To: Senate From: J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic
Subject: External Review - Gerontology Program

SCAP 92 - 32
3. THE PROPOSED M.A. IN GERONTOLOGY

For Information

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

S.92-59

OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC

MEMORANDUM

To:

Senate

From:

J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic

Subject:

External Review - Gerontology Program

Date:

16 October, 1992

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

of Gerontology which was carried out in March 1992. The report and the response of the

Program were reviewed by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning at its meeting

on 14 October, and the Committee approved a motion to receive the report. The full

report and the response by the Program are available from the Secretary of Senate for

senators to review.

For the information of senators, this review was conducted by a two person review team

rather than the usual three person team because of the relative size of the program. The

members of the review team were:

Chair:

Dr. Anne Martin Mathews

Director, Gerontology Research Centre

University of Guelph

Member:

Dr. James Birren,

Director,

Anna and Harvey Borun Center for Gerontological Studies

University of California at Los Angeles.

k -

40-0

CPTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:

On March 30 and 31, 1992, members of the Review Committee met

with faculty, students, alumni, and staff of the Gerontology

Research Centre, the senior administration of Simon Fraser

University, and other SFU faculty and department chairs which

relate to the Gerontology Research Centre. These meetings took

place at the Burnaby and Harbour Centre Campuses. All provided

valuable insight into the operation of the Gerontology Research

Centre and the Diploma Program. In this Review of the Gerontology

Research Centre, the Diploma Program in Gerontology and also the

proposed H. A. in Gerontology, the Committee makes the following

recommendations concerning each of these units and the integration

of their activities.

1. THE GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE:

The Centre should continue to promote basic and applied

• research with a. focus on housing and the elderly and, through

a seed grants program, to support gerontology research at both

the Harbour Centre and Burnaby campuses.

The Centre should not continually be forced to seek out and

engage in contract research in order to survive as an academic

unit.

2. THE DIPLOMA

PROGRAMIN GERONTOLOGY:

1. The Diploma Program immediately requires additional faculty

and staff resources.

These include a 1.0 FTE Program

Assistant (to assist with the development of Practicum

TadoaddP a.xow eq

nOm

senssr sseut-rt pzre t4T29q

o.uT

T;T

sue

:rog TT;

uod

;a.xTp e:toui

q;p AOToTsAqd

ueulrat

es.:zflO:D

v 'QToTq

TT90

STsqduia

'uri5o.z

etiq o; uoq.nqT.;uo3 s;-r

go suq

P9M97A9a eq

PTnOqs

quawaaTnbaa esnoo ASoToTseu-r)I 9T4,

,ee.zBep uoTu2duIoo,

s (pe;outo.zd pup) prA eq -

seq

PTflOT4S

a9q

;97

mzo

';ueuxAo1duEe o;uT ez;ue enbep u

s3pTAod euo

uxod

et.q xeqeq.i o s

uT;.eun Tee ruulnw

ur2thold UIoTdTG

;° T"T P

suepn;s o; PePTAO.Xd

• eq

fl0T

9 BuT

9sunOO a9GaPO ac

SeTTun;1oddo

e.ow

ST;recIXe

4UaTOT

2A2r

Aui

sUeptiq.s aaaLlm s

TT'T

load

uxoTdt

squameaTnbai esnoo go aaquinu eqq. BuTonpaa aoT UISTU2439U1

S2 peepTsuoD eq prtot.s suoT;u-turxe

eAT

sueedwo3 •

pe-raz eq pnoqs 'sr2eA quaoa,

punqiow aa7qq

a euxoeq SP4 qoTtM 'seT.res

UTUIeS et

UOTnT21e

9TAaa IUP250ad OTP0TI9d

o ssaord

.ze

ei.

ur pe5-5ue eq

peeu

;ueuzoieAep

9Sflo3 pu

UOT;fl;sut

OIU

erp

TAT

etpj

tho.z

2UIO

TdTG

pe;TzOsSe S1Ofl14SUT TUOTsses pup

A;ne; ounCpy eq t;rit pe1

nba1 axe s5wrqeeuz .

TnBe.r e.xo

•UoTuTp.003

nOTfl

.xo;

TTTqsuodse.

eA2q

pftt049

suoT;Tsod

AqTnD'e3

asaqq

nZ2

;

TTPP

sr P

ueet;eq pup (s;ueueD21d

7. A management course should be added to the electives

offered in the Diploma Program.

3. THE PROPOSED M.A. IN GERONTOLOGY

Serious consideration must be given to the issue of the

faculty resources required to achieve the critical mass

necessary to sustain the proposed M.A. degree in Gerontology.

If the three proposed concentrations are to be viable options

within the M.A., then each must have a com

liment of at least

3.0 FTE faculty in order to provide appropriate levels of

graduate teaching and supervision.

The Health Promotion concentration should include a course

on Human Physiology.

The number of course credits required for the

M. A. in

erontology, and the number of clinical hours associated with

the internshi

, should be significantly reduced.

The number of course pre-requisites for the

M.A. should

also be reduced.

S. The differential in the number of courses required of

students in the thesis and non-thesis options should be

increased to two from one.

6. Comprehensive exams should be considered as an alternative

to pre-requisites and numerous graduate courses as a way of

testing for substantive knowledge.

S. -

Iii

'94PT-7doadde eq

P p

suoTqpTa

o; io;ar

r ;94-2-roossV UP

UTptIfl; ;o Seznos

aOuVT

flS

qP UQTDrtpa PUP 4ese

A6oiouo.95 go ezn;Pu

eq; ue.-

ridux

Aquzn

Gq4 UO

;fl; P

UP aa

eqq Ueat;eq uos-r-rT

'(eu.zooTeM eq PT

flOM

ui't5orc

UIOTdT(j eq UT S.XO4On;SUT

TU0TSSeS pue SUflCpj TtU o)

TS .

UIa

-a 'snduiez) uo Sun 1e40 PUPA50-0uoa-j Uee!;eq

eeu-

qieese.z 5U4ST[q2;se o; I;TTqsuodse1 hupj; 'zes

io; .xoe.i-ra

;

a-4

,Dossv euzoeq pnoqs (s-rseq eseTees.noo

P uo sdeqied) ee-ruzuio Euzee;s aLiq

.equieux

0Touo

UT suratho.id T

oT;e3np eq; ;o MeTAaX P

uOr;2nTAe

'buT;;es '

ueuxd

oieiep aq; .io; A

rqrsuodsa Upeq BUTuTe

pue

UOT

,e3flpa :io

°'TG

4eT3ossv e; euzo3eq PTrtots

ur2-

.S0.z

euxo

aq4 tin

-rTm peeToosse

Tue..n3

qmaur A;nDe;

:A;inor 1eo ee.zq .xo o;

pa;seA

eq os-1e

tlOtjS A

.I0

qne 'euo

UTPwaa U11O.Xa -euIOTd-rCl eq; pue e4u33

taxeesej

A5o

ouoie

et; go

10.r

T;T

at['

t eTq

sIIAID

ao HOl 1Dati aHr

•i

SCAP 92 - 32

REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

FOR THE GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE

AND DIPLOMA PROGRAM IN GERONTOLOGY

AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Submitted By:

James E. Birren, University of California at Los Angeles

Anne Martin Matthews, University of Guelph (Chair)

JUNE 1992

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:

On March 30 and 31, 1992, members of the Review Committee met

with faculty, students, alumni, and staff of the Gerontology

Research Centre, the senior administration of Simon Fraser

University, and other SFU faculty and department chairs which

relate to the Gerontology Research Centre. These meetings took

place at the Burnaby and Harbour. Centre Campuses. All provided

valuable insight into the operation of the Gerontology Research

Centre and the Diploma Program. In this Review of the Gerontology

Research Centre, the Diploma Program in Gerontology and also the

proposed M. A. in Gerontology, the Committee makes the following

recommendations concerning each of these units and the integration

of their activities.

1. THE GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE

The Centre should continue to promote basic and applied

research with a focus on housing and the elderly..and, through -

a seed grants program, to support gerontology research at both

the Harbour Centre and Burnaby campuses.

The Centre should not continually be forced to seek out and

engage in contract research in order to survive as an academic

unit.

2. THE DIPLOMA PROGRAM IN GERONTOLOGY:

1. The Diploma Program immediately requires additional faculty

and staff resources. These include a 1.0 FTE Program

Assistant (to assist with the development of Practicum

placements) and between .50 FTE and 1.5 FTE additional faculty

resources.

One

these

faculty

positions

should

have

responsibility for Curriculum Coordination.

2. More regular meetings are required with the Adjunct faculty

and sessional instructors associated with the Diploma Program.

The individuals directly involved in instruction and course

development

need to be

engaged

in the

larger process of

periodic Program review and evaluation.

3. The Seminar Series, which has become rather moribund in

recent years, should be revived.

Comprehensive

examinations

should

considered

mechanism for reducing the number of course requirements in

the Diploma program, especially in areas where students may

have

sufficient expertise.

opportunities

for

career

counselling

should

provided

students

and

alumni

the

Diploma

Program.

Alumni feel uncertain as to whether the Diploma alone provides

an adequate entre into employment, or whether it should best

be viewed (and promoted) as a 'companion degree'.

6. The Kinesiology course requirement should be reviewed in

terms of its contribution to the Diploma Program.

Rather than

the current

emphasis

cell

biology,

a course

human

physiology with more direct potential for translation into

practical health and illness issues would be more appropriate.

'-1-

...

•

7. A management course should be added to the electives

offered in the Diploma Program.

3. THE PROPOSED M.A. IN GERONTOLOGY

Serious consideration must'be given to the issue of the

faculty resources required. to achieve the critical mass

necessary to sustain the proposed M.A. degree in Gerontology.

If the three proposed

concentrations

are to be viable options

within the M.A., then each must have a compliment of

at least

3.0 FTE faculty in order to provide appropriate levels of

graduate teaching and supervision.

The Health Promotion concentration should include a course

on Human Physiology.

The number of course credits required for the M. A. in

Gerontology, and the number of clinical hours associated with

the internship, should be significantly reduced.

The number of course --pre-requisites - for.the M.A. should

also be reduced.

The differential in the number of courses required of

students in the thesis and non-thesis options should be

increased to two from one.

Comprehensive exams should be considered as an alternative

to pre-requisites and numerous graduate courses as a way of

testing for substantive knowledge.

11]

4. THE INTEGRATION OF ACTIVITIES:

1. While the position of Director of the Gerontology Research

Centre and the Diploma Program remain as one, authority should

also be vested with two or three other faculty: a- -'core'

-. -

faculty member currently associated with the Diploma Program

should become the Associate Director - for Education and.

Training,

having responsibility for the development, staffing,

evaluation and review of the educational programs in

Gerontology; a member of the Steering Committee (perhaps on a

course-release basis) should become Associate Director for

Research, taking responsibility for establishing research

linkages between Gerontology and other units on campus, re-

establishing a Seminar Series (to which Adjuncts and sessional

instructors in the Diploma Program would be welcome), and

serving as a liaison between the Centre and faculty on the

Burnaby campus. Given the applied nature of gerontology

research and education at SFU and its reliance on external

sources of funding, an Associate Director for Community

Relations would also be appropriate.

REVIEW OF GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH AND PROGRAMS:

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:

-•

Prior to our visit, members of the Review Committee received

and read a variety ofReports and documents relating to the

Gerontology Research Centre and the Diploma in Gerontology. These

included: the 1990-91 Anhuai:

Report-ofth

Geronto1ogy-Research- -

Centre; information on the Post Baccalaureate Diploma in

Gerontology; the Program Proposal for the Master of Arts in

Gerontology (dated 92.02.26); the University Calendar; Challenge

2001: The President's Strategic Plan; and the curriculum vitae of

Centre core faculty.

On March 30 and 31, 1992, we met with

faculty, students, alumni, staff and senior administration at the

Burnaby and Harbour Centre Campuses. All provided valuable insight

•

into the operation of the Gerontology Research Centre and the

Diploma Program

and

the proposal for a M.A. degree in Gerontology.

Among gerontology centres

and

programs in Canada, the SF13

facilities are well known and have- awide -measure of respect. The

productivity of the Centre in terms of research reports and funding

secured is widely acknowledged. During our visit it became

apparent that the Centre and the Diploma Program enjoy the broad

support of their constituent faculty, students and alumni, as well

as the senior administration of the University.

In order to adequately address the many and various issues

involved in the evaluation--of the Gerontology Research Centre, the

Diploma Program and the proposed M.A. in Gerontology, each of these

three components will be addressed separately. Interrelationships

between the three will be considered in the last section of this

Review.

THE GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH :CENTRE::

Strengths:

1. The Centre is a model of whatcanbeachievedgiVen'modest --

funding

over a decade. The SFU Gerontology Research Centre

has a solid

national

reputation and enjoys some international

recognition

as well.

• 2. A major achievement has been the

contribution

of the Centre

to our understanding of the relationship between the aging

individual and the built

environment.

• 3.

The endowment from the Real Estate Foundation of B.C.,

which funds two Research Fellowships

in Environmental

Gerontology in the Centre, is a particularly notable

accomplishment. These positions provide a unique opportunity

for the Centre to further nhanceT:its. expertise in the areas

of aging and the built environment.

4. The Centre has a particularly strong leader in the person

of Dr. Gutman. She has been especially successful in securing

on-going funding

for the Centre and in establishing the

Centre's national reputation. Colleagues, staff and students

applaud the drive and energy she has brought to the task of

building the Centre and the Diploma Program. As one faculty -

- - -

member noted, "The Centre seems to have grown with its Own

force and that force-is Gloria". Another observed that few

other programs at Simon Fraser are so identified with the

initiative

of one

person

the Gerontology

Research

Centre.

Through

the

production

bibliographies

and - the

accumulation of resource materIal,

the

Cent-r.e--had-.:becôme a

visible

and

viable

resource

for

faculty,

students

and

community

groups

who

seek- bibliographic

information

for

gerontological research.

6. The Centre had demonstrated an ability to attract grants

and contracts from a variety of

funding

sources. This has

been accomplished despite

national

concerns about continuous

funding for research in the social sciences and humanities.

7. The growth in funding and published work, much of it in in-

house publications, has been very impressive.

The prospects

•

for further growth appear to be quite encouraging.

Several of

the core faculty associated with the Centre

(notably Drs.

Wister and Watzke) are in the early stages of their careers

and are

still building their researc•h prograrns.:

::AS

these:..-

research programs develop,

they should further enhance the

Centre's

scholarly output,

especially

scientific

peer-

reviewed publications.

8. Although the Centre's primary research focus to date has

been on the topic of aging and the built environment, other

researchers associated with the Centre have developed solid

reputations for research: in ,other areas..

For example, :the

work of Dr.

Gee on issues of family structure and issues

related to women and aging is also widely recognized and well

,.. I.

respected within the broader field of Canadian social

gerontology. Other faculty associates

-working in. .areas .of..--

Women's Studies and the applied social sciences similarly

enjoy national reputations.

9. Previously shuttled around from one location to another,

The Gerontology Research Centre .:now -.en-joys -'a.: permanent-- and:, -:

spacious home in Harbour Centre.

This location greatly

facilitates the Centre's access to constituent groups such as

- -

students and the community.

Weaknesses to be Addressed:

The number of papers publishedinscientific peer-review.

journals needs to be increased, in order to realize the full

maturity of the research programs of Centre faculty and

Sassociates.

Faculty need to publish more of their gerontology research

in sources other than in-house publications which, may

xiot_ have-

as wide a distribution and the visibility - of commercial ..

academic presses.

Although the role of the Information Officer is a valuable

one, the time has now come to focus attention away from the

production of in-house Bibliographies. To date the Centre has

produced some 192 Specialized Bibliographies. As the Centre

moves into its second decade, _this kind, ofass

istaflCe to .

faculty and students amy-2become. less-.. important- both as ..--

computer technology facilitates this process and as the

academic programs mature.

The, reporting structure of the -Centre needs to be

clarified.

It appears- that some : measure --of budget

accountability is to the donors-of the endowment-fund. While

the Centre also reports tothê:Dean of -Arts frequency and

timing of such reporting- is not clear, nor is the nature of

the action called for in -response -to -such reports.--- The -lack

of University financial support to the Centre likely

contributes to its somewhat autonomous character; in such a

climate, success must therefore be judged in terms of its

service to the community and its applied orientation, more

than its relationship to scholarship and faculty research. If

there are to be increased faculty efforts to further the

research goals of the Centre and to involve it in more

research grants than contracts, then the relationship between

the Centre and the University, both financially and

organizationally, requires clarification.

Concerted effort will be requiredovertimeto ensure that -

the Harbour Centre location does not isolate Burnaby Campus

faculty from the Gerontology Research Centre and from library

holdings in Gerontology.

Recommendations for the Future:

1. The Centre should continue to promote basic and applied

research with a focus on housing and the elderly. Through .a

seed grants program, the Centre should-- continue to support

gerontology research at both the Harbour Centre and Burnaby

campuses.

2. The Centre should not continually be forced

- to seek out and

engage in contract research-in order -toSUrViVe..asan academic

unit. The SF13 Gerontology..ResearChCe

flt

is unique among --

Centres in Canada in the

attract endowment support and thus, sustain itself almost

exclusively on

a resource base frOm outside the University.

This is an extraordinary achievement. However, across ensuing

years, and particularly in light of the anticipated re-

capitalization of some of the endowment funds, the Centre must

not continually be required to sustain all of its operations

through external funding, especially contract funding.

THE DIPLOMA

PROGRAM IN GERONTOLOGY:

The Post-Baccalaureate Diploma Program in Gerontology has 87

graduates and 95 registered students (as of the 1990-91 Annual

Report). As part of the Review of the Diploma Program, the

Committee met with faculty -and i also :two groups

-of students:,- -twelve

who are currently registered in a 400 level Diploma course, and six

graduates of the Diploma program. The consensus among the student

groups was that a great deal has been accomplished by the Diploma

Program with very limited resources. They agreed with the

observation that "there should be more bouquets for what has been

accomplished".

Strengths:

1. The number of graduates of the Diploma Program and the

levels of enrolment (both in terms of the number of students

-7

L!J

registered

the

Program

well as

the

994 course

enrolments)

together indicate that the Diploma Program is

meeting a need in the community.

The

Committee

was

;the

•

students and the alumni, based on our brief meeting with them.

They came

from a wide

variety '-of 'background's, had- strong

commitment to gerontology and had a great deal of respect for

the what they had learned and how it had contributed to their

careers

gerontology. They

were

very articulate

expressing their views as to the strengths and weaknesses of

their courses and the Program overall.

They are indeed a

credit to the quality and strength of the Program.

3. The Alumni in particular are .ahighly motivated group, and

•

with their

in-put and continuing interest can continue to be

true

asset

the Program

shapes and

evolves

(especially with the introduction of the proposed M.A.

Gerontology) in the years' ahead.

4. The Program is unique in the province of British Columbia

and one of only several in the country.

The

Program is

designed to be

flexible

enough

that

variety of course electives are available to students to meet

their particular interests and needs.

The relevance, of

the Program for the

field of

social

gerontology is apparent.

The 'core' required -courses cover

the primary issues of relevance to the field, and the range of

electives is reasonably broad but also intensive and focused.

7. The Program is still at a point -where class size is

small enough to facilitate stimulating

classroom..inter-action:

between students and faculty.- Many:students -descri-bed this

a strength of the Program.

Weaknesses to be Addressed:-_-: -

1. The Diploma Program has, until quite recently, operated

with an appalling lack of committed faculty resources,. in

terms of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs). Up until September

1991, the Diploma Program was allocated only .50 FTE (Dr.

Gutman) and .50 FTE staff. Even with the welcome addition of

Dr. Wister (1.0 FTE) to the core teaching staff -of the

Program, the allocation of faculty and staff to the Program is

woefully inadequate. The.Diplóma±Program-:faculty resources

are also supplemented by six sessional stipends funded through

the University, and through endowment funds provided by the

Silberfield Lectureship fl-i-n-Gerontology and--Squibb Canada.

While obviously a Program such as this will- always -rely -

to some extent on sessional instructors and faculty in other

Departments to mount the broad range of electives required as

part of the curriculum, the Diploma Program currently relies

far too extensively on sessional instructors to mount its

curriculum. During our visit, we learned, for example, that

programs such as Women's Studies have 3.0 FTEs based.-On 17

students.

At that rate, - the 95 students enroledin the- - -

Diploma Program in Gerontology would appear to warrant more

•

than the current 1.5 FTE faculty allocation. The Program

Director's request for an increase from .50 FTE to 1.0-FTE in.

the Program Assistant position is entirely apprqpriate..ifl-our

view.

2. The lack of core facu1tyandstaff with primary-: or-even-

exclusive responsibility to the Diploma Program is very much

felt by the students.

The: under-staffing

of the•--Program;

manifests itself in a perceived lack of adequate opportunities

- -

for career counselling and academic advising as to course

- -

selections, and the perceived lack of available course

electives at times. Although the Diploma is apparently

designed to be completed in "eight months flat"., .students

indicated that this was rarely possible because of the

periodic lack of electives.

- - - - - -

• 3. The workload for the Diploma Program, both in terms of the

number of courses required and individual course requirements,

is perceived by students to be excessive. Students commented

that the expectations of the program: seem tp

: beequal;to. -a

course-work Master's degree. ---This raises two issues: -(a)

whether the current Diploma Program is at such a high level

that it will compete with the proposed M. A. in Gerontology,

thereby diluting student interest in the two programs

operating simultaneously;

• and (b) the -amount of work is

appropriate to a post-baccalaureate diploma of this nature.

However, both of these concerns likely reflect a genuine lack ,:---

of consensus within the field of Gerontology as to the nature

- -

and meaning of a Diploma; as such, these concerns are not

unique to Simon Fraser University.. The number of credit hours

required for the Diploma-is in-fact.-coflsistentT-with similar :--: - -

Programs

at Simon Frase

University;

-f acuity perceive the"'

workload as appropriate to the course..level-s..---Neverthelessr-

given the concern

expressed

by students, some consideration

could be given to whethera5OO1eVel. course designation may

be more appropriate for some of the.-.Gerontology courses.

One

suggested

alternative

that

comprehensive

examinations

organized

another

way of

determining

student's level of knowledge.

In addition, they could be used

as a means of determining whether students -should be waived of

core course requirements in areas where they have sufficient

background.

Students did note,-however, that if they 'skip'

courses they have already taken elsewhere, then there may not

be enough electives available to complete the Diploma Program

within a given time period.

In. such cases., the waiving of

certain course requirements for the.Diploma --may be required.

. ..

5. The practicum requirement, although viewed by the Committee

as an overall strength of the Program,

is problematic for

students in terms of the amount of support they receive in

identifying practicum opportunities.

Presently, students are

required to find a setting for their Practicum, discuss it

with the appropriate administrator, then bring the plan to the

Program Assistant

the --.-

Diploma- Program

for: approval

or--

rejection.

The requirement that the students themselves make

arrangements for the practicum is clearly a source of stress

for many students.

The perception

-that valuable time

lost, and professional reputations

potentially

tarnished ,:when

students

negotiate

placements- whichare -subsequently not--

approved

the Program

ssistant-.'

In .other-gerontology

programs

in Canada,

students

are

assigned to

practicum

placements negotiated by the unit or Department

involved.

Doubtless the current practice at-Simon Fraser University has

arisen in response to the lack of faculty and staff resources

in the Gerontology Diploma Program.

6. The Kinesiology course requirement clearly needs some re-

consideration in terms of its; place in the Diploma Program.

- -

Students and alumni were uniform in their concern with this

course, as were selected faculty.

The cur-rent course offering

emphasizes - cell

biology,

and

requires

background - - -

preparation than the Diploma Program students have.

While the

students do not question a course requirement in the biology

of aging, they appear to - need a--:course

(such -as.:thatdth -a:.-:

more human physiology emphasis) more specifically designed for --

them.

Students expressed a need for a management course that

would better prepare them to move into positions which require

a knowledge of organization and management principles.

8. The Adjunct Faculty and sessional instructors associated

with

the

Diploma Program

expressed

-varying-:-ievels -: of

- --

involvement in the Program itself.

Likely because of the few -- -

resources available to the Diploma Program, there was asense

of a lack of 'connectedness' among the faculty group. Faculty

would welcome more opportunity for collegial -interaction and

- -

more on-going involvement in Program curriculum decisions.-

Recommendations for the Fit-ure: --.::-

The Diploma Program should immediately be provided with

additional faculty and staff resources.. A 1.0 FTEPrograxn

Assistant is immediately.- required, to assist with the

development of Practicum placements. In addition, if the

Diploma Program is to have the same faculty-student ratio as

other programs on campus, then it will require between .50 FTE

and 1.5 FTE additional faculty resources. One of these

faculty positions should have responsibility for Curriculum

Coordination.

-. -

2. There should be at least one faculty meeting per term for

planning and evaluation purposes. These should include the

Adjunct faculty and session4linstructorsassociatedwith the .

Diploma Program.

The Review Committee understands-- that,- -- -

currently, the Centre's Steering Committee plays a role in

curriculum development; however, not all Steering Committee

members actually teach courses as part of the Diploma Program.

The individuals directly involved in instruction and course

development need to be engaged in the larger process of

periodic Program review and evaluation.

3. Another vehicle for càllegial -interaction is -the Seminar

Series, which has become rather moribund in recent years.

Centre staff discussed a plan to revive the Series; the Review

Committee supports this proposal.

4. Comprehensive examinations should be considered as -

mechanism for reducing the number of courserequirjentsin.,.

the Diploma program, especially in areas where students may

have sufficient expertise.

More opportunities for career counselling should be

provided to students and alumni of the Diploma Program.

Alumni feel uncertain as to whether the Diploma alone provides

an adequate entre into employment, or whether it should best

be viewed (and promoted) as a. 'companion degree'.

The Kinesiology course requirement should be reviewed in

terms of its contribution to the Diploma Program. Rather than

the current emphasis on cell biology, a course in human

physiology with more direct potential for translation into

practical health

and

illness issues would be more appropriate.

A management course should be added to the..eleqtives

offered in the Diploma Program.

THE PROPOSED

M.A. IN GERONTOLOGY:

The proposed M. A. in Gerontology represents a logical step in

the structuring of education in Gerontology at Simon Fraser. With

a decade of experience in the operation of a Gerontology Research

Centre and in post-baccalaureate teaching in Gerontology, the

faculty at Simon Fraser are well poised"

to -undertake this

initiative in response to societal need.

Strengths:

Although several Canadian universities. offer graduate

degrees in selected disciplines with a- -specjalization or

emphasis in Gerontology, only two or three -Master-

s deqrepp ,in,_._._

Gerontology are offered in English-speaking Canada.

The proposed M.A. will provide an opportunity.

-.-formore

advanced professional training than is currently possible with

the Post-Baccalaureate Program in Gerontology.

Overall, the Gerontology Research Centre at Simon Fraser

University has a knowledgeable and scholarly group of faculty

to support the proposed substantive foci of the Master's

Program.

Weaknesses to be Addressed:

1. The Program Proposal for the M. A. in Gerontology

indicates that, in addition to the part-time involvement of

Dr. Gutman, Dr. Wister and the two Research _,Fellows in -

Environmental Gerontology (of whom only -:Dr.WatZke has yet.

been appointed), the M.A. will require 2.0 FTE faculty

appointments, a .50 FTE Internship Coordinator, and three

additional sessional appointments.

The Review Committee

considers these the absolute minimal requirements to mount the

proposed Program. Although the optimal size of the faculty

and staff compliment will largely depend on the size of ±he

graduate program (for further discussion. of

this point, see

item # 3 below), the issue is a critical one

Among the

faculty from various departments with whom the Review -

Committee discussed this issue, the norm seems to bethree

graduate students to every ;one facnit-y---meinber in :a graduate.---

program.

Given even the most ininimaIprojected:estimates for

the M.A., the resource requireIflefltsarelikely7toTbe.greater

than those noted in the Program Proposal.

In sum, the faculty

too

small to

enable

the

proposed -M.A.

Program- to: --be

launched.

Without the

addition of two

full-time

faculty

members

and

half-time

advisor,

would

appear

to be

- -

- impossible to initiate the graduate program.

- --

2. The Program Proposal for the M.A. in Gerontology proposes

three

substantive

streams :or -concentrations

wjthin

the

Program: Administration of Services for Older Persons; Aging

and the Built Environment; and: Health Promotion and;- Aging,

The availability of a critical mass of faculty required to

mount the M.A.

(see discussion in #

above)

varies with

respect to each of these substantive streams.

For examp1e,a

noted previously, the Gerontology --Research Centre-has built -a

national reputation for its research on aging and the built

environment;

this

concentration

is well

supported by

the

Director, as well as Drs. Wister and Watzke and the additional

in-coming Research Fellow in Environmental Gerontology.

For

the other proposed concentrations, however, the Gerontology

Program at Simon Fraser uni-versity does. not. as yet have a

cadre

faculty

with -expertise "in :these

areas,___ -While

several

faculty are

associated with

research

proposal

(currently under federal government review) concerning health

promotion and aging, core faculty

appointments

have yet to be -

made.

Within the "Administration-of-Services" concentration

the proposed graduate coursesrequiré -faculty with -expertise-

in both Management and inIñfd±mation

Systems..

-Although the:

proposal suggests that these could be covered by having two

- -

individuals

each

with

.50 ...:FTE:: appointments,

such -an

arrangement may contribute little to the

•

critical mass of

full-time core faculty required to successfully mount a viable

graduate program within each of the three substantive streams.

3.- The

enrolment

predictions

for

the

proposed

M.A.

Gerontology

suggest

that

there

will

a maximum

students for each of the three substantive streams per year.

This extremely ambitious projection is much too high.

At this

•

rate, a two-year M.A. program would be admitting 45 students

- -

per year, and would easily have upwards of 90 students in the

Program.

This would place it on a par with the very large and

established

graduate

programs -in- Psychology

(-10.0: graduate

students)

and Kinesiology (60 students)

and far larger than

the

graduate. students

in Sociology.

Given that these

established programs have between 15. and 33 faculty to support

that number of graduate students, the projected target for

Gerontology seems particularly -high.

If indeed the program

retains

the three

substantive

streams,

then a maximum of

between three and five admissions per year in each - strealn.-

would appear more appropriate relative to other units on

campus.

4. The number of credit hours and requirements -of the proposed

M.A. in Gerontology are high compared to the norm -at other

Canadian

universities and

relative toothermaster'sprograms-

at Simon Fraser university-.

While themore. typical

Patterfl at--

SFU (and elsewhere in Canada)

j 5

for

-4---- -6 graduate--courses

plus a thesis or two extended papers,:the proposed.M.A.::wou].d.

require either 6 courses, a thesis and an internship,

courses, an internship and one of either two extended essays

or a major research project.

The internship requirement is

also

quite

stringent,

even

for

professionally-oriented

program.

This would amount to some 500 clinical hours,

highly demanding requirement

for a degree program without

claim to professional accreditation.

As one student noted,

the completion of these program. requirementswould necessitate -- ----

.- - -

a mature student taking more time away from paid employment

than it would take to complete a Ph.D. in Social Work.

5. In addition to the numberof:icoars.e requirements-for the

M.A., the number of pre-requisites :(most of them -associated --

with the Diploma Program) for the proposed M.A. is also quite

extensive.

Students coming out of, for example, a traditional

Sociology background would essentially have to complete-many

of the course requirements for the

p ost-Baccalaureate Diploma

in Gerontology before they could even enter the Master's.

Given this,

it is difficult--to -imagine what -incentiVe. they.

would have to enrol in the Gerontology M.A. when, in fact,

they could complete a -Sociology. M.A..with -Gerontology

electives.

-.- -

Recommendations for the Future:.---

Serious consideration mus.t'be given•to-the:'issue.of thev..

faculty resources required to achieve -the. critical mass

necessary to sustain the proposed graduate Program in

Gerontology. If the three

-proposed concentrations, are: to be

viable options within the M.A. then each must have a

compliment of at least 3.0 FTE faculty in order, to provide

appropriate levels of graduate, teaching and supervision.

The Health Promotion concentration should include a course

on Human Physiology.

The number of course credits required for- the M. A. in

Gerontology, and the number of clinical hours associated with

the internship, should be significantly reduced.

The number of course -pre-requisites for: the M..A.-should

also be reduced.

The differential in the number of courses required of

students in the thesis and non-thesis options should be

increased to two from one.

Comprehensive exams should be considered as an alternative

to pre-requisites and numerous graduate courses as a way of

ensuring familiarity with subject matter.

In order to facilitate jnteraction between the Burnaby and

Harbour Centre campuses and to enhance faculty cooperation and

•

involvement in the proposed N. A. program, a graduate--student

seminar series should be held. : Both faculty -from- Harbour

Centre and selected faculty--from the -Burnaby: campus :would:

lecture on issues in their-areas -of expertise.-

----

THE

INTEGRATION

ACTIVITIES

-:-

The Charge to the Gerontology Review Committee also invited

comment on two Issues related to the integration of gerontological

activities at Simon Fraser: the -adequacy- of

- the resources provided

to support teaching and research,

including

computing and library

resources; and the linkage between the Diploma Program and the

Gerontology Research Centre.

On the first issue of the computing and library resources, the

Review Committee can offer little opinion. Computing resources

were not discussed during :-our-, visit;---the library resources (as -

-'-- -- -

described in the Program Proposal for the M. A. in Gerontology)

appear more than adequate. The Centre's library of 'fugitive'

literature appears to well : compliment SFU library LhQ1diflgS. The..-H-------

move of the Simon Fraser university- -library--s.: Gerontology

collection to the Harbour Centre campus has apparently caused some

aggravation for Burnaby campus faculty who encounter substantial

delays in accessing required material. -if Gerontology is to remain - -

a viable substantive focus for faculty and students on the Burnaby

campus, the library distribution system will require improvement.

The second issue of linkage is a rather complex one. *At one

level, the Gerontology Research Centre :and the Diploma Program in

- '

Gerontology are highly intertwined-in the person of .Dr.Gutman who

serves as both the Director -of the Gerontology Research Centre and -

the Director of the DiplomaPrograIn.: The staff of the Gerontology

Research Centre work alongside the one staffpersonand one -

.faculty

member associated with the'- -Diploma-- Program.'

Students of the

Diploma Program certainly itiiize.the. -resources of'the Centre,-

particularly in terms of the

Information

Officer, the library and

the bibliographic database. However,.the

:Adjunct faculty -and

sessional instructors for the Diploma Program-have no apparent link

to the Gerontology Research Centre. Indeed, it is the faculty

members of the Centre's Steering Committee who advise on curriculum

development relative to both the Diploma and the proposed

M. A.

Gerontology, although they may not necessarily have teaching

linkages to the Diploma Program-

Clearly,

- -

Clearly, then, the two structures (the Gerontology Research

Centre and the Diploma Program) are - linked, but in an ad- hoc

fashion. In order to clarify and formalize this relationship, the

review Committee recommends that:

1. While

position of Director ofthe.GerortologyReSearCh

Centre and the Diploma Program remain as one, authority should

be vested with two or three other faculty as Associate

Directors: a 'core' faculty member currently associated with

the Diploma Program should become the Associate Director for

Education and Training, having responsibility for the

development, staffing, evaluation and review of the

educational programs in Gerontology; a member-- of the Steering

Committee (perhaps on a course-release basis) should become -

Associate Director for Research, taking responsibility for

establishing research linkages between Gerontology and other

units on campus, re-establishing a-Seminar.Series (to which

Adjuncts and sessional instructors:-

-in. the -Diploma i Program

would be welcome), and serving as a-liaison betweentheCentre

and faculty on the Burnaby campus. -Given -the applied nature.

of gerontology research and ducatioi atSFU-afld

. itS

reliance

on external sources of funding, an Associate Director for

Community Relations would also be appropriate.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

As the range of gerontological activities at Simon Fraser

expands to include the Research Centre, the Diploma Program, and

the

M. A.

in Gerontology, the planning process will require focus

and long term strategies.- It is not unreasonable to think that.

there will be increasing numbers of Masters students who wish to go

on to a Ph.D. in Gerontology. Although this is now possible

- ......through the InterdiciplinaryPh.D .

program, the day may cqmewhn

this alternative is not sFufficint toeetsoietalneed.;

The many recommendations contained -in, this Report ixnply..a

substantial increase in the financial resources which Simon Fraser

University should allocate to-the Gerontology Research Centre and

the educational programs in Gerontology. In times of severe fiscal

restraint, these are obviously hard choices to make. However, for

over a decade, Gerontology at SFU has benefitted from

the drive-and

direction of its ultimate -'champion.', :its founding Director, Dr. -

Gutman. Among the faculty, staff and studentswhom we met, the

• overall perception is that Simon Fraser University has gotten ,a

great deal of mileage out ofGerontO].Ogy.fOr:YerylittleiflpUt:ifl

terms of resources. Dr.Gutman

senthUSiaSm, energy, commitment

and follow-through have cornpeEisatedfortheTJniVerSitY-'8.fai1Ur8 to:

provide the required levelofnterna1 resources intOGer0ntOlogy,

despite their passive encouragement of its development. In order

for the Gerontology Research Centre .and

,the:educational programs in..

Gerontology to mature to their full potential at Simon Fraser

University, the time has now come for the University to make that

resource commitment.

GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH CENTERI :

SIMON FRASER UN1VERSITYL;:

at Harbour Centre

MEMORANDUM

Dr. J.M. Munro, V.P.Academic

- -

Gloria Gutman, Director, Gerontology

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT: Response to External Review Report-:

DATE:

September 11, 1992

Clearly, the external review report recognizes the achievements of the Gerontology

Research Centre and the Gerontology Diploma Program. Some weaknesses,

especially the Program's need for additional resources, are also pointed out. In

responding to the report we shall focus first on the perceived weaknesses of the

Centre and Program and on the reviewer's recommendations for correcting these.

We will then address concerns expressed

about the proposed Master's Program.

a) Gerontology Research Centre --

•-- --

In critiquing the Centre, the reviewers recommend that more emphasis be placed on

publishing in scientific peer-reviewed journals and less emphasis be placed on in-

house publications. We concur with both recommendations and have, in fact, begun

to implement them. As evidence of this, it should be noted that in the last 10

months, 7 papers

have been submitted to or revised

.for peer-reviewed journals

Drs. Watzke and Wister. Two are already in print and thebther .5 have been accepted

for publication. Further, as indicated on page 16 of the latest versionof the Master's

proposal (copy attached), Drs. Wister, Gutman and Watzke are currently

collaborating on a new book, Living Environments of

Older Canadians, for which a

commercial publisher is being sought.

Other concerns identified in the external review relate

products of the Centre's

Information Service, in particular, a perceived over-emphasis on production of

bibliographies; the Centre's reporting structure, which they

view as lacking

structure and, a potential for isolation due to the Centre's location in the Harbour

Centre campus.

Information Service

It is unfortunate that during their visit there was insufficient time

for Drs. Birren

and Martin Matthews to explore, in-depth, with our Information Officer, the extent

and nature of the services that she provides. Had they had the opportunity to do so,

they would have discoveredthat,

in addition to producing bibliographies and a

quarterly Newsletter, a full range of reference services including computerized -. -

literature searches and "current awareness profiles" are available. The latter, a new

feature introduced this year, are made up of keywords describing a.particular:topic.

•

These are rim against on-line datábase(s)

on. a regularbasia Persons with interests

in the

topic receive a printout

alerting them to new journal articles. -The

profile is

updated weekly, biweekly or monthly, depending on the-database(s) selected.

Production of bibliographies, in other wOrds,

constituteaOuly.á.smali portionof the ....

Information Officers workload. The value of

these should not,hOwever, be under-..

estimated. Over the years it has been foundthat these are very much appreciated by

Information Service users, saving them considerable time and money in the initial

stages of a research

project or when deciding

upon a topic for and

beginning to

develop a term paper, thesis, inserviceeducationprogramor-servicedeliveryproject;

Reporting Structure

According to Policy AC 35, Revision

C, Centres and Institutes (revised July 6, 1992),

the Administrative Officer (Dean) of each Centre must report annually to the

Governing Committee

August 31 of

each year. The University's Governing

Committee for Centres is composed of the Vice-President,-Acadernk and the

'Vice-

President, Research.

In each of the 10 years since the Centre wasestablished, a detailed Annual Report

has been prepared by the Centre Director. Traditionally, copies have been sent to

the persons named in Policy AC 35,

all

members of the Gerontology Steering

Committee, the President, Vice-President for Development, Dean of Continuing

Studies, and to selected other Deans and Department heads.

All

Adjunct Professors

and Associate Members, individuals in key government departments concerned with

•

seniors, directors of selected community-based agencies, directors of other Canadian

university-based Centres as

well as our major donors also receive a

copy for

information and public relations purposes.

With respect to donors, we have a special relationship

with the B.C. Real Estate

Foundation. This relationship is one of collegiality and mutual respect. We consult

with them and they consult with us On is ues relating to seniors' housing.Thei-.

"measure of budget accountability to donors" referred to in the external review

:.. •..

report is somewhat of a misconception. This applies oily to doing what we said we

would do in the proposal submitted to the Real Estate Foundation. Specifically, this

was to use the funds they contributed to support two Research Fellows in

Environmental Gerontology, one of whom,

ideally, would have a

background in

architecture or engineering. We also identified some specific duties these individuals

would perform. One of these duties was to produce, semi-annually, a newsletter that

would be of interest to the real estate industry; the other was to coordinate an

annual conference on a housing-related theme.

Harbour Center Location

All indications are that we are seeing more faculty and more students since moving

to Harbour Centre than when located

on the Burnaby campus.

evidence of this,

please see the attached Figure 2

from our most recent Annual Report. It shows that

use of the Centre's library

and information and consulting service was greater.m the

nine month period July 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992 than in any of the preceding nine

years. Figure 2 also shows a changed user profile. While

prior years, faculty, staff

and students from

SFU and other educational institutions constituted approximately

one third of those accessing the resources of the Centre, in the first nine months of

Q))

CI)

c'4

>o ><

0c1

F—

I.!

00000

N-

CO Lt)

•1-

____

•

Cl)

•

C•__•

U-

___

C..)

•0

___

•

-- -

Year X they accounted for 52.3% Of users. The increased utilization of our resources

reflects three factors:

- continued growth in the Centre's reputationas asource of expertise:

concerning aging and the aged, particularly within the academic community;

improvements in our library and informationservice;and especially

Th:

the accessibility and visibility of our new quarters in Harbour Centre.

We also do not foresee problems with respect to library holdings, since key journal

and books are maintained on both campuses. The recommendation to institute a

seed grants program as a means of encouraging gerontology research on both -

campuses has been considered. Implementation is unlikely given that such a

program was offered in Years III through VII with limited success. It is also

precluded, at least for the immediate future, by lack of finances. As an alternative,

we will continue to promote the Canadian Association on Gerontology's Student

Awards Program as well as draw other potential sources of research funding to the

attention of students and faculty.

b1Gerontolov Dinloma Program

One weakness identified, with which we certainly concur; is the less than desirable.

•

level of advising we are able to provide to students. With only a 0.5 FTE Program

Assistant and, through most of its history, a faculty administrative staff of only 0.5

FTE, it is simply not possible to provide the level of career counselling and academic

advising that many of our students desire and require. One result of the dearth of

support staff is that some full-time students have had to spend one or even two more

semestersatSFUthantheyhadplanned.

This occurred in the early years of the program because of a shortage of ooptional

courses. However, as shown in the Table 1 below, since Year III from 13 to 18 courses

with a focus on aging have been offered annually. From Year IV forward, two

required courses (GERO 300 and PSYC 357) and one optional course (CRIM 411)

have been available year round by distance education. Two more courses (GERO 301

and GERO 404) will be available by distance in 93-1. Additionally, since the

establishment of the Diploma program students have been able to take for optional

credit several non-gerontology, practice or research-relevant courses, such as PSYC

306 - Psychological Assessment Procedures, PSYC 301 - Intermediate Research

Methods and Data Analysis or SA 355 - Social Research II, GEOG 382- Population

Geography and GEOG 386 - Medical Geography.

TABLE 1

Number of Gerontology CoursesOffered at SFU, by. Year

and total enrollment.

Year

No. of courses

Total enrollment

160

398

417

622

722

877

794

941

944

-867

Due to a change in our year end (from June 30 to March 31), Year X figures are for two semesters only.

Given the number of courses available, it seems plausible that delays in graduating

have occurred because students were not sufficiently informed as to when the

optional courses would be offered and/or because the Program Assistant had

insufficient time to consult with other departments about course scheduling. As a

result electives have been offered at the sathetime as requiredcourses and/or at

inconvenient times and locations.

...

Students' complaints about having to find their own practicum sites are another

reflection of

our shortage of support staff. It should be noted, however, that in

requiring them to do so, they are exposed to more settings providing service to older

persons than might otherwise b the-case and gán.valuable :experience -for future

job-seeking. Of greater concern to us is

the la& of staff to overse the quality of the-:*

-.. f

practicum experience and ensure that students get out of it what they should.

The reviewers' observation that the Program relies too heavily on sessionals is yet

another point with which we concur. While we are grateful for the 3 stipends that

have been provided annually by the Faculty of Arts and the 2-3 per year

afforded us

by Continuing Studies, their value is limited in several ways. Firstly, given financial

constraints, their

availability is not assured, making program

plsrnnin

difficult.

Secondly, while the individuals who teach stipend-funded courses enrich the

Program by virtue of the breadth of disciplines

they represent and/or by their day-

to-day hands-on experience with the topics they teach, they

generally are on campus

only during the time their class is taught. Students, therefore, cannot benefit from

extended contact with them nor can other faculty or Centre researchers.

In terms of addressing these weaknesses it should be noted that :the urgent need to -

increase the Program Assistant position from

half to full-time was communicated to

Dr. Brown on numerous occasions over the past several years and in a-written -

.......-

request to Dr. Alderson in July, 1992. The need to replace sessionals with CFLi

has -

. -. ------

been dealt with by increasing the number of new faculty requested in our proposal to:

establish a Master's Program (from 2 to 3 for

start-up);This strategy, it should be-

noted, was adopted on the strong recommendationof the Gerontology Steering

Committee as well as those of Drs. Brown and Alderson, and -is based on the premise

•

that it is advantageous that faculty teach at both the graduate and Diploma level.

Students' interest in management courses is also.beingaddressed via:the Master's

Program proposal. One of the concentrations is inMministration of Services to

Older Adults.

We have no plans, on the other hind, to institute comprehensive :eximinations as a .

means of reducing the number of courses required for the Diploma. As the reviewers

themselves note, 30 credit hours is standard for diplomas at SFU. As concerns the

redundancy issue, Students who have taken Diploma program courses or their

equivalent prior to enroling in the Diploma program are neither expected nor

permitted to repeat these. Rather, they may take additional optional courses to fulfil

their Diploma requirements.

With respect to other recommendations concerning the Diploma program:

The content of KIN 461 - Physiological Aspects of Aging is under review. It

appears, however, from cursory examination of the course notes given to

students, that it is not unduly weighted with material on cell biology. Rather,

it covers material contained

standard textbooks on the physiology of aging,

addressed as in these texts, on

system by system basis (eg. vision, hearing,

respiratory system, muscular system).

Although Adjunct Faculty are routinely invited to Centre-sponsored inservice

programs, workshops and

conferences andconsulted on a one-to-one basis.

•

with respect to issues that relate to their area of expertise, it is recognized

that opportunities for collegial interaction and for group in-put into the

Program have been less than optimal. In the up-coming year, as recommended

in the external review report, plans are to schedule one meeting per semester

with the full complement of Adjunct Faculty and members of the Program's

Curriculum Committee. The first of these meetings will take place on -

September

15.

S.;

A minor point should be clarified with respect to the composition of the

Curriculum Committee.

shown in the attached Figure 4 from

the Annual

Report it is, as the reviewers note, comprised of members of the Steering

Committee but only those who teach Diploma program courses.

Revival of the seminar series, recommended by the external reviewers as

another vehicle for collegial interaction, is also being considered. It should be

noted, however, that the decision to discontinue it was based on low

attendance. Several factorscontributed to this. First, the vast majority of

Diploma students work full time and attend classes at night while most

Adjunct Professors hold full-time positions and teach in the Program at night.

Secondly, for the past four years the Centre has sponsored two major -

conferences per year - in the Fall, the John K Freisen Lecture Series and in

:•

the Spring, a housing conference In between, at least- one workshop is

generally sponsored or co-sponsored. Given students'enerally high

- -

attendance at these events and the involvement of Adjunct and other faculty

as speakers or chairpersons, the seminar series may well be redundant. In any

•

event, if the series were to be revived, the logical time to do so would be after

a Master's program is in place, perhaps as the graduate seminar series

recommended by Drs. Birren and Martin Matthews.----

NçjE

•o=

JdIl

•

ioe2:-

•

1EE E

'-D0

"—>

:2°

0 .E

c,dJ'

fi}4;:

o.c-I

•

.•l

- J

-I

0 -

I-

(LI

I@,

h,-

<Ir1

Ic'-

Ct,

I-

LLJ

I •

IIH

4-a

CQ)

Qai

CC!)

4-'

C)'—

L10

•

IC.

• •

—

pciThe Pro

osed MA. in Gerontolo

As indicated in the proposal to establish the Diploma Program, since 1981 the

Gerontology Steering Committeehas recognized a need for aMaster'sPrográmone -.

concentration of which would be--in the

:area

of Adnini.stration of Services to Older

Adults.

In 1986 apreliminary proposal was prepared by the Diploma Program Director and

presented to the Steering Committee. However, due to competing demands of the

Program and Centre, she was unable to develop it further.

In 1989, in response to

repeated student demand, the Dean Of Arts allocated $5000 to

hire an individual to

assist with proposal development. Unfortunately, he lacked the necessary expertise

to satisfactorily complete the task.

It was not until 1991, that the necessary critical

mass was in place within the Centre and Program for full scale proposal development

to take place.

Over the past year and a

half, and especially since Dr. Wister's arrival at SFU in

September, 1991, we have devoted a great deal of time and effort to the task. On

November

1991 our efforts were rewardedby gaining SCAP's approval of our

Abbreviated Proposal. On March 30, 1992 a full proposal was submitted to the

Graduate Committee of the Faculty of Arts. However, movement through the

Faculty of Arts has been delayed pending the response of Drs. Birren and Martin

Matthews who were asked to examine it as part of their review of the Centre and

Program.

•

At the outset of the section of their report dealing with the Master's Program, Drs.

Birren and Martin Matthewspoint out the dearth of opportunities for graduate study

in Gerontology in Canada.. In fact, it is even more extreme than they indicate.

Currently, only one English language university offers a formal degree program -

the University of Waterloo. The only other formal program offered in Canada is at

the University of Sherbrooke where instruction

French. Drs. Birren and Martin

Matthews also note that SFU hasa k±iowledeab1e and scholarly group of,facult

support the proposed foci of our program. -

- -

Their concerns about the proposal are focussed in five areas. First and foremost,

although.they acknowledge that the program as presented to them (three

concentrations to commence simultaneously; 15 students per concentration)

could

be initiated

with existing resources plus the two new CFL's, half time practicum

supervisor, half time program assistant, and the three sessionais that we initially -•.

requested, such a staffing complement is the bare minimum. Second, they note that

while the proposed concentration in Aging and the Built Environment is well

supported by existing Centre and Program core staff, its reputation and resources

are yet to be developed in the other two proposed concentrations: Health Promotion

and Aging and Administration of Services for Older Adults.

In the context of this

discussion, they also question the wisdom of dividing the new CFL appointment

targeted for the Administration concentration between two half-time individuals.

Grounds are that such an arrangement

Will contribute less than is desirable to. the . -.

critical mass required for the program. The reviewers' third major concern revolves :..

around enrolment predictions and is clearly founded on

misperception of what was

being proposed. Concerns four and five. respectively, relate to the number of

•

courses/credit hours and pre-requisites proposed which, the reviewers feel, are --

excessive.

- - - -

In responding to these concerns, it is necessary to begin with number 3 because it

has implications for the other concerns.

Enrolment Predictions

The reviewers' interpretation of the section of the proposal concerned with

enrolment predictions was that 15 students per year would be admitted to each of the

three concentrations. In fact, what was being proposed was that a maximum of 5

students per year would be admitted to each, with a maximum of 15 per

concentration being maintained at any point in time. As shown on page 16 of the

attached copy of the proposal, this projection has since been scaled down to a

maximum of 10 per concentration.

Existing and Projected Resources

We are pleased with the recognition that the reviewers

have afforded the Centre and

Program with respect to reputation and resources in the Aging and Built

Environment area, We feel however, that

resources have been underestimated-in-the

other two sub-fields, particularly the Health Promotion and Aging area, in which

Drs. Gutman and Wister, three of the Adjunct Professors who teach in the Diploma

Program, and others on the campus have been working for some years. Evidence of

this is provided in the curriculum vitae included in Appendix

X of the proposal. For

example, Dr. Gutman's c.v. shows publications on health promotion and aging dating

back to 1984. Her most recent peer-reviewed publication as well as Dr. Wister's is in

this area. Not included in the earlier draft of the MA

proposal provided to the

reviewers, Drs. Wister and Gutman are the SFU principal and co-investigator,

•

respectively, on a proposal submitted to NHRDP/SSHRC to establish a B.C.

Consortium for Health Promotion Research. This is a collaborative endeavor of the

University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria and SFU to become one of

five centres of excellence in health promotion research. The Consortium's letter of

intent was one of 15 selected from 53 to go on to the

next phase of the competition. If

the proposal is funded

($120,000

for each of five years), there will be support for a

full-time Research Associate in Health Promotion who will be hóusédut the

Gerontology Research Centre.

Also not reflected in the earlier draft of the proposal was the recent appointment

(July 15, 1992) of Charmaine Spencer, LL.M. to the position of Centre Research

Associate. Ms. Spencer's expertise in the area of elder abuse and guardianship

legislation augments other resources in the Administration of Services for Older

Adults stream documented on page 20 of the current version of the proposal.

Credit Hours and Pre-requisites

While the number of courses oriØnally proposed (6) is well within

the guidelines of

the Association for Gerontology m Higher Education, in light of the concerns

expressed by Drs. Birren and Martin Matthews (and faculty at the University of

Victoria) course requirements have been reduced to five for students choosing the

thesis option. The number of courses is seven for students choosing the non-thesis

option (see pages 7 and 8 of the proposal), in keeping with Drs. Birren and Martin

Matthews' recommendation that there be a two course differential between the

thesis and non-thesis options.

No change however, has been made to the length of the internship nor to the pre-

admission requirements. A one - semester internship, during which information and

-0

data appropriate for the thesis or project may be collected, in our opinion, is not

•

excessive. Although the pre-requisites may appear to be demanding, they are

equivalent to the qualifying year usually required in traditional departments for

students who do not have a major in the discipline selected for graduate study.

10 Year Phase-in Plan

Drs. Birren and Martin Matthews maintain that each of the three proposed

concentrations must have at least 3.0 FTE faculty in order to provide appropriate

levels of graduate teaching and supervision. While we strongly support this

recommendation we also are very cognizant of the current economic climate. A 10-

year phase in plan is therefore proposed.

As outlined on pages 21 and 22 of the revised Master's Program proposal, in stage 1

(corresponding to Years 1 and

2 of the Master's Program) only the

Aging and Built

Environment and the Health Promotion and Aging concentrations will be offered.

The Administration of Services for Older Adults concentration will commence in

Year 3.

In accordance with

the recommendations of the external reviewers, the following

resources are required to initiate a high quality program in Stage 1 of the Ph e-

Plan as well as meet the requirements of the existing Diploma Program, which now

relies heavily on sessional instructors.

3 new FTE faculty positions

1/2 time internship coordinator

1/2 time Program Assistant

Two of the new faculty positions will be in the health promotion area; the other will

have expertise in the environment and aging area. All

will teach in both the Master's

and the Diploma Program.

Two newFTE faculty positions *111 be added in Stage . (corresponding:tóYears 35). -

Both will be filled

by persons with expertise in the Administration of Services for

Older Adult, one specialized in Management and the other

in Information Systems.

An additional 2.5 FTE positions will be added by the end of Phase 3 (corresponding to

Years 6-10).

In filling the positions outlined above, consistent

with the predominance of females

in both the client population and in the workforce that serves them, given equal

qualifications, preference will be given to female candidates.

d) The Integration of Activities

The final area covered in the external review concerned integration of activities. The

reviewers were invited to comment on two topics: the adequacy of library and

computing resources and the linkage between the Gerontology Diploma Program

and the Gerontology Research Centre.

Librar

and Computing Resources

The reviewers share our view that library holdings are adequate. We are awaiting

formal evaluation by the library of the collection's ability to support the proposed

Master's program.

Computing resources currently are adequate. Those needed to initiate the Master's

program represent a one-time only cash outlay estimated at $11,500.

Linkage Between Program and Centre

The reviewers' recommendation that administrative responsibility be shared

between an overall director and associate directors for research, education and

training, and community relations is a model

we strongly support. The need for

sharing of responsibility, particularly with respect to the teaching program was, in

fact, the rationale for requesting, in a letter

to Dr. Brown dated January 3, 1991, that

Dr. Wister's appointment with Gerontology be full-time rather than half-time, as had

originally been the plan. Since arriving, Dr. Wister has assumed all of the roles and

responsibilities described in the letter to Dr. Brown except one. These include:

- chairing the Diploma Program Curriculum Committee which is responsible

for initiating and overseeing the development of new courses (campus and

DISC), monitoring existing courses and doing course scheduling;

- chairing the Admissions Committee which vets

all

Program applications;

•

- assuming primary responsibility for drafting the Master's Program proposal;

- chairing the Graduate Committee (this role involves meeting with/advising

new students wishing to do graduate work in Gerontology via Special

Arrangements or wishing information about the proposed Master's program);

- liaising with the Gerontology Program Alumni Association;

- representing the Program on committees concerned with education of

persons working with the aged;

- serving on other local, provincial and national committees concerned with

teaching/research about aging and the aged.

The one except was serving as Practicum Supervisor. It has become increasingly

clear that needs in this

area are over

and above what Dr. Wister can reasonably be

expected to do. The solution we suggest to problems identified by

the reviewers with

respect to the practicum component of the Diploma Program is two-fold. 1) an

immediate increase in the Program Assistant position, non-contingent on the

outcome of the Master's proposal and 2) combining the duties of the Practicum

Supervisor with those of the Internship Coordinator when the Master's program is

initiated.

While we would delight in appointing associate directors in the other two suggested

areas, this is precluded at this time by lack of resources. The reviewers'

recommendation that a member of the Steering Committee become Associate

Director for Research on a course-release basis is not, in our opinion, a viable nor

(

'.4

desirable option. The function of the Steering Committee is to provide advice on

. policy matters. Its role does not extend to the day-to-day operation of the Centre. If

an Associate Director for Research and/or Community Relations is to be appointed,

he/she must be a full-time, permanent member of the Centre's staff.

e) Concluding remarks

- - - -

In their concluding remarks, the reviewers commend the staff of the Gerontology

Research Centre and Diploma Program for their dedication and efforts to date in

meeting a societal need for teaching and

research relating to aing and the aged.

Concurrently, they underscore the university's minimal financial commitment to

these endeavors and charge it to increase these so that the

further growth and

development that these units are poised to undertake may move forward.

Specifically, two types of financial support are needed.

replacement of that portion of the

Centre's endowment fund interest which,

commencing in 1993-94, is to be recapitalized; and

support for initiation of the proposed Master's Program.

Last year, exclusive of the Director's salary, endowment funds supported 81% of the

Centre's operating costs. This year the proportion will increase to 88%. If

recapitalization commences in 1993-94 at the projected rate of 35% and at 50%

thereafter, the Centre cannot, without replacement of these funds, operate at its

current level nor fulfil its obligation to donors.

Data presented in the proposal and the reviewers' comments indicate a local and

national need for the Master's Program. This is underscored in letters of support

contained in Appendix

of the proposal. Evidence of strong student interest is

provided in Appendix

While we realize that there are competing demands for thelimited resources

available to the university for establishing new positions and programs, on the basis

of the

above as well as our proven record, we urge that priority be given to

Gerontology. A further argument towards expediting approval and implementation

of the proposed Master's Program is that it responds to several key points articulated

in the planning agenda of Simon Fraser University described in Challenge 2001: The

President's Strategic Plan. Specifically, this development of the Program in

Gerontology will support:

1) expansion of a

nationally recognized cross-disciplinary

program; 2) stimulate research in a growth field; 3) increase the number of graduate

students; 4) recruit female graduate students; 5) attract high calibre graduate

students to SFU; and 6) build the graduate curricula at the Harbour Centre campus

and help to meet its enrolment targets. The proposed Master's Program is also

consistent with the recent impetus to develop health-related curricula at Simon

Fraser University.