FOR INFORMATION
?
S .89-17
• ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To: ?
Senate ?
From: Senate Committee on
• ?
Academic Planning
Subject: External Review of the
?
Date: ?
March 9, 1989
Department of English
An external review of the Department of English at SFU conducted in the Fall of 1987 is
attached for the information of Senate.
fl
sciiIo
[1
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH ?
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. G.
Ivany, ?
FROM: Sandra Diwa, Chairwoman,
Vice-President, Aademic
?
Department of English
SUBJECT: ?
DATE: 27 September, 1988
Dear Dr. Ivany,
The English Department has responded to the recommendations of the
External Review that the English Department strengthen the
Undergraduate and Graduate programs somewhat to correspond with
programs in English offered elsewhere in Canada.
• ?
Specifically, the external reviewers recommended that undergraduate
students studying English be offered a more systematic approach to the
discipline with greater reference to historical periods, major
literary figures and criticism and theory. In addition, the external
assessors recommended "a coordinated writing program and more. courses
in composition which would serve the larger needs of the university
more effectively." Finally, it was recommended that the graduate
program be tightened up with additional courses to be offered, and
that the rate at which students progressed through the program be
accelerated.
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
In response
to these observations the Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee began an internal review of the English department
offerings by reading and analysing the curricula of eleven
universities from across the country (Queens, University of
Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Victoria,
Western Ontario, Carleton, University of Alberta, Waterloo, York,
Dalhousie, and University of Ottawa) to determine if there was a
"standard" curriculum from which ours deviated. It quickly became
apparent that no norm or standard existed, that with the exception
of Queens, all curricula examined were an amalgam of period, genre,
.
?
movement, major authors, topics, and theory courses. The question
of "coverage," however, was looked at carefully. In a series of
changes to curriculum, discussed at the Bowen Island retreat and
subsequently approved by the department in a ballot vote, the
requirement of two courses from the early periods (Beowulf to the
2. ?
•
Eighteenth Century) which has been changed to three, assures that
students will have studied major authors as well as historical
periods. Other courses have been redefined and the curriculum as
a
whole tightened up through a series of course changes that will
encourage coverage of major figures. For example, two courses in
American literature numbered 344 and 346 have been collapsed into
one course. Where the present curriculum specifies 344 as a
historical period (Puritan and Colonial Studies) and 346 as a major
authors course (Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, and Dickinson), the
new course will bring the two together. The reviewers' concern
that more emphasis be given to criticism and theory is addressed by
changes in the Honours Programme
which
will make compulsory that
Honours students take English 366, "Studies in Critical Approaches
to Literature."
Also worth noting here are two new courses. English 361 will be
titled "Contemporary Canadian Writing" and will offer study in
theoretical issues that arise specifically out of the study of
Canadian literature. English 380, already approved by F.A.C. and
Senate, is titled "The Book and the Author in Society." Both
courses respond to the demand for courses with increased
theoretical content and social relevance.
The concern of the reviewers for a coordinated writing program has
long been a priority of the English department. As of September 1
we have instituted, with the assistance of the Dean of Arts and the
Vice-President, Academic, a new two-year Lectureship to which we
have appointed Dr. Janet Giltrow as Coordinator of the Writing
Program. We are proposing as a standard format, a course devised
by Dr. Giltrow which has met with great success in the past and
which is being published as a two-volume book by an eastern press
in 1989. This will enable all instructors in English 099 to use
this program. We consider Dr. Giltrow an ideal coordinator for our
Writing Program on a long-term basis. It is the department's
urgent wish that a permanent CFL position be made available in the
area of writing and composition.
GRADUATE PROGRAM:
Over the last three years the English Department
changes to the Graduate program. Though most of
before the visit of the external reviewers, they
for their impact to be visible to outsiders. We
some significant changes since the receipt of thi
report.
has made several
these were made
were too recent
have also made
reviewers'
1.
The curriculum has been reorganized to offer wider-ranging
courses in a regular cycle. The courses are designed to include
several textual and critical Interests: for Instance, a course may
study a group of texts from a particular theoretical perspective so
as to be of interest to students whose concern is with texts in a
particular area as well as those whose main concern is with theory.
2.
We have introduced a Research Seminar which has to be taken by
all graduate students and introduced a language requirement which
came Into place administered by the French Department during
Summer 88.
3.
There are some changes in course requirements. M.A. students
choosing the extended essay now need to take 6 courses instead of
five. This emphasis on course work is to be traded against an
expectation for research that tended to make the essays
Into mini-theses. Ph.D. students are now required to take two
courses and complete two areas of research. This will cut down on
the time taken by the student to complete four areas of research.
4.
The process of advising, committee formation, and supervision
has been considerably tightened. Students are strictly directed to
form their committees by the end of the third semester. (Ph.D.
students are given a senior supervisor at the time of admission and
are advised to design their research areas as early as possible).
M.A. students doing theses are advised to be examined on their
theses proposals early in the fifth semester. M.A. students
choosing the extended essay option are advised in their third or
fourth semester to consult with professors regarding papers which
may be expanded for submission.
5.
All students who have finished their course work and are
registered for research are required to meet with their supervisors
at least three times a semester. Supervisors are expected to
submit a semesterly report on the student's progress including a
summary of the research prepared by the student.
6.
All work for a course must be completed no later than the third
week of the following semester. Faculty members are expected to
design their courses to make it possible for the student to finish
his/her paper in time.
.
4S
7. It is proposed that we offer at least one course a year to be
taught by members of faculty working as a team without teaching
credit. This will be in addition to the courses we already offer.
These measures are beginning to show some results. While the
quality of our graduates remains high, the attached figures will
show that the time taken for completion of degrees has shortened
considerably.
As will be apparent, the English Department is actively engaged in the
process of developing and strengthening present and future course
offerings with careful attention to the recommendations of the
External Review Committee.
SD:ds
cc: Dr. R.C. Brown,
Dean of Arts
cc: Dr. B. Clayman,
Dean of Graduate Studies
0
11
1]
?
List of students graduating since 86-2:
Clement, Lorette
Elwood, Margaret
Fladager, Don
Frost, Wendy
Houle, Ruth
Judy, Bill
Jensen, Karen
Janz, Jim
Melczer, Regina
Maxwell, Barry
Niechoda, Irene
Robson, James
Relke, Dian
Sweatman, Marg
Valiquette, M.
Witheford, N.
Wallace, D.
Wong, Shelley
Yim, Sung, Kyun
Zieroth, Dale
Graduated 87-2 .
15 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-3
16 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-3
17 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-3
(exceeded time, re-applied to defend
thesis won Deans Medal)
Graduated 86-2
9 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-3
10 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-2
15 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-3
16 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 88-1
15 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-2
15 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 87-3
17 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 87-3
17 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-2
14 semesters in Ph.D. program
Graduated 87-3
12 semesters in M.A. program
(transferred 5 credits from Manitoba)
Graduated 86-3
(exceeded time, re-applied to defend
thesis won Deans Medal)
Graduated 87-1
17 semesters in M.A. program
won Bert Henry Memorial Scholarship
Graduated 86-2
27 semesters in Ph.D. program
Graduated 86-2
15 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-2
12 semesters in M.A. program
Graduated 86-2
13 semesters in M.A. program
Fatkin, Grace
?
Graduated 88-2
?
8 semesters in M.A. program
Insley, Rob
?
Graduated 88-2 8 semesters in M.A. program
Olsen, Rob
?
Graduated 88-2
?
10 semesters in M.A. program
Black, Pamela
?
Graduated 88-2
?
15 semesters in Ph.D. program
Prospective graduates for 88-3
Bergunder, Janet
Buday, Grant
Lai, Fushan
Kamra, Sukeshi
He, Shanqiang
Simons, Jennifer
9 semesters in M.A. program
6 semesters in M.A. program
7 semesters in M.A. program
19 semesters in Ph.D. program
7 semesters in M.A. program
18 semesters in Ph.D. program
0
.
n
Summary ?
Report of the External Reviewers
?
Deportment of English: Simon Fraser University
Introduction
The review of the Department of English at Simon Fraser University
was conducted by Professors T.J. Collins (Western), G.D. Killam (Guelph) and
H. Rosengarten(UBC) on Wednesday, October 14, through to Friday, October
16
0
1987. The review team met with a large number of groups and
individuals, including the President, the Vice-President Academic, the Dean
of the Faculty of Arts, the Dean of Graduate Studies, the Chairwoman and
Associate Chairman of the Department, the Head of Graduate Studies of the
Department, members of Faculty and graduate and undergraduate students.
In addition,
the team attended a Faculty seminar, an undergraduate lecture,
and met with several Directors, Chairmen, and Co-ordinators of the Faculty
of Arts at lunch. Various materials were provided to us prior to the visit to
campus: these included
all
Departmental c.vs., and also a comprehensive
Self Profile report describing the Department and its activities, generated
for the occasion by the administration of the Department in concert with,
we were
informed, a large number (22) of Department members.
The three-day visit was extremely busy, but the assessors agreed
during their private discussions at the time, and in subsequent
communications, that we had acquired a fairly good sense of the
Department's pest, its present situation, and issues which, in our
judgement, should be considered for the future. It
should perhaps also be
noted here that the assessors, each naturally influenced, informed, and
prejudiced by his own experience and background, have reached unanimous
agreement concerning both their general impression for the Department and
particular issues which should be addressed in our report. Since the
assessors were given no specific guidelines for their
review, we have
decided
to comment on those areas important to any Department of English:
Undergraduate programs, Graduate programs, and Personnel matters. But
first some general impressions.
I General Impression
Simon FrasersDepartment of English currently has a capable
administration doing a good job in relatively difficult times. There appears
to be a sense of collegiality and an openness in the Department that are in
marked contrast to the atmosphere that
seems to have prevailed in earlier
years. But
the reviewers noted a continuing sense of hostility and residual
bitterness in some members of the Department, and concluded that
the
unity
now exhibited by the Department might well be the result of an attempt to
maintain the status auo (or better) in the face of the potential necessity
given past hisory and present budgetary circumstances, of change and
retrenchment.
Indeed, the reviewers believe that the most identifiable attitude
currently prevalent in the Department, no doubt the result of the sense of
self-protectiveness noted above, is a general unwillingness to admit even
the possibility that there might be good and sufficient reasons to consider
the necessity of significant change in any
areas of the Department's
endeavour-s. Such conservatism is remarkable, given that the large majority
of members of the Department were hired from relatively progressive
2
•
United States graduate schools in the mid to late 1960s. Many of these
hired from other graduate schools during those and later gears seem to have
converted to the same view. That view is implicit in the Self Profile, and it
was
repeatedly expressed in individual interviews: everything is just fine
in
the Department; the undergraduate and graduate programs are
satisfactory; the quality of the teaching and research ectivites is above
standard; there are, however, far too many students, and for this reason at
least two new appointments are necessary. Interestingly, the only generally
accepted need for change articulated by members of the Department was in
•
?
conjunction. with the above mentioned appointments: such appointments..
• ?
would allow the Department to return to the more Comfortable student-
faculty ratios and the lecture-tutorial teaching method of the mid 1960s:
Simon Frasers Department of English can be justly proud of the
• .
positive relationship which it establishes with its students, of the high
quality research and publication record of some of its members, of its
capable administrative leadership, and of the hard work and co-operative
spirit of its support staff. But it is the belief of the assessors that the
Department is unrealistic in its view of itself, and mistaken in its belief
that some new appointments will solve its problems. The average teaching
load in the Department is approximately two-thirds that in other
Departments in Canada with which the assesors are familiar (including
those on the semester system). This includes number of students taught,
number of students marked by an individual instructor, TA supervision etc.,
etc. The overall research and publication profile of the Department is
comparatively modest, and the undergraduate and graduate programs are
lacking in rigour, focus, and structure. These programs do not, in the
opinion of the assesors, offer students a systematic approach to education
3
in our discipline, with reference to historical periods, to major figures, or
to criticism and theory. These issues wil be addressed in the following
comments.
II Undergraduate Curriculum
Lower division courses and writing instruction
SFUs first-year courses follow a standard "Introduction to" pattern
based on the genres. Each course meets for three hours, two lectures and
one tutorial. In addition, six hours of a "writing lab" are added to each
tutorial group over the semester. For students seeking help withwnting
problems, the Department offers a non-credit course, English 099
(University Writing), taught by all faculty members in rotation (Self Profile
61): Additional help is available to students on a "drop-in" basis through the
Writing Referral Centre, staffed by two instructors. English 099 and the
Writing Referral Centre are the means by which the Department has tried to
fill the gaps caused by the loss several years ago of five lecturers who
taught English 010.
Useful as they may be, these measures are really stopgaps and
imperfect substitutes for a coordinated writing program. Composition and
(at the higher levels) language or rhetoric get short shrift. In that the
department seeks to help students improve their writing through English
099 or the Writing Referral Centre, it is to be commended for stretching its
already slim resources even further. However, much of this instruction
appears to be done by TA's, lecturers, or sessionals; of the nine sample
teaching schedules given to the reviewers, only one showed a faculty
member teaching 099 this year (87-3, 87- 1), and none teaching English 210
4
•
?
(Composition), 212 (Study of Language), or 371 (Advanced Composition), It
was also our impression that the brunt of this work fell on a few
overworked individuals. As the Self Profile itself observes in several
places, there is a high demand for composition courses at every level, a
demand which the Department cannot presently meet. One student told us of
her frustration at having to wait until her fourth year to be able to get into
a writing course that would have been of greater help in her second or third
year.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that the steady
attrition of instructors has seriously affected the Departments capacity to
provide necessary services to junior students, and impaired its ability to
offer better students the more advanced writing.courses that should be
available on a regular basis. The restoration of an introductory writing
course, staffed by lecturers and by regular full-time members of Faculty,
would extend the Departments capacity to teach basic composition, and
enable it to offer sections of 210, 212, and 371 more regularly.
The second-year survey courses are appropriately described as
providing a basis for studies in the upper division, and thus play an
important part in the preparation of majors and honours students. From the
few reading lists we obtained during our visit, it was not possible to
determine exactly what works were being studied in these courses, or what
degree of parity there was among different sections of the same course in
content, writing requirements, and grades. However, there seemed to be no
particular cause for concern about these courses.
Majors and Honours Programs
The undergraduate program for,Majors and Honours students at SFU is
designed to give students as much freedom as possible to develop their own
interests. This does not mean that there are no requirements:. the intending
Major must have obtained "credit or standing" in three of the four first year
courses and in 204, 205, 206. The Major must then obtain.32 credit, hours in
eight courses numbered 300 to 446. One course must be in the 300-308
range, and one in the 310-316 range. Honours students are required to
obtain 52 credit hours in the upper-division English courses: that is, 10
semester courses, plus a course on literary criticism (364), two. Honours,
seminars, and an Hbnours graduating essay.
A possible Majors program might be as follows:
Engi 306 Malory, More, Sidney, Spenser
Erlgl 312 Shakespeare
Engi 344 American Prose and Poetry...
Engi 36 Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, Dickinson
Engi 348 American Literature ... to
WW
I
Engi 350 20th Century American Writers to WW II, .
Engi 352 American Writers of WW II and After
Engl 372 Creative Writing A
Such a program might be difficult to arrange because of scheduling
problems, or because not all courses can be offered every year, or because
an advisor might dissuade the student; but the fact remains that the
regulations would permit a student to graduate as an English Major without
having read Chaucer, Milton, Swift, Pope, the Romantic poets, the eighteenth
or nineteenth-century novelists, Wilde, Shaw, Lawrence, etc., or any
Canadian literature, beyond what may be included in the second-year survey
courses.
One consequence of such a program is that it may produce graduates
lacking the breadth or background to make them effective in the classroom.
We were told of one TA who was required to teach a Victorian novel, but
who had not read any Victorian fiction. If this can happen, requirements
should be introduced to ensure better historical or genre coverage by both
Honours and Majors students.
Problems in course planning
A frequent complaint about both lower division and upper division
courses was that the original tutorial system, intended to give students
close contact with faculty members through small classes, has lost much of
its effectiveness because of the pressure of numbers. Tutorials designed
for 15 students are now expected to accommodate between 17 and 22. The
problem has been exacerbated by the reduction in faculty numbers, and the
increase in student enrolment over the last few years (Self Profile 57-8).
This situation has evidently led to the reduction of course offerings. The
university administration has made funds available for a series of
temporary or sessional appointments, but such ad hoc arrangements are
unsatisfactory on both logistical and pedagogical grounds. Course planning,
book ordering, room scheduling all need more lead time than has evidently
been possible in the recent past.
The most common solution to these problems proposed by the faculty
members we spoke to (and suggested in the Self Profile 137, 147) was the
addition of new faculty members. Given the depletion suffered by the
Department in recent years, the addition of two to three new members
7
seems a modest enough measure, justified on the grounds of both student
numbers and gaps in specialization (renewal is urgently needed in several
areas, including Shakespeare, language, Commonwealth literature, and
literary theory). At the same time, two or three new appointments will not
of themselves solve all the problems described in the Self Profile, and we
believe that the Department should consider other measures. One proposal
we explored with faculty members was an increase in teaching load, perhaps
by adding a tutorial to each member's program. This was received with
universal horror, though one member did acknowledge that such a step would
relieve the pressure on upper-division tutorials, and would reduce the need
to bring in external sessionals. While we have no wish to impose added
burdens of teaching and marking, we would point out that presently, with
two preparations rather than three, faculty at SFU enjoy teaching loads
somewhat lighter than those found at comparable institutions elsewhere.
Quality of Instruction
Of some concern to the reviewers was the lack of coordination and
control evident in the Department's handling of writing standards in 100 and
200-level courses. In theory, each group of TAs handling tutorials works
closely with the faculty lecturer, whose task it is to supervise the TAs in
their selection of materials and assignments, and to oversee their grading.
In practice, some faculty members take their supervisory duties very
seriously, while others do not, and this laissez-faire attitude on the part of
some influences the attitudes of
lAs
to the importance of teaching writing.
The result, predictably, is a good deal of unevenness in grading standards,
and an inflation of grades in some classes. To achieve greater parity among
different tutorial groups, the Department should take the following
measures:
a)
give all new TAs more detailed guidance and preparation, and provide
workshops on teaching and marking on a regular basis throughout the
semester;
b)
insist on proper supervision by faculty members, including regular
checks on TA marking;
c)
bring faculty members together from time to time to discuss grading
standards;
ci) ?
introduce a standardized student questionairre to evaluate teaching
at all levels.
III Graduate
The Department of English offers courses of study leading to the M.A.
and
Ph.D. degree. The M.A. has been offered since the Department was
created and the Ph.D. introduced in 1972.
Both, therefore, are in a sense in
their infancy. The M.A. program is described as moderately sized and the
Ph.D. strictly limited so as not to utilize too great a proportion of
the
Department's resources." Substantial changes have been made to the
programs in 1985 and 1986 to bring them up-to-date with developments in
English studies; the Department believes
that it has brought a degree of
soundness and efficiency to the program and that no further changes will be
required in the immediate future.
9
The M.A. program offers two routes to the Masters degree: four
semester courses and a thesis, or eight semester courses without a thesis.
Students are required to demonstrate competence in one foreign language.
The program is intended to provide sound traditional preparation for
students intending to pursue a Ph.D., to secondary school teachers who wish
to upgrade their qualifications, and to others who may seek the degree for
personal enrichment.
The curriculum is organized conceptually, emphasizing modes of study
rather than specific textual content and reducing literary history to one of
several possible modes. Wehave, then, a multiplicity of specific courses
taught under one conceptual heading or under a series of conceptual headings
which makes it possible to "cross index any particular course to several
headings." And this philosophy accounts for the relatively few formal
courses which are offered by the Department -- ordj eight (presumably for
both M.A. and Ph.D. students). Of these, two graduate research seminars,
Part I and Part II, are required courses and are graded on a
satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis.
The Table marked Faculty Supervision MA and Ph.D. Theses (Self
Profile 67-90) reveals that all colleagues in the Department are involved in
thesis supervision at both the M.A. and Ph.D. level both as senior supervisors
and members of supervisory committees. This would seem to support the
Department's assertion on page 62 of the Self Profile that all periods and
fields in the canon and other specialized areas are covered.
Since graduate instruction is so comprehensive, therefore, and since
undergraduate teaching commitments are relatively small, it could be
argued that there is no need for further appointment. The Department does,
however, note the need for better coverage in "areas like Composition,
10
• ?
Modern British Literature, Irish Poetry, Shakespeare, Elizabethan Poetry and
Prose," and laudably looks down the road to the time when retirements will
create a need for appointments in 17th Century, American, and Shakespeare
Studies. This matter will be addressed in Section IV following.
Problems is the Graduate Prog.rn
The general entrance requirements for entry into the
M.A. program as
announced in the University Calendar for 1987-88 seem adequate and
coincident with those required in other places. The
entrance requirements
of the Department as set forth on
pp.
.234-235 are very breezy indeed.
For the M.A.:
The Department requires evidence of ability in academic writing, in
the form of at least
two substantial literary essays which are
scholarly in format and approach. The
papers submitted may be
undergraduate essays previously prepared, or ones specially written
for the purpose.
For the Ph.D.:
The Ph.D. program in English assumes in the student a background in
English or comparative literature equivalent to our M.A.; this is the
condition of admission to the program.
The general demands made of students in each program does not bolster
confidence:
In the M.A.:
.
11
While offering students the opportunity of specializing in one of the
various areas of strength in the department, the program requires
them to ground their interest in a wide and flexible understanding of
literary history and the possibilities of study.
In the Ph.D.:
The student is required to do a minimum amount of coursework to fill
any gaps or satisfy any needs. The major emphasis of the program is
on personal supervision in one primary and one secondary area and the
production of a doctoral thesis. The program is designed to encourage
innovative studies.
This lack of focus and rigour is reflected in the slow progress
students make through the degree-earning process -- though efforts are
being made to adjust this -- and in comments offered by some faculty and
students we interviewed. Some students seem to take more than an usual
number of their courses as directed reading courses. We were told that the
program is too loosey-goosey; that there is such freedom in the graduate
program that one might deal with Mallarmes left toe" for a thesis, and that
so many reading courses are offered that they "bleed off graduate students
and so courses disappear." It was further stated that there is no
bibliography course offered (though one has recently been introduced), no
comprehensive examination, that an anti-grading mentality dominates (and
that graduate students who are given teaching assistant positions are given
little instruction on grading); that no emphasis is placed on producing
publishable work -- no training, that is, on how to produce publishable
manuscripts; one student offered the opinion that graduate courses are not
taught by the best people in the Department -- the proven and active
12
scholars. Finally, there was the comment that the quality of supervision
across the graduate program is of a low calibre. Clearly, some of these
comments exaggerate the problems, but despite the improvements which
have recently been introduced, further work is required in the tightening-up
process.
Such changes as will be effected to tighten and improve the program
are the task of the Chairman of the Committee on Graduate Studies who has.
direct responsibility for graduate students. The current Chairman has begun
to take hold of the program, to rationalize it and to try to give it some new
direction. The office should be regarded as a challenge; the Director should
havee small committee working with him to review applications, to solicit
students from elsewhere and also, as we have suggested, to review the
whole program of seminars with greater concern for a clear objective and
structure. The program needs a good deal more rigour.
The Department should perhaps reconsider the breadth of its offering
as enunciated in the Self Profile with respect to the expertise of the total
graduate faculty (which is, we have noted, the undergraduate faculty as
well). Perhaps it should develop within it a special program in areas where
•
?
there is considerable strength. Such a program could be carefully
constructed, well publicized and supported by the University. It is, perhaps,
here that new faculty appointments could most appropriately be made.
But one must recognize at the same time that Masters candidates in
general are not ready to be highly specialized and that many different
constituencies must be served. In addition, the discipline itself requires
placing the particular subject of research within broad historical, generic,
and linguistic contexts. Good research in English requires such a broad base,
and it is for this reason that graduate departments of English require some
13
form or other of comprehensive examination and spread of courses. Also,
the creation of a graduate faculty could assist the tightening-up process --
end lend greater credibility to the program. Membership should be open only
to recognized scholars, and applicants for membership in the graduate
faculty should be screened by a committee of scholars of international
repute. This is typical of many university graduate departments; in some
such departments, if a scholar is not active in his or her field for a period
of four to five years, consideration is given to dropping his or her name
from the graduate faculty roster.
The Department should confront the problem of rationalizing and
expanding the graduate course selection. A decision should be made about a
comprehensive examination to ensure uniformity. It should consider the
possibility of offering a more specific range of courses; these courses
should, in the first instance, be offered by those scholars who have made
their reputations in the field and not offered willy-nilly across the board by
all members of the Department. This would necessitate a redeployment of
teaching responsibilities, but there should be no difficulty in hiving off the
established scholars to do the bulk of the work in a revised graduate
program.
Finally, the Department should keep statistics on the length of time it
takes students, both full- and part-time, to complete the degree, and take
steps to speed passage through the program if the time proves to be too
protracted. As
things currently stand, students are encouraged to take far
too long (3 years) to complete an
M.A. It should not take a full-time student
more than two years -- and even two years is excessive --
to complete the
Master's degree. A parallel review should be undertaken of the time for
14
completion of the Ph.D. Our
,
impression was that students are encouraged to
spend far too long on this degree as well.
IV Personnel Matters
As already noted, while there are a small number of highly productive
scholars In the Department, there appears to be, on the part of many
members of the Department, a lack of balance between their interests in
teaching and research. During our interviews with individuals we heard the
common self-justification from the non-publishers -- they do research In
preparation for teaching, and the teaching endeavour is so important that
research for purposes of publication must be sacrificed for that higher
purpose. Such an attitude Is understandable, and there appear to be some
excellent teachers In the Department. nut, considering the comparatively
light teaching loads of members of the English Department at SFU, the lack
of research productivity should be carefully examined by the administration,
and the rewards of promotion and salary Increases should be reserved
primarily for those who can demonstrate that they are good teachers
publishing scholars of quality material. Those who wish to devote all of
their time to teaching, and who teach well, could perhaps be given heavier
teaching loads than others.
Three other matters related to personnel were brought to our
attention:
1.
?
The last minute hiring of sessional appointees seems to be rather
chaotic, and does not allow for rational planning of the size and
number of sections/courses offered each year. Some attempt should
.
15
be made by the administration of the Faculty and the Department to
solve this problem.
?
S
2.
The staff of the Department (five in number) seem to be very capable
and are respected; however, they appear to be overworked. As for as
we could determine, this is at least partly because, in the area of
advising students, the staff is doing work that should be done by
members of Faculty. The semester system no doubt creates some
extra pressures on staff activity, but staff support in English
at SFU
seems reasonable in
terms of numbers. Work in advising students,
and other areas that could be identified, should be shifted to full-
time facutly members on a rotational basis.
3.
The Self Profile report, recognizing the pressures on the area of
writing and composition, urges that a full-time Faculty appointment
be made in this area. The reviewers disagree; we believe that a
permanent position in writing should be established, but as
a
language
assistant (or some other such staff category) rather
than as a tenure-
track appointment. Those who now work in the area of writing
assume a great burden in the Department -- some of which could and
should be assumed by full-time tenured Faculty. To demand that such
overworked individuals compete for tenure seems to us unfair, and
unwise.
Finally, we address the issue of new faculty appointments. We
recommend that the Department engage in a vigorous recruiting process
during the coming years to replace upcoming retirements and to
make the
..
.
16
two or three additional appointments suggested in Section II above. And we
believe that it is vital to the Department's future that such appointments be
made, in areas to be determined by the Department in consultation with the
Dean. We make this recommendation not primarily because of the pressure
of student numbers, but because there are gaps in the Department which
should be filled (Shakespeare, Commonwealth, Theory, etc.), and new blood
and new ideas are needed in the Department to enliven and enrich its
scholarly endeavours.
There will be a large number of positions open in many Canadian
university English Departments during the next decade, and the pool of
highly qualified Canadian candidates will be relatively small. The
competition for first-rate candidates will be stiff (indeed, such has been
the case for the past five years -- faculty members at SFU seemed
surprised to hear this), and it is necessary to begin planning now on an
intensive recruiting process. Particular attention should be paid to
recruiting Canadians, and es
p ecially Canadian women.
11 November 1987
.
17,
