S.10-136

MEMORANDUM

ATIENTION

FROM

I'l

'. OF

CE-PRES

DENT,

Ctl

DE~II

IND

VOS

8888 Univcr:-;ilY Drive,

l3urn~b

Can:lda VSA

enatc

on Dr

ver

Vic

sidclll, ACld

mic

flnd

h:lir

I'E],:

i78.782.3925

778.782.5876

DATE

PAGES

Ocrober

2010

S.10-136

vpacad

sfu.Cl

w\vw.:-;fll.ca! vp:lcad

mic

RE,

[

::tculry of

111d

Soc

ial

c(;~:

':xtcrnaJ

(;\'icw

epo

Dcp" rlmcnr

i:;

(SC

U P 1

0-67)

The

te Co

mmitt

Univer

ity Pri

riti

es (SCUP)

'Cd

<.;

Department of

story,

oget

er wi

ons

fi-o

Jll

Dcpartrne

ces a

input

fi'oll"l

the

ssoci

iti

ade

illi

Mot

on:

rnal Review rt

por

011 the

Dean of

Soc

That Senate approve the

reC0l111TICndation froll1

the

Senatc Com

TIittee on University

Priorities to illlplenlcnt t

e Actio

an for t

e Departlne

t of History that resulted

fro

TI its Externa

Rev

ew.

Following

ite

por

t of t

External

Tcam*

For

Departlllellt of

H i

sto

!"y \

ubmit

ted

in April 20'10.

After the

port \".

Ias

ece

;\ meeting wa

eld

with the Dean

Art

Social Sciences.

Cha

Department

and

the

Dir

ademic

anning (V

) to

ommcndations. The

Department

n prepar

cd ;.tIl

n Pl

hascd on

thc

lcport

;

Ind

these discussions.

plan ,"va

thcn

bmi

ttc

to the Dean on

July

3, 20

The Dc.:an

orsed

this

ion Plan.

The

Team

rnh

stated that

sto

rtm

lias dotH

1"I

lIwri.:ab/e J'I'

llifill

\!.job

/(T

IIII'

.;(

jel/l

years.

l\Jcwjaa

arc "u'

i/Ji

IIIS

(//1

imjJr

css

'l'

IJIfll/

bl'/"

(!f

rl'scar

./J

f(/lIf

IH.Ollli

il/

tl)

arr)'

011 IIIl'

rir}Jartllll'IIt's

lIlJin/

)/(

1{l1l,

~-Sfm/(IiJJ,~

rcc(ll"(ll~r

1'f

mdl allrl

jJll

({ltilll

Til

l' m({

qua

ify

jJublh

dJaIlI'

,1?c

tIll

Jrf

(/pittl Pl'oc/lldir1ity

ilger

(/1/(

){'tta-I'IIc/owf'r/

cseardl

lllil'{'fsilic

ill

C(l1

/(/r/(/

(fIul

tIll'

Ullilt'd

Sta(c's,

lllf

1111'1111)('1'

.1'

l/(/!I

n'l

ml/)'

p/lbJislll'c/

1110110,1(1"111)11

p/,{

.'i

f~\!.i(

)

III(/ill/illl

IJI

'/'.i

H's

O~/()rd,

l-Im"Pllrd

UlliI!('r.iit}'

PI'I'

.\s,

ll(/

llil

l{,

f!fTimmto

Pre

SCU

omme

.lte

tha

!Jepartlllcnt

tory he

advised

pur

ioll Plan,

MON

FlltlSER UNIVEIlSITY

THINKING

THE

WORLD

Attachments:

Department of History External Review - Action Plan

2. External Review Report - April, 2010

External Review Team:

Andrew Gow, Professor, Department of History and Classics, University Alberta

Linda Northrup. Professor and Chair, Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University

of Toronto

Alan Tully, Eugene C. Barker Centennial Professor and Chair, Departtuent of History,

University of Texas at Austin

John Craig, FASS Dean (Pro Tetn)

Mark Leier - Chair,

Dept of I-listory.

Report of the External Review Committee of the Department of History

Simon Fraser

University

April 19,

2010

The members

of the external review committee would like, first. to express our thanks to

Dean Lesley Cormack, Dean Wade Parkhouse. Associate Vice President Research

Norbert Haunerland.

Professor Mark Leier and to the faculty, students. and staff of the

Department

of History for welcoming us so warmly to the Burnaby Campus of SFU and

for sharing their views with us openly and generously. We learned a great deal about this

fine department during our three days on campus. but we realize that there is much we do

not know or understand. Nevertheless. we offer the following repOli in the hope that it

will assist the University and the History Department in building on strengths that arc

palpable.

Departmental

Culture

The chief challenge the Department of History has faced over the past few years and

continues

to face in 20 lOis that of renewal. Virtually all of what was very much the

founding generation

of faculty are no longer active. The Department has hired 20 new

historians over the past 7 years. The bulk of these hires (17) have been at the assistant

level.

Currently, the Department has 14 untenured assistant professors.

The History Department has done a remarkable recruiting job over the past few years.

New faculty

are the recipients of an impressive number of research grants, promising to

carry on the department's enviable, long-standing record of research and publication. The

rate

and quality of publication challenges the per capita productivity at larger and better-

endowed research universities

in Canada and the United States. Faculty members have

recently published monographs

in prestigious. mainline presses such as Oxford. Harvard

University Press, University

of Toronto Press. to name just a few, as well as in more

specialized presses highly appropriate

to their field of study, such as the University of

Arizona Press and Brill.

New faculty are also enthusiastic and committed teachers, willing responders to the many

and increasing service demands on their time and extraordinarily collegial. This is

particularly striking given the physical impediments to community in the AQ - the

relative absence

of common space and the stringing out of faculty along narrow halls.

Positive comments come not only from faculty but also from students, and perhaps most

tellingly from staff. who, despite the pressures they face are very appreciative of their

local working environment. Recent chairs, John Craig

and Jack Little deserve praise

for

their contributions to this renewal and current chair Mark Leier for being an effective

steward

of what he has inherited. for fostering continuing growth among his colleagues,

and for furthering the development of a salutary departmental ethos. Despite widespread

subject interests, methodological differences and

both area and periodization

specializations, the vast

m~jority

of faculty see themselves. "'not just as part of a

program" as one of them put it. but as department citizens. Again and again and f."om

different constituencies, we heard about faculty "commitmenC' to the department.

Clearly, morale that emanates

from

department

interaction is quite good.

But,

at the

same

time. this localized sunshine is oft shadowed by clouds gathering around Faculty

and University decisions and priorities.

Research Trajectory

of Young Faculty

History at SFU has a tradition of active and excellent scholarship. Two recent

CRC

chair

appointments reinforce that tradition but so, too, does

the record of book publication of

new faculty. Department members have published seven books over the past two years

and additionally two assistant professors have contracts for their first monographs. The

challenge

here. of course, is the perpetuation of an environment that encourages

publication beyond

an initial book. The Department is doing things to promote this. The

regular faculty seminar,

for example, is a forum that builds an expectation of continued

scholarly engagement. The

kind of "community of scholars" that is emerging in

interrelated and overlapping fashion around various programmatic. thematic and

geographical areas, including the capacious world of social and cultural history is

promising, but will need opportunities for self-expression in both intra- and inter-

institutional symposia and related activities. What

is impressive to historians is often lost

on administrators who come from an academic culture in which research success is

measure by the monetary magnitude of collaborative grant projects and a tally of

multiple-authored. short publications. The History Department needs to take a lead in

fully articulating the different ways in which the excellence of their work and the extent

of their accomplishments can be communicated more etTectively.

The Faculty and the University must also contribute meaningfully -- by providing

appropriate teaching resources so that,

in the face of a need to keep up classroom and

related programmatic strength, faculty are able to take advantage of both regular and

irregular research opportunities; by providing tangible recognition

of what appears to be

an increasing expectation

of community service; and by providing research money within

parameters that is respectful and supportive

of both the ways in which most historians

work and the cycles

of research and writing needs that attend a book culture, which are

not necessarily recognized in the funding matrices of standard granting agencies and are

clearly

not accommodated in the current formula for the awarding of the Community

Trust Endowment Fund grants.

related major challenge for History is that of faculty retention. Recent past

foreshadows future.

Over the past few years the Department has lost promising young

faculty to UBC. Toronto, York (Britain) and

just recently to Chicago, Cambridge. NYU

Abu Dhabi (And, of course, from a very thin senior group, the Dean and her partner to

Alberta.) Because

of the closeness of the cohort of junior faculty these losses are

wrenching and they sap morale. There is little the department can do to address this issue

directly.

Counteroffers, preemptive offers, attentiveness to partner concerns and the

strengthening

of particular areas of scholarship are always at or near the core of retention

problems and they lie with the Faculty and University. For example, the Faculty and

University~s

apparent indifference to the recent loss of the Department's two African

historians

and a British historian. the earlier loss of a Latin Americanist and the huge

lacuna

of a South Asianist raise the question of Faculty and University commitment to

the academic integrity of established programs that constitute the scholarly and teaching

ra;,\'on

'etre

of a number of the continuing faculty. Bleeding from

attrition~

stung by

what is perceived as indiflerence

to the Department's weakened state, good History

faculty

will be prompted to look elsewhere - and once they look over the institutional

fence

many will frequently think they see greener pastures.

Governance

Recently, the Department has updated its constitution

and reaffirmed its open, democratic

ethos

in the processes of committee selection, That is laudable; but problems remain.

One is the lack of clarity on how recruitment to the nomination level occurs. While it is

always difficult to handle this process with sufflcient transparency to satisfy all. it would

be worthwhile making regular calls for volunteers so that individual faculty may indicate

their interest

in specific committee positions. Matching interest with assignment is an

important way to encourage and satisfy the urge for faculty voice.

A second problem with governance

has to do with the absence of departmental policies

on important issues or the existence of policies without systematic procedures for their

distribution and/ or implementation. Too many faculty profess to have no more than a

general idea

of the criteria for promotion and tenure and report getting conflicting advice

regarding both preparation for tenure and promotion and on how to put together an

annual report. The Department chair and the advisory committee clearly need to turn

their attention

to the development of policies where needed, particularly in areas that are

crucial for academic progression and evaluation. They also

need to develop clear

procedures

for implementation and a consistent and repetitive educational cycle that

becomes an ingrained part of department administration.

Much

of the problem here has to do with the extent of faculty turnover and the Faculty

and University decision

to hire only at the entry level. Senior faculty are the custodians

of procedural clarity and the obvious mentors for new appointees. There is no doubt that

the Department

is now, through the experience of younger faculty with what History has

lacked

in process, in a much better position to supply what has been missing through the

absence

of senior leadership. But the Department should consciously and concertedly

draw on that recent, hard-won experience

to improve its codification of mentoring

relationships, impressing upon mentors the importance

of their various obligations and

upon mentees, expectations that arc reasonable. We understand that the Department is

attached to rapid rotation through administrative positions but some thought might be

given to a slightly longer term for department chair and certainly to avoiding

simultaneous turnover

of major committee chairs.

Such has been the scale of faculty turnover in History that untenured faculty have

recently occupied major committee posts.

In our view. these individuals have done

awfully

well, but we are quite critical of the practice of saddling untenured faculty with

such burdens. New faculty should be concentrating on their scholarship and teaching.

not heading up major department (or Faculty) committees. Our comment here is

directed. not so much toward the Department as at the central administration for not

recruiting a

small number of more senior professors who could fill these administrative

roles amid

the turmoi I of

m~jor

faculty renewal. There is also clearly a need for more and

better administrative training sessions

for incoming department chairs and major

committee chairs, and

for some system of follow-up given that terms are short and

turnover quite rapid.

Staff

Four

fifths of the History Department staff have taken up their positions within the last

year. They have been configured

in a way that has allowed them to adjust to the loss of

one half a position and to try to accommodate some of the new demands that arc

currently being made of departments in numerous universities. Good news exists on

some fronts. Staff members appear to have come together in a close working relationship

that exemplifies a cooperative

work environment populated by conscientious individuals.

Staff members clearly appreciate their co-workers and

the overwhelmingly positive

character

of faculty/staff relations. We think the department has taken a progressive and

needed step by hiring a pUblicity and public relations person. To single out anyone of

the regular four staff could be misleading,

however~

tor all are making important

contributions.

And manager Judi Fraser is providing excellent leadership. No

department, however. exists without moments of friction and we suggested to Ms. Fraser

that in such circumstances -- especially when these arise at the interstices of staff and

faculty - that she might bring the issue to the chair and expect this person to intercede

a constructive way. Part of the problem here goes back to the inexperience of new

faculty who are not fully aware of the cycle of staff work, which creates bottlenecks from

time to time. We suggested that Ms. Fraser, with the cooperation

of the chair, draw up a

calendar of deadlines and attendant workload estimates, which should be circulated and

discussed at departmental meetings both at the beginning

of the academic year and at

appropriate intervals throughout. We commend the Department for its forward looking

hiring

of a communications person and recommend that the Faculty increase her work

hours so that the Department can more effectively respond to the increasing University

demand for community service and the self-promotion.

Finally. the staff is overworked.

This seems most clear

in the case of the joint chair/graduate chair secretary position but

extends beyond that.

the intermediate run, this will wear on the principals and will

undercut morale.

is best to address this situation before that happens to any great

extent.

Graduate Programs

A clear priority for the University and a stated question

of the department's terms of

reference for this review is increasing the number of graduate enrolments, esp. in the PhD

program.

particular. Dean Cormack raised the issue of what she sensed as reluctance

on the part

of a number of history faculty to sacrifice the M.A. program for a higher

enrolment

of doctoral students in the face of University emphasis on graduating more

PhDs.

is clear that this hesitancy does exist and for understandable reasons. Overall.

we recommend that the Department should certainly try to augment its PhD numbers but

very slowly

and selectively. We are impressed by the Department's success in placing

its M.A. graduates in competitive and prestigious Ph.D. programs

elsewhere~

and felt this

will have

to remain the department's primary focus for the foreseeable future. with the

possible exception

of the PhD in Canadian history.

There are a number

of reasons for this. The first and most important is that SFU does not

otTer adequate language training for PhD students in non-Canadian fields. with the

possible exception

of Spanish- although currently there are not enough taculty in the

history

of the Spanish-speaking world to constitute more than the odd 'one-off

supervisory committee at the

PhD level. Although junior faculty members are publishing

very successfully and

at a high level in many fields, from Byzantine. Chinese and early

modern European

to modern Italian history, none of these pre-tenure taculty has yet

established enough

of a publication record and reputation to attract larger numbers of

good PhD students. That will change over the next five to ten years. With this realistic

time-frame

in mind. it is possible for the University to begin now to find ways to provide

some

of the language resources necessary for PhD level work -- although a senior

administrator flatly stated

to us that at the moment SFU has no intention of investing in

the kind of language teaching resources that would support a serious PhD program

beyond that in Canadian history. One possibility might be to work out joint programs

with UBC or piecemeal accords with any other institution that could provide instruction

in requisite language skills.

We therefore conclude that only the PhD program in Canadian history can be expanded

in the short to medium term. There is excellent supervisory strength among the

Canadianists at

both the senior and junior level and sufficient coherence to encourage

Canadianists to think about how they might promote their Department as a competitive

"~destination~~

choice for prospective doctoral students in, not only a regional. but also a

national market.

Funding,

of course. is integral to any discussion of graduate programs, whether

expanding or not. Unsurprisingly, faculty, students and senior administrators

all brought

it up. To begin with, we make two bedrock observations. A full year of funding (three

semesters) made

up of any combination ofGFs (Graduate Fellowships) and TAships is

barely adequate given the cost of living in the Lower Mainland. Second. even at current

levels

of graduate enrollment there is insufficient funding for these students. We

understand that the Dean of Graduate Studies has given a few more GFs to History this

year; yet even with these (and without comparative data for other departments either

for

GPs or TAships we cannot be sure of this) our impression is that History is underfunded

relative to other comparable departments

as well as in relation to the University's stated

educational goals.

And, while the University is pushing for expanded PhD programs. the

Dean

of Graduate Studies' student budget for GFs has flat lined. At the same time. cuts

in the PASS budget have reduced and will reduce its soft money budget. from which

TAships

are funded. It also appears to us that some of the senior administrators'

comments about streamlining undergraduate courses suggest either or both reducing

faculty numbers and those of T As. One very troubling comment from students was that

straightforward promises

of support at program entrance were appearing to become more

tentative as

the year progressed. Our view on the PhD program is that adequate funding

should accompany both current and expanded PhD programs and every offer of student

support

should be conveyed clearly in writing, in either a letter of offer or contract.

One possibility for increasing the

M.A.

numbers is to admit another group of highly

qualified applicants who

fall below the funding cut-off. While this can cause

jealousy among the students, we should recognize that work environments are

rarely without such features. Among other things, past performance. marks and letters

of reference are not especially accurate indices of future performance; experience in other

universities suggests that M.A. candidates who are comfortably above the minimum

for

admission but for whom the funding is not sufficient can do very well in external and

internal

fellowship competitions. and can turn out to be among the hardest-working and

most successful students. This option

is one the Department should consider.

The graduate program also seems

to have a number of challenging organizational issues

that require attention. The most important

of these point out the need for increased

administrative clarity. The three-semester thesis M.A. clearly

is not working and needs to

be revisited. So far, not one of the students admitted to this new M.A. has finished on

time. Of 12 students admitted in 2008. 7 have left the program and 5 will finish (not one

on time). Further funding has to be found for continuing students (ALL so far. in the one

year program) or the organization

of the program has to be changed. No service is done

to either institution or student by false advertising (a one year M.A. that cannot be

finished in one year) or by failing to provide funding precisely when the student needs to

concentrate on thesis research and writing.

is possible that some students do receive

additional T Aships but our impression

is that if so, the process by which this occurs is

insufficiently transparent. There also appears to be no consistency in carrying out T A

evaluations. Some students reported being evaluated, others not. Also students reported

that they

did not receive any written contract or letter of appointment for T Aships and

that news

of financial support (often conveyed verbally) came too late for the student to

plan for the coming (or in some cases current) semester. Some graduate students felt that

the

role of supervisor was not sufficiently clear and that there was considerable variation

in practice. The reviewers would like to point out. however. that this is the norm at most

universities. Students

and supervisors have traditionally had to find their own modus

operandi with each other

to avoid overly interventionist types of interference in what

tends

to be a rather individualized type of teach ing and learning. History at SFU might be

advised to address these and related concerns by following the lead of others in adopting

and paying close attention

to a statement of Best Practices for PhD Supervision.

The

M.A. Program needs to be quickly and thoughtfully reassessed. And this needs to be

done in the light of: 1) a clear understanding of where the PhD program is headed; 2) an

accurate assessment of upcoming graduate support resources. and; 3) a recognition that

the large number

of non-Canadianists in the Department have an important vested interest

in mounting and promoting an excellent M.A program. This is because. in the absence of

adequate language training tor PhD students, Masters students provide these faculty with

their only opportunity for regular graduate teaching. The Masters program also invites

innovation.

At this level it may be possible to put together graduate concentrations that

foreground Departmental strength

in cultural and social history. Emphasis on thematic

M.A.s might

be a way to distinguish a SFU Masters and engage even more the young

faculty whose interests take them

in this direction.

Undergraduate Programs

For

many years the Department organized itself and its course offerings into three

streams - Africa, the Middle East and Asia (AMA), the Americas and Europe.

With the

increasing emphasis

on the transnational. internationalization. and thematic clustering

that cut across traditional boundaries. History

has recently added a fourth

Global/Comparative stream. This addition complements

both larger institutional

priorities and

the re-structuring of the Department's identity around shared faculty

interests

in social and cultural history. This development again raises challenges.

Foremost among these

is the question of whether the Department. at its current level of

strength. can continue to cover all its teaching obligations including graduate work

without rationing leaves that are crucial for individual scholarly achievement and do not

leave students feeling (in our view,

it is currently a feeling rather than fact) that they are

unable

to find sufficient courses to meet distribution requirements necessary for

graduation. It is clear to us that absent Faculty and University attention to the very

recent vacancies. the Department should undertake a thoughtful reappraisal

of the

character

of the four streams (something it will need to do even if additional resources

become available) with the knowledge that some kind of retrenchment of programs and

concentrations

may well have to take place. We do not propose to answer that

hypothetical; it will be incumbent on the Department in its collegiality to consider the

options open

to it.

Further Department discussion is needed in other respects as well. We were struck by the

different views sub-groups

of faculty had about the relevance of stream organization.

Some stated that streams were passe and the real future of the Department lay with the

further cultivation

of an identity based on cultural and social history and on the

elaboration of thematic specialties. Others took the view that area streams remained

central

to their self-conception and to how they conceived of their future. These different

views seemed correlated to a degree with faculty satisfaction or dissatisfaction with lower

level course capacity allocation. Habitual adherence

to past practices can also prevent

experimentation. which might well give the Department a better sense

of what student

course preferences are.

When we pressed for information about student course

preferences~

we always met the assurance that this was not an issue because all History

courses

filled up. This seems wonderfully true, something central administrators should

note. particularly because historians have

not

given in to grade inflation. But it is also

very important

in the current budgetary

c1imate~

and given the demographic profile of

SFUs student body, to get some read on where student interests lie. A related issue, of

course, is to what degree a department should embrace a specialization in cultural and

social history at

the expense of other historical approaches. Coherence and identity is

certainly important but there is a case to be made for some diversity of approach in

building and sustaining a vital intellectual climate and in recognizing the variety of

student interests.

These are all issues that beg for further open discussion among department members.

The openness and collegiality

of the Department is real but over time such

characterization (particularly such self-characterization)

can slip into a superficiality.

which masks differences that need airing. There are

always legitimate differences in

departments -- the trick is to acknowledge them and address them with the respect they

deserve.

As for the quality of teaching. in general it is clearly quite strong. (Any exception is a

management issue

for the chair to address.) Faculty are conscientious, enthusiastic and

reflective about pedagogy and engaging. These are scholars who bring their research

their teaching and include their students in the kind of primary source work that develops

strong analytical and critical skills. multiple literacies. communications skills.

and the

confidence that can accompany such capabilities. The pedagogy

SFU historians practice

certainly complements the articulated educational goals

of the University.

One practice that most Department members seem to endorse is a variation of a tutorial

system, iterations

of which vary from university to university. Our view is that

supplementary tutorials

at SFU serve their purposes. They do provide a forum. from

which many undergraduates benefit

in developing the aforementioned skills. They also

serve as teaching apprenticeships for graduate students. Assuming the University wants

to expand its Humanities graduate programs (and given the fact that less than 200/0 of the

current graduate student body

is in F ASS, it probably should) and assuming the

university

will provide adequate funding for TA appointments, we see no reason to

abridge the tutorial system. The Department should hold more open discussion about

balance

in the allocation of T As (there is some now) between different lower division

courses

and their deployment in more senior writing intensive courses. We expect that

History will adopt the Writing Intensive designation fbr many

of its senior courses and

that step should prompt such discussions.

We are more tentative about faculty-led

tutorials

in third year courses. Our understanding is that faculty may end up spending an

additional two to three hours leading tutorials that supplement a lecture component. As a

consequence faculty

may spend eight -nine hours in the classroom in what is formally a

two course-teaching load. This

is. in a sense, a voluntary subsidization of the

instructional system, which

we are sure, benetits students. But it also takes up time and

energy that untenured and junior associate faculty might direct elsewhere. As the

University demands more community engagement, as

well as more service from its

younger faculty (because of the demographic changes to the faculty complement), it is

fair to suggest the question of priorities and allocation of time, as an important topic for

discussion among department members.

A related issue

is that of what is often referred to as a

·'streamlining~'

of the curriculum.

This issue

is driven by optics emanating from programs with a series of prerequisites.

The History curriculum

is not so structured, nor in the case of this department, should it

be. History is frequently at its strongest as an array of "'boutique" courses, such as SFU

offers. Such concerns are also often fueled by hard evidence that students are delayed in

graduating because they cannot get into courses necessary for graduation. This is not the

case

in History so far as we can tell- and it is more likely to be taking place in

departments where there is a regimen of prerequisites and required courses. The

distribution requirements

in History are modest in their demands. Expressions of student

dissatisfaction seem to emanate from a far less serious disappointment at not being able

to take particular courses that are listed but are not offered for successive terms -- and

that,

in this budgetary climate has more to do with faculty retrenchment than anything

else. Nonetheless, it is

our understanding that History has streamlined some of its lower

division courses and has deleted a number

of infrequently taught upper division offerings.

We encourage the Department to consider developing a list

of topics courses rather than

specific course designations and descriptions. This might allow greater flexibility and

prevent some

of the disappointment that students have allegedly expressed.

One specialized undergraduate program that has been recently reinvigorated is the

Honors program. Clusters

of faculty have signed on as willing instructors of the two

sequential courses and the intake

of students has increased to the 12-15 range.

is clear

that students appreciate professorial enthusiasm and commitment and the opportunity to

discuss with specific faculty their practice

of the

historians~

craft. What the program

needs now

is a healthy dose of systematization in the form of close attention to policies

and procedures.

Once the Department sends out a letter of invitation to students to

consider

I-Ionors. the program director needs to hold information sessions. and once

students have been accepted, an orientation session at which

policies. guidelines.

timelines. sample thesis prospectuses and such are circulated and reintroduced and

reemphasized during the academic year.

Some thought needs to be given to how to

organize the introduction of the full range of potential thesis supervisors to the students.

Regularized and publicized processes are essential for programs as well as for department

governance.

Specific Programs

Of the various programs that the History Department offers there are those of

considerable strength and others that are in a very weak state. Canadian history is in the

former camp for it is relatively well populated with strong faculty, offers a solid array

undergraduate courses and is the obvious area to serve as the centerpiece of any

systematic expansion of the PhD program. On the other hand. Latin America is weak.

British history likewise

so, and Africa (one third of AMA) obliterated. Because of this

last circumstance and because of the presence of a prominent Middle Eastern historian.

Dr. Linda Northrup. on

our review committee we want to take a closer look at AMA and

the Middle Eastern component

of the Department.

AMA

The History Department at

SFU has from its inception had an important international

focus and the Asia/Middle East/Africa stream currently reflects SFU's internationalizing.

'''thinking of the world" goals. its desire for inter- and multi-disciplinarity. its efforts to

reflect the wider Be and Vancouver community and to interact with that community and

involve

it in the University. SFU is the only university in western Canada to give such

prominence

to an AMA concentration. Its Canadian

competitors~

at least in the Middle

Eastern component

of the stream, are the long-established and strong programs in Middle

East

and Islamic Studies at McGill and the University of Toronto. The Asian component

of AMA does not seek to rival East Asian Studies at UBC or programs at Toronto and

McGill. However, the Department

of History does make an efrort to distinguish itself

from

its competitors in the Middle East component of the stream by its emphasis on

comparative history with a social and cultural and largely pre-modern and modern

orientation. The comparative skills learned

in this stream make the Middle Eastern

concentration

in History at SFU unique in Canada.

At the time of the last External Review in 2002 AMA had been decimated by retirements

or impending retirements and that trend

has been exacerbated by recent faculty

departures.

Over the past few years the stream has been revitalized with the hiring of

several young faculty members all at the Assistant Professor rank, but the group is aware

that they

now constitute just half the strength of other streams

Course offerings confirm strength

in curriculum and teaching at the undergraduate level

in two thirds of the AMA stream. Asia and the Middle East are well-covered at all four

levels

of the undergraduate curriculum. Asia includes courses on China and Japan that

provide basic chronological and geographic coverage

as well as thematic focus that

intersects with thematic interests

of the Department as a whole. Similarly. Middle East

courses provide chronological coverage of Muslim societies from the 9

century on with

particular emphasis

on the geographical areas of the Arab Middle East. the Ottoman

Empire and Turkey, the Indian Subcontinent. as well as the civilizational/religious focus

of Islam. Students also have the possibility of taking methodology courses or

topics/studies courses

to solidify their professional and research credentials in history in

this stream. Moreover. the AMA curriculum is enriched and strengthened by course

offerings

on the Byzantine Empire, European history and religious history. especially

Christianity~

since these areas are often intertwined with AMA concerns. The curriculum

is coherent, well structured and embeds the thematic interests of the Department as a

whole.

offers both an excellent degree of breadth and depth. The Africa component. on

the other

hand~

is close to expiration. Perhaps the best solution for next year is to keep it

on life support by making a limited term appointment. But the Faculty and the

Department will have to decide shortly on any longer term commitment or risk being

accused

of false advertising.

The number

of graduate students with an AMA concentration is small. According to a list

made available

to the Review Committee by the Graduate Chair, 5 of the 26 total

admissions at the

MA and PhD levels were in the Middle East area. Without statistics on

appJ ications to each stream or its components. it is impossible to determine relative

demand for the AMA concentration at the graduate level as a whole, or any aspect of it,

in relation to other areas, but 5 admissions would seem to be a relatively healthy number

indicating that the demand

is there. That there is only I admission at the PhD level is not

surprising given the lack of resources available to the PhD program.

The administration has indicated a desire to grow the PhD program. but without infusion

of new resources. this goal seems utterly unattainable. Without university support for

language instruction. for instance. a PhD program in an international stream such as

AMA is but a pipe dream. Scholarship in the history of AMA cultures and societies

requires the ability

to use primary language resources such as Arabic. Persian,

Turkish/OUoman,

or Urdu as appropriate. as well as other languages of modern

scholarship such

as French and German, but also possibly Russian, Italian, Spanish. or

Greek. A

PhD program in AMA. or even an MA program for that matter. in an

international stream that does not include language training to a level sufficient to allow

the student

to engage with primary source textual materials is simply not credible.

Without resources for language instruction,

SFU History students in international

streams, whether,

AM A, Latin America. or Europe, will be unable to complete a PhD or

compete with Toronto or McGill or other North American and international graduate

programs where these languages are taught. The only students the Department

of History

can possibly admit

to the international or global streams at the MA or PhD level are

students

who already have the required language ski lis. Yet even then, although such

students

may speak the language, they may not have the academic training to usc a

diglossic language

like Arabic. for example, in its classical or literary form. If the

graduate program

in History is to be grown, especially at the PhD level in any area but

Canadian. British. or

U.S. history (e.g .• Middle East. South or East Asia. Europe. or Latin

America),

the University will have find ways to support appropriate language instruction.

A second essential resource necessary to the enhancement of the graduate program in

AMA is library resources. A PhD program in the history of the AMA cultural region is

unthinkable without access to primary source materials in the appropriate languages.

The

Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and Cultures

(CCSMSC)

The Africa/Middle East/Asia stream is enhanced and strengthened by The Centre for the

Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and Cultures (CCSMSC) and the Drs. Fereidoun

and Katharine Mirhady Endowment

in Iranian and Persianate Studies. The Centre,

established

in 2006 with an endowment of$4.3 million, raised notably solely from Be

sources, encourages discussion of Muslim societies and a more nuanced understanding of

their complexity. Though based in the Department of History. the Centre interacts with

other units

in FASS. e.g., International Studies and the World Literature Program.

CCSMCS

is also behind the Middle East and Islamic Consortium of British Columbia. a

collaborative project of BC academics interested in the study of this area.

CCSMCS is headed by Dr. Derryl Maclean. one of the more senior members of the

History faculty.

CCSMCS aspires to expand and recognizes the need to continue

fundraising to achieve its aims. Dr. Maclean who has spearheaded fundraising efforts

until now should

be encouraged to continue these efforts that have brought important

advantages

to the Department of History as well as to other units in FASS and the

University. But again, successful fundraising must not replace central administration

efforts to provide the essential resources to History that will enable the Department to

achieve its full potential.

The endowment has strengthened the Middle East component of AMA in History in a

number

of important ways. It sponsors a summer school that is now entering its third year

of operation, supports conferences (proceedings fur two of them now in press) and has

made it possible to strengthen library resources in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Urdu,

which constitute a necessary fuundation for research in this concentration. In addition, the

endowment makes possible the appearance of an internationally known scholar to del iver

the

annual Mirhady Endowed Lecture. This activity stimulates interest in the wider

community,

especially perhaps among the Iranian Diaspora, and in turn enhances the

reputation

of the University internationally and in the community.

The Asia

and Middle East components of AMA remain strong. are of vital interest to the

region and have identified important foci that distinguish the concentration not only from

offerings at other universities in western Canada, including UBC. but also from the

powerhouses in these fields in eastern Canada, Toronto and McGill. Since 9/11 there

has been a surge of interest in the Middle East. Moreover, immigration to Canada, and

more particularly

the Vancouver area, from the regions covered by AMA, especially

South Asia, makes it imperative that these cultures be reflected in the curriculum.

Similarly, Canada's relations with China are front and centre in foreign policy and trade

discussions.

is essential that students gain basic historical knowledge of AMA regions

and accompanying analytical and communications skills. Interest in these regions and

thus, demand for courses in this concentration, is likely to remain high for the foreseeable

future.

CCSMSC success in fundraising also underlines the interest in and importance of

this program to the wider community that is the donor base.

The stream continues

now, as in the past, and despite its diminished complement, to be an

important strength in the Department of History. Its aspirations should be encouraged and

supported in order to validate several of the stated goals in the SFU mission.

Hellenic Studies

Hellenic Studies is another vibrant center of activity, in this case fortuitously anchored in

History by the fact that its director and holder of a University chair is a historian.

Professor Andre Gerolymatos. Hellenic Canadian Congress of

Chair in Hellenic

Studies is one of those very rare scholar/entrepreneurs who is shaping a program in

Hellenic Studies on the strength of his admirable prowess as a fundraiser. To this point he

has skillfully employed these resources in ways that enhance the History Department as

well

as strengthen his program. There are no observable signs that we could detect of

significant tensions between program and Department. Our view is that the Department

and the University should encourage

Professor Gerolymatos to continue on the course he

is charting. As he becomes more successful (and he will do so because success brings

success)

it will be important - another challenge as it were - for program and Department

to regularly retlect on the evolving relationship. The biggest danger is that posed by

Faculty and University. The Center must not be seen as an excuse to avoid putting

resources into

the Department. In fact, the reverse should be the operative principle.

Administrators should take up the challenge of building in more conventional ways a

History Department that complements the dynamism

of Hellenic Studies.

Supporting Roles

Superior History departments need superior libraries. Because

it is a relatively new

university the

SFU~s

library must always be on a building mission. Acquisitions and

access appear

to have the prominent position they must have in the minds of the

librarians

we met. Relations between the History representative and the librarians seem

strong and

collegial.

is clear that a number of faculty take an active interest in advising

on and pushing for the resources they need for teaching and scholarship and the librarians

are responsive and open

to dialogue. We are concerned. however. about where the library

sits in relation to university priorities given the large cut in last year's library budget.

worth reminding the University that Library resources are the humanists' laboratories,

just as crucial

to vital F ASS scholarship as labs are to scientists.

Despite

all the new construction and renovation on Burnaby Mountain. there are physical

plant shortcomings that impact History.

One is the uneven availability orthe Information

Technology that supports modern classroom teaching. The relative dearth

of large or

even medium-sized classrooms

is a second. An administrative push for larger classes

makes little sense if suitable classrooms are not available during

high demand hours.

particularly

is coupled with an anticipatory dismantl ing of the tutorial system. The

Department's self-study also identified the poor state

of repair or dinginess of classrooms

and common areas. as well as the cleanliness of the

halls~

washrooms and common areas.

as a moderate concern.

New Faculty

Issues

New faculty issues are legion and must be addressed at a number of levels. On the

Department level. careful attention

to the articulation and regular review of policies.

procedures. and timelines are crucial

for the education of young faculty as departmental

citizens, and

in preparing them for the various hurdles they face as tenure-track

appointees.

On a more individual level senior faculty mentorship is also extraordinarily

important and

we urge the History Department to establish c1ear mentoring guidelines.

institute a supervisory mentoring committee and regularly evaluate Departmental

mentoring success and shortcomings.

is the responsibility of the central administration

to attempt to keep a balanced and diverse faculty profile so that role models exist fer

various new faculty. One bit of advice most senior faculty might give both to incoming

assistants

and to the central administration is to avoid joint appointments at the untenured

level. Untenured faculty who are

in such positions should be given the opportunity to

transfer to one department immediately (Courses can still be cross-listed.) The burden of

service in two units and stresses of satisfying units for tenure are more than should be

demanded of assistant professors. When desirable make joint appointments from the

ranks

of more senior tenured faculty.

Other concerns of junior faculty are less closely tied to department. But the University

should

be aware of these. Young faculty feel that the university could be more helpful in

cases of immigration. in meeting their housing needs. and in a whole array of areas

important

to faculty retention. As the large entry level History group matures retention

issues

will be of critical importance.

Conclusion

The History Department has renewed itself with remarkable success given the

institutional mandate

to hire overwhelmingly at the entry level. It is an impressive

collection

of young historians with a sprinkling of excellent more senior colleagues. and a

better one

in the making as its predominant cohort of recent hires mature and add others

of similar abilities to its ranks. The rapid pace of junior hiring has resulted in some

policy lacunae and procedural deficiencies that present both governance

and

programmatic challenges. With attention. however. these can be remedied relatively

quickly. More

challenging given the current scenario of continuing budgetary restraint is

the unanticipated loss of 5 taculty (now 7 with the departure of the Dean and her partner)

over the past two years. This situation presents another version

of the familiar challenge

of renewal. providing the Faculty and University are prepared to give the Department

sufficient resources. Given

the Department's record since 2002, the laudable momentum

the Department has gained and the centrality

of History in the Humanities and Social

Sciences core,

the Department certainly deserves such support.

Whether provided or not and given what we view as mixed messages by the central

administration - emphasis

on expanding the PhD program with no evidence of expanding

graduate student support; recent

public statements that appear to shift attention to the

quality

of the undergraduate experience; emphasis on "internationalization" without

addressing the crucial role language study plays

in preparation for success in a

globalizing

world; the imposition of specific hiring priorities, yet stressing departmental

responsibility

in the shaping of curriculum; and a foregrounding of the rhetoric of

celebration of the new at the expense of dispassionate evaluation of how to preserve the

strengths

of institutional reputation - we recommend that the History Department be

given some certainty of the level of support the University is willing to extend to this

maturing and improving, core department. Then,

it will be up to the Department to hold

open discussions

to determine exactly what initiatives it can develop and sustain and

what compromises with past practices it chooses to make. Given the establishment of

some reasonable parameters of institutional support and some protection from the

exogenous, this is a department that inspires confidence in its ability to spend precious

resources wisely and

to ground its decisions in the kind of academic integrity that has.

since its founding, distinguished this University.

Main Recommendations to the Department

The Department needs to examine carefully its policies and procedures in relation

to governance, promotion and tenure, and evaluations and

rewards~

adopt new or

revised ones where necessary.

and ensure that these are well-publicized and

understood.

2. The Department needs to carry out a similar exercise to promote procedural.

evaluative. and expectational consistency

and transparency in its academic

programs -

both undergraduate and graduate.

3. The Department needs to facilitate faculty awareness of the cycles of staff work.

4. The Department should consider expanding its PhD program very slowly --

commensurate with faculty resources and strengths and the University's ability to

provide such skills as language competency, where necessary.

5. The M.A Program needs to be rethought and reconfigured in realistic one-year

and two year tracks.

6. The Department must discuss and agree upon appointment priorities, in the face

of the most recent rounds of attrition, and reappraise the viability of its various

undergraduate and graduate emphases,

and programs in light of those decisions.

7. The Department should take the lead in exploring ways of demonstrating to the

central administration

and the public the accomplishments of humanities scholars

and teachers.

Main Recommendations to the Faculty and Central Administration

). The University and Faculty should recognize the Departmenfs high quality and

success

in self-renewal by giving it some tangible evidence of support in the form

of new hires, in resisting the temptation to micromanage hiring priorities, and in

providing some clarity of resource expectations in the immediate future.

2. The University should consider earmarking the equivalent of one large CTEF

grant

for FASS faculty to be awarded within the Faculty according to criteria that

suit the research models and timelines

of Humanities and Social Science scholars.

3. The University should plan for the up coming problem of faculty retention.

4. The University should provide increased graduate funding particularly

it wishes

to expand the PhD program.

S. The University should recognize that the relative absence of language training on

campus will have a bearing on the character of any History graduate program.

The University should explore ways for

its graduate students to acquire necessary

language skills

from UBC or other institutions, through cooperative innovations

sllch as joint programs or degrees.

6. The University should work with History to invent ways of fairly valuing and

promoting the scholarly accomplishments

of historians and other humanists.

7. The University should, through more balanced hiring practices. provide adequate

tenured leadership

in rapidly renewing departments. It should also support more

closely departmental mentoring practices, administrative procedures and provide

adequate administrative training.

Andrew Gow, Professor, Department

of History and Classics, University Alberta

Linda Northrup.

Professor and Chair, Department of Near and Middle Eastern

Civilizations, University

of Toronto

Alan Tully, Eugene C. Barker Centennial

Professor and Chair, Department of History,

University

of Texas at Austin

EXTERNAL REVIEW - ACTION PLAN

Section 1- To be completed by the Responsible Unit Person e.g. Chair or Director

Unit under review

Date of Review Site visit

Responsible Unit person,

()

Faculty Dean

....

~.~.~~~':L

........................................

..rl.~~~

...

h~.~~

............................

v.:.

.....

MeJ.(.!.:.J.S,.~

....

Note: It is not expected that every recommendation made by the Review Team needs

be included here. The major thrusts of the Report should be

identified and some consolidation of the recommendations may be possible while other recommendations of lesser importance may be excluded.

External Review

Recommendation

The Depa rtment needs

to examine carefully its

policies and procedures

in relation

governance, promotion

and tenure,

and

evaluations and

rewards, adopt new

revised ones where

necessary, and ensure

that these are

well-

publicized and

understood

Unit's response

Expected

notes/Comments

Action

to be taken

Resource implications

completion

(if any)

date

Department members

differed widely on the

question

of how well-

publicized policies,

etc., have been.

Several members,

ranging from new,

untenured faculty

those of several years

experience, held

that

policies were easily

available.

Others

disagreed. Obviously

this is a question on

which reasonable

minds

will differ.

Nonetheless, the

Department

recognizes the

responsibility and

We take

to heart the recommendation that we

Costs for workshops;

address the need

for more stability and

opportunity costs for

"institutional memory" in our committees (page 6).

participants

We have

not yet discussed extending the term of the

Department chair, but are keen to reduce the

service requirements for untenured faculty and to

develop "bench strength" in committees through

strategies such

as two-year terms instead of one,

staggering appointments

to committees, and

explicitly recruiting people

to committees with the

expectation

that they would later serve as chair of

that committee. We will formulate these ideas into

specific motions for the fall Department meetings.

Nominations

for committees have been called for;

through Department meetings and emails, faculty

members have been asked

to nominate themselves

and others

for all Department committees (see page

5, para 2). We

will formalize our informal practice of

asking people to serve on committees with the

Workshops:

end

of fall

semester,

2010

Revisions:

calls for

revisions,

fall

semester,

2010;

further

workshops,

if required,

spring

semester,

2011;

final

revisions

Department

for

need to first publicize

existing policies and

then revise

as needed.

expectation

that they will later serve as chair.

The chair's secretary

has compiled a kit containing

SFU policies and procedures regarding promotion

and tenure and the Department's guidelines for

promotion and tenure, and given these to people

going up

for promotion and tenure in 2010. She will

give

all other untenured faculty this material in the

fall, when the Department will hold a workshop

outlining the policies, procedures, and expectations.

The Tenure and Promotion

Committee will also hold

a meeting with people undergoing salary review,

contract renewal, promotion, and tenure,

to go over

the mandate

of the Committee, its procedures, and

the expectations

of the Department. Faculty

members will be encouraged

to attend the SFUFA

workshops on tenure and promotion.

The Department will

hold further workshops

outlining governance policies and procedures and

expectations

for our committees, and will consider

at that time if revision would be helpful. If the

Department determines

that policies and

procedures need revision, we will strike a committee

to bring proposals to the Department for discussion

and ratification.

We note

that our efforts would be greatly enhanced

if the seventh recommendation to the Faculty and

Central Administration were acted on positively and

our Department was provided with meaningful

ratification

by summer

2011

administrative training.

We are aware of the

Our undergraduate and graduate committees will be

Most of the

The Department needs

need

to clarify and

instructed

to examine our procedures and policies in

above

will

to carry out a similar

communicate

our

conjunction with students. The committees will then

be ongoing.

exercise

to promote

policies and

recommend

to the Department revisions and

The

procedural, evaluative,

procedures. Clearly,

methods

to disseminate information to students.

revisions

posting them on the

and expectational

web page and

the

Other proposals made at recent department

the

consistency and

calendar are not

meeting will be examined in due course.

handbook

transparency

in its

sufficient, especially

and

letters

academic

programs-

when time lags can

A policy and procedure checklist for graduate

will

both undergraduate and

mean

that

supervisors has been created and will be distributed

completed

graduate.

contradictory

to Department members. The graduate student

for the

fall

information is posted

handbook

is currently undergoing revision, and

semester.

and when words such

when completed by the

fall semester, will be

as "usually" and

distributed

to all graduate students and made

IInormally" may not

indicate common

available on

our website.

practice. There

Students will be reminded regularly to consult the

some concern

that

students are not even

handbook and

the calendar for policies and

aware

that this

procedures

that apply to them.

information

available. We

Our recruitment and communications officer will

understand

that

work with the committees to create a "The Basics"

efficiency and morale

page

to help students understand policies and

depend on

our getting

procedures.

the information

across, and this

The graduate chair and committee will arrange

requires action

regular meetings with graduate students

to go over

beyond simply posting

policies and procedures and

to inform them of

the materials.

committee decisions and rationales regarding

admission, funding, and other issues.

The letters sent

to students upon admission will be

revised

to reflect funding policy and ensure clarity.

The Department

The chair and Department manager will prepare

Fall

2010

The Department needs

keenly aware

of the

statements

of staff responsibilities and duties, and

semester;

to facilitate faculty

work and talent of

distribute them to faculty. A timeline of events,

ongoing

awareness of the cycles

staff, and

is deeply

increased workload periods, and deadlines, such

required

of staff work.

appreciative

of their

graduation, tenure and promotion, and graduate

commitment and

applications, will be drawn up and distributed

efficiency. At the

faculty members.

Semesterly postings of staff hours

same time,

the recent

and days

will be distributed. Staff workloads will be

re-organization

evaluated and monitored, and when necessary and

staff positions

has

possible, modified.

created

new

challenges and faculty

members need

understand the roles

of staff and the

rhythm

of work more

thoroughly.

Our PhD program has

The graduate committee has already set out to

Ongoing

The Department should

always been very

increase

our recruitment of Canadian PhD students,

consider expanding its

small, and expanding

and

has met with some success. Our plan is to

PhD program very

it means diverting

recruit 2-3 more PhD students in the short-term, and

slowly-commensurate

with faculty resources

and strengths and the

University's ability

provide such skills as

language competency,

where necessary.

resources

from our

very strong and

successful

program and from

undergraduate

teaching.

Without

sustained funding for

students or for

sessional instructors

to cover

undergraduate

teaching,

we have

been reluctant

increase the PhD

program. We do,

however, recognize

the university

emphasis on

producing

PhDs and

increase this number gradually. Further efforts

expand will include publicizing the successes of our

faculty and students, facilitating links with Canadian

and non-Canadian historians in our Department to

provide thematic depth for students across regions

and periods, and developing a communications

strategy

with our recruitment and communications

officer. This strategy

will include surveys of incoming

students and students

who declined to come to SFU,

increased communication with other Departments

across

Canada, and increased outreach through our

successful students. We will work with the dean of

graduate studies to develop and reallocate funding

to target new PhD students and will continue our

workshops on SSHRC funding, which have given our

MA and PhD students an enviable success record.

will encourage faculty members to include

funding

for PhD research assistants in their own

SSHRC applications, and will continue our recent

are

committed to

efforts to restructure our PhD program to make it

recruiting more PhDs. more efficient and attractive to students.'

The lack of language

training

at SFU,

however, means that

we are largely

restricted

supervising topics that

require only English or

French language skills.

Furthermore, we no

We note

that our efforts will only be successful if the

fourth and fifth recommendations to the Faculty and

Central Administration in this report are acted on

positively and quickly:

that we receive increased

graduate funding and

that the University explores

"ways for its graduate students to acquire necessary

longer have a strength

language

skills."

in British history,

while students

wishing

to specialize

US history will

usually be better

advised to take the

PhD at a US university.

That means

that

expanding the PhD

program will focus on

Canadian history,

where we have some

real strengths and

competitive

advantages.

Our

experience, however,

is that the cost of

living in BC puts us at

a real disadvantage in

recruiting students

from outside the

province.

We have revised our

Better and more consistent and more accessible

Fall 2010;

The MA program needs

MA program, and no

application materials, letters of admission, and

ongoing

to be rethought and

longer have a three-

ongoing resources are being created.

refinement

reconfigured in realistic

semester thesis MA

and

one-year and two-year

an option for a one-

adjustment

year MA,

as suggested

tracks.

in page 11 and in

recommendation 5 of

the external review

report. Our program is

a thesis MA that can

be, and has been,

completed in 4-5

semesters.

We will

admit highly qualified

applicants who fall

below the funding cut-

off, as per the

suggestion on page

11.

Our chief need now is

to make this clear to

applying, incoming,

and

continuing

students, and to

reflect this in our

offers of funding.

The

Department sees

The Department submitted a list of needed

Ongoing,

The Department must

this as its most

appointments last year, and has been instructed to

2010-2011.

discuss and agree upon

important and

provide a new list by August 2010. With many

appointment priorities,

pressing task.

Our

faculty members away for research in the summer,

in the face

of the most

recent rounds of

numbers have been

it is extremely difficult for us to engage in

attrition, and reappraise

reduced considerably

meaningful discussions by

that date. We note in

the viability

of its

over the last few

particular that the external review report has

various undergraduate

and graduate emphases

and programs

in light of

those decisions.

years, and will shrink

stressed

the need for open processes and

further in the fall of

democratic decision-making (pages 5-7 and

2010. Determining

Department Recommendation 1) and we would

appointment priorities add

that these require time to be meaningful and

will affect every

effective. Nonetheless, we have begun electronic

aspect

of what we do:

research

collaboration,

undergraduate

teaching,

the graduate

program, and meeting

the vision and mission

statements

of the

university. We note

that our efforts will

only

be successful if

the first and third

recommendations

ballots and discussions to determine our list of most

pressing appointments and

will submit this list in

July

2010.

This will mark the beginning, not the end, of our

work to reappraise our undergraduate and graduate

emphases and programs.

In the fall 2010 semester,

the Department will undertake a strategic planning

process

to set priorities and determine the direction

of the Department. This will include, but not be

restricted to, retreats and workshops to ensure this

is a collegial, inclusive process.

We note

that to be meaningful and productive, this

the Faculty and

work requires that the University act on the first and

Central Administration third recommendations to the Faculty and Central

were acted on

positively and quickly:

that the Department

is given "tangible

evidence

of support in

the form of new hires"

and that the

University plans "for

the upcoming

problem

of faculty

Administration:

that the Department is given

"tangible evidence

of support in the form of new

hires" and that the University plans "for the

upcoming problem

of faculty retention."

retention."

We would add that we

agree

with the

recommendation

made in

the review

that that untenured

faculty in

joint

appointments should

be given

the

opportunity to

transfer to one

department

immediately (page

26). We have begun

the work necessary

for this, and look

forward to the

situation being

resolved in

the very

near future.

We would

further add

that we entirely

support

the external

reviewers'

recommendation

maintain the tutorial

system (page 16)

while attending to

imbalances in TA

allocations. We

strongly support

the

reviewers' assessment

of the strengths and

value

of the tutorial

system and will work

to maintain it and to

ensure that faculty

workloads are

fair and

equitable.

Finally, we would like

to emphasize that the

external reviewers

noted

that History is

highly productive as a

research department.

We have a long

reputation

for

excellent scholarship

and research, and our

renewal over the past

seven years

has

continued this

reputation. But

as the

reviewers noted,

faculty members need

help and support

deliver their next

books and retention

a crucial issue. Thus

History strongly

supports

the external

review's second

recommendation

the Faculty and

Central

Administration, that

lithe University should

consider earmarking

the equivalent of one

large

CTEF grant for

FASS faculty to be

awarded

within the

Faculty according to

criteria that suit the

research models and

timelines

Humanities and Social

Science

scholars."

We agree

We will continue to support and encourage faculty

Ongoing.

wholeheartedly with

members to address historical and contemporary

The Department should

this recommendation,

issues in

the public media, and note that many

take the lead in

and are

entirely

already do extensive work in the community. We

exploring ways of

supportive of the

have created an ad hoc committee on

demonstrating

to the

recent FASS initiative

communications and

community that will explore

central administration

to appoint a

ways

to increase our visibility in the media and the

and the public the

communications

broader community. We will work with teachers to

accomplishments of

expert. We will

humanities scholars and support this initiative

teachers.

by having

our

communications

officer

work with the

FASS communications

person and by

increasing

our own

efforts to

demonstrate our

accomplishments to

the University and the

public.

History is uniquely

placed in

FASS for this

role

as it is a

teachable major

for

PDP students;

essential

understanding current

events and

formulating policy;

highly popular

as a

subject among the

general public; both

global and rooted in

local communities;

and trans-disciplinary

in approach and

bring high school students

to our lectures and will

step up our outreach to the two-year community

colleges and four-year universities. We will approach

the City of Vancouver to put together a series of

historical lectures for

2011,

the

12Sth

anniversary of

the founding of the city.

Within the University, we will work to demonstrate

the work of the Department and FASS in general.

Our recruitment and communications officer

regularly asks Department members for news and

information on their teaching and research, and

ensures this

is put on the FASS website. The chair of

the Department is on the FASS Vision Working

Group, which

is charged to

1. Using the draft vision document (June

2009),

develop FASS vision and mission statements

Consult with the Strategy Working Group and

other stakeholders

3. Identify and develop measurements of success in

all areas

of teaching, research and community

engagement

Identify and propose Key Performance Indicators

for FASS

5. Consider both short and long-term proposals

Thus History

is well-situated to help determine and

demonstrate

FASS's direction in the university and

applicability.

the community. We would note

that this requires

resources

that should be forthcoming from the dean

and

VP-A offices; at the very least, the work done by

History faculty members

to publicize the

department, the faculty, and the university needs

be formally recognized as service above and beyond

the norm.

The above action plan has been considered by the Unit under review and has been discussed and agreed to by the Dean.

~:::~:cr.?t:..~

.............................

Tltle..................:f.......

"~eHv/L

lA-fAl/L

...........

....

.....

Date

.. I.}. ..

~f..r.

...

. f.:.'?!.

.....

0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••

00.0 •• 0. 00 0 •

Section 2 - Dean's comments and endorsement of the Action Plan:

The History Department is to be congratulated for a strong external review. The FASS Dean's office is in complete agreement that this is a collegial and

well-run department. The recent hires have been exceptional and the research productivity

of the Department is first rate. Likewise, staff are all

operating

at a high level.

With regards

to the recommendations and action plans attached, we are in complete agreement with the steps suggested. They all seem designed to

increase efficiency and collegiality within the department, as well as the smooth running

of the graduate programs.

There arc several larger issues addressed in the external review, which call for comment by the dean.

Language training. I am in agreement that in order for History to have a robust and multi-faceted PhD program, serious language instruction is a

necessity. The future

of language instruction at SFU looks slightly brighter than it did when the external review was written, but it still remains the case

that all language instruction takes place only through 4 semesters, with the exception

of French. We do have strong instruction to 4 semesters in Spanish,

Chinese, Japanese and Gennan. I would suggest to the History Department that they think creatively about how to give students more facility in needed

languages. First, we have a large student population who speak and read other languages. Especially

in Asian history, it might well be possible to attract

students who already have facility in appropriate languages. Second, the

FASS Dean's office would be happy to work with History to clarify and

encourage the possibility

of SFU graduate students taking language courses at UBC. Third, the Department should explore the possibility of fundraising

for summer immersion programs for students, as well as facilitating students applying for scholarships and bursaries for such instruction (for example,

DAAD for Gennan immersion and the JET program for Japanese).

2. Faculty renewal. This is a difficult issue. History has been hard hit in the last few years with unexpected vacancies, resulting in a number of non-

strategic holes

in their program. Particularly egregious is the complete lack of African history - an area of importance to SFU from its foundation and

one that has been a notable draw for students over the years. Equally, British history in particular and European history in general have been decimated.

Unfortunately,

in order to make the cuts necessary in the past few years, F ASS has had to surrender every vacant position and it seems likely this will

continue to be the case for at least 3 or 4 more years. Therefore, while I want to acknowledge that History has a legitimate claim to positions, it seems

unlikely that they will receive more than one

or two over the next 3 years and planning should be done on that basis.

3. Process and communications. The Department has recognized that while it has explicit procedures for decision making, re-examining them is a

valuable exercise, particularly for junior colleagues who may be unaware

of those procedures and as a reminder to others in the Department. In general,

the Department

is is looking to communicate more broadly its academic programmes, the procedures by which decisions are made and resources

allocated and

the administration of the Department. These efforts will certainly benefit students, staff and faculty.

'ri-

--:j

---n.!