory this is possible, but,
realistically, as the ERC note, it would require teaching
8
• ?
labs much larger than those that exist at present. We note
also that this would require funds for the purchase of
additional teaching equipment.
We are not altogether comfortable with this line of
reasoning because it conflicts with what has been our basic
pedagogy. We have avoided "mass production" approaches to
teaching of these important upper levels courses, opting
rather for a more personal approach associated with small
classes. This approach is consistent with extensive use of
the "tutorial system" that is traditional at SFU.
Errors and Misconceptions in this section:
p.
12 - Professor Emeritus Shutler's teaching since
retirement has been done on a post-retirement contract and
not as a Sessional Instructor. The data presented in the
table are accurate, student opinion notwithstanding.
p.
14, #4 - Dr. Hayden's supervision of ARCH 101D does
not consume disproportionate energies. As is common
throughout the University, this course is done on an
overload basis, and a tutor/marker usually is assigned to
assist with it.
p.
16, second paragraph - In suggesting that TA5 could
take on more tutorials and labs, the Committee apparently
are unaware of constraints imposed by unionized TAs.
3. Staff-student relations
We, like the ERC, perceive faculty-student (and other)
relationships in the Department to be very good. We have
long enjoyed a tradition of collegiality among faculty,
staff, and resident and former students. It is not an
overstatement to say that archaeology faculty, staff, and
students constitute a "family" of sorts. We value this
feeling of community in which Department faculty and staff
relate to students not only as colleagues, but often as
friends.
Therefore, we were taken aback by the allegations of
gender bias communicated to the reviewers, and we are
disturbed by them. We are disturbed also by the fact that
we were not appraised adequately of the content and nature
of the undergraduate submission while the ERC were on
campus. Indeed, we were not presented with a copy of the
undergraduate submission (laden with inaccuracies,
misinformation, and misconceptions) until some time
(approximatelythree weeks) after the ERC's visit, and this
only after considerable prodding. The ERC received the
written student submission only at the last moment, and did
9
. ?
not have the opportunity to read it until they had boarded
their plane departing Vancouver. Thus, we were not provided
the opportunity to discuss the undergraduate submission with
the Committee, nor to respond to any of the issues raised in
it.
As is always the case with sensitive issues, opinion
varies as to the veracity of the claims of gender bias. We
understand, for example, that some division of opinion
exists within the student body regarding the nature, content
of, and the motivation for, the undergraduate submission to
the ERC.
While antipathies sometime develop between faculty
members and individual students (of either
sex),
it would be
an injustice to brand the Department as "sexist", or to
imagine that faculty/student conflicts are any more common
in archaeology than elsewhere. All archaeology faculty have
supervised successful women graduate students and continue
to do so. Historically, the ratio of female:male students
in our graduate program has hovered around 50-50, the drop-
out rate is no greater among women students than it is among
men, and there seems to be evidence (ERC Report
p.
26) that
the grades of women graduate students actually may be higher
than those of men students.
According to information supplied by the Records Division
of the Registrar's Office, the ratio of women:men among
• ?
archaeology undergraduate majors and honors students
presently (spring 91) is 74/50. Cumulative grade point
averages for women and men
in archaeology courses
are 3.17
and 3.05, respectively (medians are: women = 3.12; men =
3.04). These facts do not bear directly on individual
cases, of course. However, assuming that male and female
students are equally capable, neither do these data provide
evidence of systematic bias against women students in the
awarding of grades.
All of the above notwithstanding, the Chair, on the
advice of the ERC, brought this matter to the attention of
faculty. The University Harrassment Coordinator spoke at a
meeting of faculty in April 1991 and subsequently relevant
issues were discussed at length. All faculty are now more
keenly aware of, and sensitive to, issues relating to
faculty-student relations.
4. The Field school
We, like the ERC, do not accept all student criticisms
leveled at the archaeology fieldschool, because, as the
Committee note, students have not sufficiently understood
the differences between the classroom and the field
situation. We note also that on various occasions the
Committee refer to the fieldschool as "excellent", as having
"a substantial reputation"
(p.
18), and as "having a
national reputation for excellence."
(p.
10)
10
.
??
Nevertheless, the Department Chair has undertaken an
extensive review of the archaeology
fieldschoOl
with the
assistance of an internal committee comprising a faculty
member, an undergraduate, and a graduate student (both
women). This committee has prepared a formal set of
guidelines for the content and conduct of the fieldschool.
The draft document currently is undergoing final revisions
and shortly will be presented to the Department
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee for formal consideration.
5. Appeals and Consistency
The Department does in fact have a formal grade appeals
procedure. Information regarding this procedure has been
posted in a conspicuous location in the Department. To
promote consistency, suggested Departmental standards for
course outlines, exams, grading standards, and procedures
are being incorporated into a Faculty/TA Guide that
currently is undergoing revisions before being submitted to
the Department for approval. The guide was assembled by the
Chair with the assistance of a graduate student, the
Department Assistant, and one faculty member.
. ?
6. Undergraduate support
Like the ERC, we lament the limitations of the Work Study
program. We note that during the fund-raising campaign
conducted in the fall of 1990, the Department established an
Archaeology Endowment funded by
donations
from faculty and
staff. This fund has been earmarked to provide assistance
to deserving senior undergraduate students in pursuit of
their degree.
VII The Graduate Programs
i. Introduction and quality of graduate student research
In this section the ERC note that archaeology graduate
theses are of high calibre, that graduates of our programs
continue to be active in the discipline subsequent to
graduation, and have attained a variety of career positions.
They note also that some are
"prominent
young scholars" (p.
21) holding faculty and other positions across Canada. We
are pleased that the Committee hold our graduates in high
regard (see especially
p.
21, paragraph 2) and are flattered
that they themselves regularly recommend SFU to their
graduates who wish to pursue MA or PhD studies.
0
2.
Program content and structure
While we do not agree with all the details of the
Committee's discussion here, we do agree with the need for a
restructuring of graduate course offerings. As the ERC
note, the process has begun. We also are considering
seriously the recommendation
(p.
23) that the Graduate
Program Committee be reduced in size and that it include a
member of the graduate student body.
3.
Graduate supervision and guidance
The ERC's comments and suggestions generally are well
taken and we note that a preliminary version of a formal
document dealing with graduate student supervision
guidelines and procedures is in hand.
?
As work on this
document proceeds no doubt many of the suggestions in the
report will be considered.
We do wonder, however, why it is that if at the present
level of graduate student enrollments the faculty are not
overloaded
(p.
24), the ERC suggest that the intake of
graduate students is too large.
?
Similarly, we are not
altogether convinced that coursework
is
the obstacle to
degree completion that it is made out to be (ref. earlier
data on course offerings).
?
If this were the case, then we
.
would expect all students to take a very long time to
complete. ?
Some of our students complete quickly, others
drag things out.
?
And, while, on average, our students do
take a long time to complete degree requirements, we note
that they do, in the end, produce quality work.
?
We turn out
solid, successful archaeologists.
?
If reducing completion
time means also lowering the quality of the product, we
would not be in favor of this.
?
Some of us feel that perhaps
one of the most effective ways of reducing degree completion
times generally, would be for the University to shorten the
official time maxima contained in the Graduate Regulations
(currently five and eight years for MAs and PhDs,
respectively).
We are undertaking research aimed at identifying those
factors most responsible for protracted time-in-program.
Once some real data are in hand, we will be in a better
position to consider the causes of long degree completion
times. ?
However, even at this time it is obvious that one of
the most significant factors here involves students'
accepting full-time, off-campus employment once their
residency and course requirements have been fulfilled.
Department records show that, for both MAs and Ph.D.s,
students with very long or maximum completion times often
are those who take up full-time positions before defending
their theses.
?
Importantly, this phenomenon signifies a
demand for our graduates, even before they complete their
degrees. ?
We note also that these students generally do not
11
12
( ?
represent a drain on Department resources, and have no
impact on the availability of financial support for students
in residence.
Corrections and miscellaneous comments:
p.
25 - we did not reject the pattern shown in Dean
Clayman's data. We questioned why these data did not agree
with our own records. Also, in the absence of cohort
analysis, it seems to us that to monitor effectively a
phenomenon with a five or eight year "cycle" would require
data covering a period at least as long as the "cycle", or
longer.
p.
26 - last paragraph - we do not require fieldwork as a
component of graduate degree programs. Many students
undertake fieldwork, but numerous theses have been based on
library research, laboratory research, or study of existing
collections.
p.
27 - if the first sentence implies that graduate courses
are scheduled in the summer trimester, this is not true
(except for an occasional Directed Readings course).
• ?
p. 28 - first paragraph - the numbers of students used in
calculations here is very small. Also, Department records
show equal dropout rates for men and women: 3 out of 9 and 1
out of 3, respectively.
5. Adequacy of support for graduate students and the size
of the program
We do not find the arguments about downsizing the
graduate program compelling. First, we are not convinced
that the impact on our allocation of graduate support would
be minimal or that such a reduction would do much for the
program (see comments above). A reduction in graduate
student numbers that brings about a proportionate reduction
in available student support simply maintains the
status
quo. Downsizing would make sense only if a disproportionate
relationship existed between student support and student
numbers. A reduction of student time-in-program probably
would have a more desirable effect than a simple reduction
in numbers. Second, there have been several recent
trimesters in which the number of graduate students
available and applying for TAships has been inadequate to
service undergraduate course offerings. Considering the
current trend of increasing enrollments along with recent
changes to the TSSU agreement, probably the demand for TAs
. will increase in future trimesters. Finally, as noted
earlier, the Committee apparently do not feel that the
student/faculty ratio in the Department is too high
(p.
24).
13
• We see no real reason to seriously consider
downsizing
the
MA program, although we do agree that more student support
is desirable.
VIII The Laboratories and the Museum
1.
The Radiocarbon/ArChaeOlfletry Laboratory
As noted earlier we have concerns about the Radiocarbon
Laboratory and are reviewing its operation. The idea of
developing a different kind of lab is being considered.
2.
The Museum and the 'Laboratories of Archaeology'
Reactions within the Department to this section of the
Report are mixed. Some, particularly the founders of the
Museum, find absurd the suggestion that the 'Laboratories of
Archaeology' and Museum be combined, and that a radically
altered museum policy be formulated (i.e., establishment of
a "Museum of Archaeological Science"). In the view of the
Curator, this kind of re-orientation probably would not
serve the Museum's primary audience (archaeology and
physical anthropology students) very well, and would do
little to integrate the Museum into the functions of the
• ?
Department. Others view this proposal as an attractive
alternative to the present status of the Museum. Probably
this is all immaterial, because such a proposal must be
regarded as impractical in the absence of a substantial
influx of funding.
Probably most would agree that over the last few years
the Musem has been operating at a less-than-optimal level.
This state of affairs primarily is a result of a period of
severe financial restraint, that saw cut-backs not only in
operating budget, but also in losses of personnel attached
to the Museum. The Committee seem unaware that subsequent
to hiring of the present Curator, some programs have been
revived on a cost-recovery basis (and have been successful),
and that the Curator has been steadily correcting
conservation and collections management deficiencies.
Regardless of deficiencies, the Museum is an asset to the
Department in that it is one of our best means of making
ourselves visible to the University community and beyond.
It therefore plays a critical role in advertising the
Department's presence. While some may wish to fault the
Department for not using the Museum to its fullest capacity
in this regard, given the severe financial constraints of
the last decade it is difficult to imagine any other
outcome.
To be sure, the ERC probably do engage in some over
?
statement in this part of the report, and it is clear that
0 ?
they did not ascertain the original purposes that the
founders of the Museum had in mind when the museum was
established. (Neither can the "Alice in wonderland"
14
• ?
characterization be considered a positive
contribution).
Regardless of one's feelings about such matters, it is clear
that development of a clear
written
statement of the
Museum's mandate along with a set of policies to govern its
operation are essential, whatever the ultimate
configuration. This process was begun before the external
review was initiated.
IX Administration and Governance
1.
Internal
Here again, the ERC impose ideas associated with their
own administrative systems (The Chair of the ERC is a
Deparment Head, not a Chair) and several of their proposals
are at odds with the SFU system. However, as noted earlier,
downsizing of some of our internal committees is being
considered. We already have student representatives on many
of these committees.
Correction:
p.
33 - paragraph 3 - it was explained on page 14 of our
• ?
internal report that the composition of the DTC and salary
reviews are governed by University policy. Copies of
University Policies AC 2 and AC 22 were included as
Appendices to our report. Apparently the ERC missed these.
2.
University relations - no comment necessary.
3.
Beyond the University
We appreciate the favorable comments.
X. Conclusion - comments noted.
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Department of Archaeology
Burnaby, British Columbia
MEMORANDUM
As directed, I have solicited student comment on the report of the Archaeoloogy External
Review Committee. Attached are copies of responses from the Archaeology Graduate Caucus
and the Archaeology Student Society.
The only remark I shall make relates to comments (by undergraduates) about fieldschool
guidelines. A draft document has been prepared and has been submitted to the Department
Undergraduate Curriculum Chair. Because proposed changes to fieldschool contained in the
document (e.g., changes to course structure, prerequisites, etc.) require approval at higher levels,
they could not be implemented as quickly as recommended by the ERC. In the interim
fieldschool staff were made aware of the provisions of the proposed guidelines. I have
communicated this to the Student Society.
Copy: Dr. R.C. Brown, Dean of Arts
•
1' ?
#.(..i
!i:;1\
(.JAAN2;
' vice
r-
\
Iq,..1CIC11
0
Archaeology Graduate Student Caucus?
Simon Fraser University
Response to the Report of the External Review Committee
;
10
January 15, 1992
Introduction
The graduate students in the
Department of Archaeology have examined the
report of the External Review Committee and we
offer the following comments on the document.
We feel the external review committee has
offered a constructive evaluation of the
Department and its programs and, in general,
the assessment is favorable. We note, in
particular, the reviewer's comments on the
quality of graduate student research in the
Department and their observations that
graduates from the program at Simon Fraser
University are successful and well regarded in
the discipline.
Both the internal and the external
reviews identified a number of problems in the
Department pertaining to space, staffing levels
•
?
and faculty complement. We agree that the
source of many of these problems are
attributable to the level of support the
Department has received from the University
and offer no further comment, except to note
that these problems have a negative impact on
our studies at Simon Fraser University.
Several issues discussed in the section
on the graduate program we feel deserve
emphasis and with others, we are not in
agreement. It is toward these issues that we
direct our comments.
1. ?
Faculty Gender Imbalance
The reviewers noted and commented on
the gender imbalance among the members of
the Department's faculty. We agree with the
reviewers that this imbalance is cause for
serious concern and strongly endorse their
recommendation that this issue be addressed
through new appointments over the next few
years. We feel the appointment of female faculty
members must be made a Departmental priority
and anticipate the Department will address this
• ?
imbalance starting with the recently created
faculty position.
2.
Graduate Program Committee
The reviewers have recommended a
reduction in the size of the Graduate Program
Committee with the inclusion of a graduate
student representative. We support this
proposal and note that communication between
faculty and graduate students would only benefit
from this proposed change.
3.
Degree Completion Time
The issue of degree completion times
was raised by the reviewers who observed that
"the pressure in all universities today is for
graduate students to complete their studies in a
shorter time than they have tended to do in the
past"
(p.
28). We strongly agree with the
reviewers' conclusion that inadequate financial
support is the major impediment to timely
degree completion. Supervision, course
structure and the MA colloquium were also
singled out as contributing factors.
We note that in departments with lower
graduate student completion times, the graduate
programs focus on development and completion
of a program of research. We contend that
restructuring the Archaeology graduate program
to emphasize and promote thesis research
during the first two semesters of enrollment
could significantly accelerate degree completion
time.
(a)
The Initial Meeting
We are in agreement with the reviewers
that the initial meeting with the faculty is
intimidating and unproductive. We support their
suggestion of a more informal introduction to the
Department.
(b)
Courses and Colloquium
We agree "the coursework portion is a
major stumbling block because there is no
defined structure" (
p.
26) but we do not agree
that this is because courses are not offered
(0
I
.
regularly. We locate the problem in the fact that
coursework is currently regarded as an
addendum to the undergraduate degree rather
than as the base from which the graduate
researciT will develop. We believe that
coursework should be primarily focused on
developing the thesis research and for this
reason we also feel that the MA colloquium
should be integrated into the coursework rather
than discarded, as suggested in the external
review. In its present form, as a "mini" thesis
defense, the MA colloquium is indeed a
stumbling block to timely degree completion.
(C)
Supervision
Although responses to the graduate
student questionnaire indicated a generally high
level of satisfaction with the supervision received
in the later stages of the program, it was felt to
be inadequate during the crucial first two years
of enrollment when the thesis research must be
developed. We feel that closer supervision
during the first two semesters, and earlier
assistance in framing a research topic could
significantly decrease degree completion time.
(d) Graduate Student Support
The reviewers identified graduate
student financial support as a major impediment
to timely degree completion, a situation that has
existed since the first external review in 1975.
We strongly agree. We are puzzled, however, by
their subsequent comments on the distribution of
Graduate Fellowships in the Department. They
state that it would be "highly desirable to
distribute any increase, in the number of
fellowship units on the basis of scholarship.
Otherwise how can superior performance be
stimulated and rewarded" (pp. 29-30)? We find
this suggestion elitist and offensive.
To complete the program in a timely
manner an uninterrupted period of at least two
semesters is required to write the thesis or
dissertation. This is not possible when a student
is working as a teaching assistant, the major
source of "support" available in the Archaeology
Department. PhD students have access to the
President's PhD Research Stipend which
provides one semester support during the thesis
writing stage, but MA students do not have
access to similar funding. We feel that all
students deserve the opportunity to enjoy quality
writing time and therefore priority for Graduate
Fellowship funding should be given to those
students who are in the process of writing their
thesis.
4. ?
Graduate Student Morale
The reviewers comment on the "low
morale" and "lack of cohesion" of the student
body and illustrate this with reference to the
response to the graduate student questionnaire.
We do not agree with this assessment. The tact
that the graduate students independently
initiated the questionnaire and prepared a
chapter of the internal review document would
seem rather to suggest the opposite.
?
The
fact that only 14 of 33 graduate students
responded to the questionnaire was a result of
its timing, at the end of the spring semester, and
the fact that many of the students in the program
were not resident on campus, nor even in the
province. This situation we had no control over.
We would also like to point out that our
submission to the internal review document was
not solely based on the results of the
questionnaire, but was also informed by a series
of meetings organized by the Archaeology
Graduate Student Caucus which is a duly
constituted body that speaks for graduate
students in the Department. Our internal
submission was not written by a minority of
dissatisfied students as implied by the
reviewers.
0
.
ARCHAEOLOGY STUDENT SOCIETY
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
UNDERGRADUATE RESPONSE TO THE
?
REPORT OF THE
?
EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
JANUARY 17, 1992
?
Introduction
The Archaeology Student Society, a
duly constituted body that speaks for
undergraduate students in the Department,
offers the following critique of the report of the
External Review Committee. The report is
evaluated in relation to the Society's written
submission to the External Review Committee.
This submission consisted of six topics: a
Questionnaire; Field School; Gender Bias;
Course Structure and Content; Sessionals and
Teaching Assistants; and Grade Appeal
Procedures. Regarding these issues, the
Society is generally in agreement with the
recommendations set forth in the report.
However, there are some instances where we
disagree and some issues are insufficiently
emphasized. The Society's concerns are
addressed below.
Questionnaire
A section of the Archaeology
Undergraduate submission to the External
Review Committee consisted of a
questionnaire. Of a population of 77 declared
majors (S.F.U. Fact Book, 11th 'Edition,
December 1990), 43% responded.
(A)
Field School -
Lack of
departmental policy guidelines outlining the
conduct of and grading criteria for the field
school emerged as the number one concern of
students. While in general agreement with the
recommendations for the Field School, we do
not accept the Reviewer's criticism that students
"have not sufficiently understood the differences
between the classroom. . . and the field" (page
18). Students are well aware of the differences
and, as a result, recognize the need for a
specialized approach to teaching in the field as
opposed to classroom instruction.
(B)
Limited world prehistory
courses, particularly Old World;
Additional faculty needed; Too great a
reliance on sessionals; insufficient
physical anthropology -
These concerns are
interrelated. The addition of two more faculty
members, one specialist in physical
anthropology, and one specialist in the
archaeology of complex societies, as
recommended by the External Reviewers,
would solve all four issues. The Society
concurs with this recommendation.
(C)
Gender Bias -
This issue was
indentified by questionnaire respondents as
related to the lack of female faculty and to an
unfriendly atmosphere experienced by women
students. We agree with the Reviewer's
comments on these issues.
(D)
Space and Equipment - The
Society agrees in general with the Reviewers'
recommendations regarding space and
equipment. We agree that the single
archaeological teaching lab is Insufficient for
the numbers of students taking lab courses (p.
15), meaning that it may take several semesters
before a student has a high enough registration
priority to obtain the lab classes they desire.
We also concur with the need for an additional
lab/technical person. What is not mentioned is
space for students. Common room space for
students must be included in the Department's
regular requests for more space. As well,
graduate students need more office space. The
little "pen" that all of them are herded into is
unsafe and uncomfortable.
(E)
Unprofessional Conduct -
Comments, some relating to sexual
harassment, were made about one professor by
several questionnaire respondents. Comments
on unprofessional conduct of Field School
instructors were also made. The Reviewers
comment
(p.
6,17,18,19 and 26) about such
issues. We agree that the Department needs to
take action to address these problems.
2.
?
Field School
1.
The Society concurs with the External
Review committee that the field school is a vital
element in the credibility of SFU's archaeology
program. It is a given that both the faculty and
the students together share the responsibility for
maintaining the academic standards and the
reputation of the University. However, we reject
the statement that the undergraduates have
insufficient understanding of the differences
between classroom and field situations. It is
clear that unique and unexpected problems can
occur in any given field situation, and any
student with experience in archaeology is
certainly cognizant of some of these problems.
It is our explicit understanding that problems in
the field do not occur in a vacuum, for the
problems experienced by the archaeologist in
charge also become the problems experienced
by the students. These problems, if tactfully and
carefully communicated, can become an
invaluable component of the critical problem-
solving process, as students then have the
opportunity to become partners in a possible
solution. These critical thinking skills are vital to
S
any successful learning atmosphere, and field
school students are indeed at unique liberty to
benefit from the professors experience and
expertise, as they are involved in a dynamic
Interactive process between professor and
student..
The Society is pleased that the
Reviewers acknowledge the seriousness of
specific allegations contained in our written
presentation regarding the Field School, and
we commend the recommendationsmade
regarding the Field School. However, It should
be noted that in the time since the External
Review document was prepared, one Field
School has taken place (summer of 1991), and
another will soon be underway (summer of
1992) without the recommended formal field
school guidelines of conduct having been
established. It is reiterated that a code of Field
School conduct be developed by a committee
of faculty and students working together,
producing a document agreed to by both.
The Society concurs with the Reviewers
that more attention be paid to safety in field
school situations, but feel the committee are
remiss in specifying what adequate" first-aid
skills are to consist of. We once again reiterate
that both the professor in charge and his/her
teaching assistants should be certified in first-
aid, and that basic first-aid be a part of the in-
class portion of the field-school.
3.
?
Gender Bias
The Society takes the position, a view
which is endorsed
(p.
35) by the reviewers, that
any new faculty members that may be hired
must be women, to redress the gender
imbalance on the faculty. The usual criticism of
this solution is that this would lead to
unqualified women being hired. This is
exceedingly unlikely as departments of
anthropology have for many years been
producing high calibre male and female PhD.'s.
However, for years men and not women, have
more frequently been hired for academic posts.
To assume that the preferential hiring of women
would compromise the standards of excellence
in this department, is to assume that somehow,
all male PhD.'s are better candidates than all
female PhD.'s, even though both are coming
out of the very same programs I
In addition to recognizing the gender
imbalance on the faculty, we were pleased to
note that our concerns about gender bias
experienced by women students were not
ignored by the Reviewers
(p.
17,18). We agree
that the Department needs to educate faculty on
issues of harassment and sexism. Clearly,
women and men students feel that these issues
have damaged faculty-student relationships.
Any such action should be well publicized, so
that it is evident to students that these very
serious concerns are being addressed.
4. ?
Undergraduate Program
Structure
The following concerns were addressed
by Society's submission to the External Review:
the lack of a structured prerequisite system; the
lack of a standard content to basic core courses;
the lack of consistent marking in such courses;
the need for greater coordination ofprofessors
taking sabbaticals; and the lack of sufficient
faculty. In addition, the society's submission
included recommendations for the following
changes to the Undergraduate Program: a
lower level introductory theory course; or
Method and Theory to be offered over two
semesters; lower level basic lab procedures
course: courses on surveying and mapping;
more courses in physical anthropology,
regional prehistory, civilizations, historic
archaeology, and other specialized courses.
In the External Review,
recommendations are made which address the
concerns expressed in the Society's
submission. These recommendations include:
the need for a patterned and structured
prerequisite system and sequence of courses
(
p.
15); the need for Departmental standards for
course outlines, exams, and grading and the
explanation of these standards to sessional
instructors
(p.
19); that critical pieces of
undergraduate work be graded by more than
one professor
(p.
19); that the sabbatical and
research leaves of absence be better
coordinated (p. 14). Further, in the areas of
Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, that
an additional two faculty members are needed
(p.36), and that this would alleviate some of the
problems regarding program structure.
Although none of the changes to specific
courses recommended by the Society were
included in the External Review
recommendations, the recommendations that
are in the External Review will be of benefit to
the program and satisfy some of the concerns
expressed by our membership.
We welcome the recommendations put
forth in the Report and hope the Department will
act swiftly upon them.
5.
?
Sessional Instructors and
?
Teaching Assistants
The External Review recognized the
need to restructure teaching loads within the
Department, suggesting that sessional
instructors teach less, and faculty teach more.
The Report recommends that the addition of
another physical anthropologist and an ancient
civilizations specialist would reduce the
reliance on sessionals
(p.
4,6,13,14). The
Society agrees.
Another recommendation Is that
teaching assistants take on tutorials normally
conducted by faculty, thereby treeing them to
teach courses which at present are taught by
sessionats. However, this brings up the issue of
T.A. competence, a point not addressed by the
Review. Serious consideration should be given
to the development of guidelines to assist T.A.'s
in fulfilling their duties.
Another concern raised by the Society
but not addressed by the Review is the lack of
office space for T.A.'s and sessionals to meet
privately with students. Currently an office is
shared by all the sessionats. T.A.'s have office
hours at various locations .throughout the
department. Office requirements for sessionals
and T.A.'s must be taken into account by the
Department when making space requests of the
University Administration.
No mention was made in the review of
the issue of undergraduate T.A.'s. The
Society's position is that given sufficient notice,
as contractually required, there are always
9raduate students available to T.A. courses and
it should, therefore, be uneccessary for senior
• ?
undergrads to T.A.
6. ?
Grade Appeal Procedures
The reviewers addressed and agreed
with our concerns that there was not enough
information available to undergraduates about
grade appeal procedures and that
inconsistency in grading between courses and
faculty needed to be remedied. it is important
to note that there is an overall fear among
students to put forward grade appeals which
was brought to the attention of the Reviewers,
yet they did not choose to comment on this.
In addition, the Society supports the
recommendation
(p.
19) that the Department put
in place fomal appeals procedures specifically
applicable to Field School.
Conclusion
It is hoped that that the ExternalReview
Report and the Society's response to it are not
regarded merely as exercises in rhetoric, but
rather are regarded in the spirit with which they
were prepared. This spirit embodies positive,
constructive actions that will benefit faculty, staff
and students of the Department of Archaeology.
0
'I.
.
S
ARCHAEOLOGY STUDENT SOCIETY
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
UNDERGRADUATE RESPONSE TO THE
?
REPORT OF THE
?
EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
JANUARY 17, 1992
?
Introduction
The Archaeology Student Society, a
duly constituted body that speaks for
undergraduate students in the Department,
offers the following critique of the report of the
External Review Committee. The report is
evaluated in relation to the Society's written
submission to the External Review Committee.
This submission consisted of six topics: a
Questionnaire; Field School; Gender Bias;
Course Structure and Content; Sessionals and
Teaching Assistants; and Grade Appeal
Procedures. Regarding these issues, the
Society is generally in agreement with the
recommendations set forth in the report.
However, there are some instances where we
disagree and some issues are insufficiently
emphasized. The Society's concerns are
addressed below.
Questionnaire
A section of the Archaeology
Undergraduate submission to the External
Review Committee consisted of a
questionnaire. Of a population of 77 declared
majors (S.F.U. Fact Book, 11th Edition,
December 1990), 43% responded.
(A)
Field School - Lack of
departmental policy guidelines outlining the
conduct of and grading criteria for the field
school emerged as the number one concern of
students. While in general agreement with the
recommendations for the Field School, we do
not accept the Reviewers criticism that students
have not sufficiently understood the differences
between the classroom. . . and the field" (page
18). Students are well aware of the differences
and, as a result, recognize the need for a
specialized approach to teaching in the field as
opposed to classroom instruction.
(B) Limited
world prehistory
courses, particularly Old World;
Additional faculty needed; Too great
a
reliance on sessionais; Insufficient
physical anthropology - These concerns are
interrelated. The addition of two more faculty
members, one specialist in physical
anthropology, and one specialist in the
archaeology of complex societies, as
recommended by the External Reviewers,
would solve all four issues. The Society
concurs with this recommendation.
(C)
Gender Bias -
This issue was
indentified by questionnaire respondents as
related to the lack of female faculty and to an
unfriendly atmosphere experienced by women
students. We agree with the Reviewer's
comments on these issues.
(D) Space and
Equipment - The
Society agrees in general with the Reviewers'
recommendations regarding space and
equipment. We agree that the single
archaeological teaching lab is insufficient for
the numbers of students taking lab courses (p.
15), meaning that it may take several semesters
before a student has a high enough registration
priority to obtain the lab classes they desire.
We also concur with the need for an additional
lab/technical person. What is not mentioned is
space for students. Common room space for
students must be included in the Department's
regular requests for more space. As well,
graduate students need more office space. The
little o
pen" that all of them are herded into is
unsafe and uncomfortable.
(E) Unprofessional Conduct -
Comments, some relating to sexual
harassment, were made about one professor by
several questionnaire respondents. Comments
on unprofessional conduct of Field School
instructors were also made. The Reviewers
comment
(p.
6,17,18,19 and 26) about such
issues. We agree that the Department needs to
take action to address these problems.
2.
?
Field School
1.
The Society concurs with the External
Review committee that the field school is a vital
element in the credibility of SFU's archaeology
program. it is a given that both the faculty and
the students together share the responsibility for
maintaining the academic standards and the
reputation of the University. However, we reject
the statement that the undergraduates have
insufficient understanding of the differences
between classroom and field situations. It is
clear that unique and unexpected problems can
occur in any given field situation, and any
student with experience in archaeology is
certainly cognizant of some of these problems.
It is our explicit understanding that problems in
the field do not occur in a vacuum, for the
problems experienced by the archaeologist in
charge also become the problems experienced
by the students. These problems, if tactfully and
carefully communicated, can become an
invaluable component of the critical problem-
solving process, as students then have the
opportunity to become partners in a possible
solution. These critical thinking skills are vital to
,ppr ?
,
0
.
.
any successful learning atmosphere, and field
school students are Indeed at unique liberty to
benefit from the professors experience and
expertise, as they are involved in a dynamic
Interactive process between professor and
student:
The Society Is pleased that the
Reviewers acknowledge the seriousness of
specific allegations contained in our written
presentation regarding the Field School, and
we commend the recommendations made
regarding the Field School. However, it should
be noted that in the time since the External
Review document was prepared, one Field
School has taken place (summer of 1991), and
another will soon be underway (summer of
1992) without the recommended formal field
school guidelines of conduct having been
established. It is reiterated that a code of Field
School conduct be developed by a committee
of faculty and students working together,
producing a document agreed to by both.
The Society concurs with the Reviewers
that more attention be paid to safety in field
school situations, but feel the committee are
remiss in specifying what "adequate" first-aid
skills are to consist of. We once again reiterate
that both the professor in charge and his/her
teaching assistants should be certified in first-
aid, and that basic first-aid be a part of the in-
class portion of the field-school.
3. ?
Gender Bias
The Society takes the position, a view
which is endorsed
(p.
35) by the reviewers, that
any new faculty members that may be hired
must be women, to redress the gender
imbalance on the faculty. The usual criticism of
this solution is that this would lead to
unqualified women being hired. This is
exceedingly unlikely as departments of
anthropology have for many years been
producing high calibre male and female PhD.'s.
However, for years men and not women, have
more frequently been hired for academic posts.
To assume that the preferential hiring of women
would compromise the standards of excellence
in this department, is to assume that somehow,
all male PhD.'s are better candidates than all
female PhD.'s, even though both are coming
out of the very same programs!
In addition to recognizing the gender
imbalance on the faculty, we were pleased to
note that our concerns about gender bias
experienced by women students were not
ignored by the Reviewers
(p.
17,18). We agree
that the Department needs to educate faculty on
issues of harassment and sexism. Clearly,
women and men students feel that these issues
have damaged faculty-student relationships.
Any such action should be well publicized, so
that it Is evident to students that these very
serious concerns are being addressed.
4.
?
Undergraduate Program
Structure
The following concerns were addressed
by Society's submission to the External Review:
the lack of a structured prerequisite system; the
lack of a standard content to basic core courses;
the lack of consistent marking in such courses;
the need for greater coordination ofprofessors
taking sabbaticals; and the lack of sufficient
faculty. In addition, the society's submission
included recommendations for the following
changes to the Undergraduate Program: a
lower level introductory theory course; or
Method and Theory to be offered over two
semesters; lower level basic lab procedures
course, courses on surveying and mapping;
more courses in physical anthropology,
regional prehistory, civilizations, historic
archaeology, and other specialized courses.
In the External Review,
recommendations are made which address the
concerns expressed in the Society's
submission. These recommendations -include:
the need for a patterned and structured
prerequisite system and sequence of courses
( p.
15); the need for Departmental standards for
course outlines, exams, and grading and the
explanation of these standards to sessional
instructors
(p.
19); that critical pieces of
undergraduate work be graded by more than
one professor
(p.
19); that the sabbatical and
research leaves of absence be better
coordinated
(p.
14). Further, in the areas of
Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, that
an additional two faculty members are needed
(p.36), and that this would alleviate some of the
problems regarding program structure.
Although none of the changes to specific
courses recommended by the Society were
included in the External Review
recommendations, the recommendations that
are in the External Review will be of benefit to
the program and satisfy some of the concerns
expressed by our membership.
We welcome the recommendations put
forth in the Report and hope the Department will
act swiftly upon them.
S. ?
Sessional
Instructors and?
Teaching Assistants
The Ex(ernal Review recognized the
need to restructure teaching loads within the
Department, suggesting that sessional
instructors teach less, and faculty teach more.
The Report recommends that the addition of
another physical anthropologist and an ancient
