Belated Comments on Strategic Plan for A&S Jim Clark 29 April 1997 My apologies to John and the rest of the committee for these late comments. I had thought that the committee might be undertaking more extensive revisions than seems to be the case. Anyway, for what they are worth, here are some observations that I have about the proposals and the document. My comments are primarily critical, as most of you will anticipate, but the reason for criticism is in my view a positive one. Sound ideas emerge from being subjected to the crucible of critical evaluation. This evolutionary view of knowledge is what makes reason and science, the primary tools of traditional academia, so effective. Unless universities operate in a like academic manner, there is little reason to have much confidence in the ideas that come to dominate the operation of our institutions. In my view, sound academic procedures are all-too- seldom the norm in the administration of higher education. If you don't agree with the critical evaluation of ideas or have something better to do with your time, then you can stop reading now. I am somewhat concerned that universities, and apparently the committee, are being overly influenced by people whose opinions should be taken with a scoop of salt. For example, is Peter Drucker, who is quoted several times at the start of the document, an expert on higher education? A recent work, The witch doctors: Making sense of the management gurus, includes a chapter on Drucker and perhaps "witch doctors" is an apt phrase to describe many of the current commentators on our activities. Similarly, was the Roblin Commission a valid evaluation of higher education? At risk of sounding ad hominem, academics should consider carefully the sources of some of the ideas being circulated about higher education. From three possible responses to the perceived challenges, the Committee chose option 3: "Look all these challenges in the eye and develop strategies that will ensure the survival of The University of Winnipeg, albeit in perhaps a quite different form." There is no strategy that will ensure survival, or at least none that can be known for certain in advance. That is why it is important to act thoughtfully and experimentally in what we do, and to put in place procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of our strategies. We know that Liberal Arts universities have survived a long time acting in certain ways that seem to have bestowed some evolutionary benefit. Perhaps some of those ways should be changed, but even that is not obvious. Nor is it obvious what aspects can be safely changed without risking our demonstrated strengths. A speaker at the recent conference on educational technologies, for example, noted that business leaders are saying that they do not want job-trained individuals. Rather, business leaders want flexible individuals with a variety of competencies, most of which are developed in traditional university programs (e.g., thinking clearly, able to learn and adapt, comfortable with diversity). Changing our focus to job- training without preserving, strengthening, and advocating for a Liberal Arts education may do more harm than good. Change needs to be made experimentally and to be evaluated rigorously. Too often at universities vested interests come to initiate and ultimately control the operation of innovations. These are not circumstances ideal for evaluation. Before examining more closely the specific recommendations made by the Committee, I would like to address one general topic that could have received more attention. Part 0 - Organization and Operation of A&S In several places, the Committee makes recommendations about the way in which the Faculty operates, but perhaps more attention should have been paid to this most critical element of our affairs. There are several examples over recent years of major changes that occurred without a lot of consultation and discussion, at least by some people's definition. Later I discuss several of these briefly (the Rannie Four-Year Proposal, the reorganization of Administrative Studies, Telecourses and the Center for Learning Technologies). In some sense, the Strategic Plan itself demonstrates one of the major weaknesses of our current procedures. Put somewhat bluntly, all too often important processes occur by a relatively small and highly-selected group of individuals working for an extended period of time in relative isolation with little or no formal solicitation of input and commentary from Faculty in general. Many issues are debated and ultimately the committee arrives at a relatively final position with respect to the issues under its mandate. A "polished" report is produced and only at this last stage is there a serious effort to communicate with the wider community, sometimes at awkward times of year (is there any time that isn't awkward?) or with minimal time for discussion and input. Perhaps not surprisingly, revisions tend to be relatively minor and/or there is a major split over the entire report, and it is either passed grudgingly or disappears (at least for awhile). Especially in this electronic age of e-mail, bulletin boards, listservers, homepages, and the like, there is no reason for the absence of open and broad discussions right from the outset of any committee's activities. There is something ironic about a university purporting to support the active use of electronic tools in its classrooms, when it does not even take advantage of these resources to enhance its own operations. Full consultation from the outset does not depend, of course, on electronic aids, but their availability makes the lack of consultation more striking. We also need an effective mechanism to ensure that things passed by A&S actually have widespread approval. The intermittent nature of meetings, the pessimism of faculty, and other factors raise questions about current FCAS meetings as an adequate forum. Perhaps until a better system is implemented within A&S we should consider ballots for important issues. A second concern is the diminished voice of A&S at the level of Senate. With all of the new constituencies that are now represented, it is possible for major changes in A&S to occur with limited support among the Faculty. Some people undoubtedly view this positively as a way to overcome the perceived intransigence of faculty. The Faculty of A&S should put in place formal procedures to ensure that no major changes arrive at Senate without prior approval of the Faculty. The remainder of my comments are identified with specific recommendations, but several harken back to this issue of improved processes and procedures within the A&S. Part 1 - Curriculum, Pedagogical Innovation, and Development 1. That the mandate of the FCAS Curriculum Planning Committee be expanded to encompass the responsibilities listed below. That necessary changes in the size, composition, chair, and reporting structure be made to the committee to enable it to meet its new mandate. Among the "responsibilities listed below" is discussion of the final report of the Curriculum Planning Committee. Does everyone fully understand what document is referred to here and what are the contents of that document? Certainly a number of recommendations discussed by FCAS seemed quite controversial at best, whereas others seem likely to have been rejected by a vote. It seems unfortunate to direct a committee to undertake further exploration of this direction given its earlier reception. I wonder why the Committee did not recommend reactivation of the Rannie Four-Year Degree Proposals, especially since Bill Rannie served on the Strategic Plan Committee? The Rannie proposals were accepted by the Faculty after much deliberation and open discussion. They were passed by Senate (3 or so years ago?), presumably by a very clear margin. Between their approval and implementation, however, a selected Committee decided that some features of the program were unworkable and recommended, without open discussion among the Faculty, that the plan not be implemented. Senate passed this and we began a new round of discussions largely centering on topics that failed to get Faculty support prior to the Rannie report. The Rannie proposal had many merits, notably its simplicity and the likelihood of encouraging more Arts students to enrol in 4-year programs. Increasing 4-year enrolments is one way to strengthen our academic programs and to enhance the financial well-being of the institution. Nor do concerns about the proposal that I have heard justify losing or postponing these benefits for the past several years. For example, not all courses count toward the Arts and the Science requirements in our current degree, so why was it seen as fatal that a few courses could not be incorporated into the proposed distribution requirements (Arts, Social Science, Natural Science)? I wonder whether A&S really has the resources to consider filling such perceived gaps as "... Native Studies, Asian Studies, Cultural Studies, and communications." Moreover, there are many such programs (e.g., Neuroscience and Cognitive Science in my own area) and some programs of the kind mentioned have proved problematic in academia because of excessive politicalization. We need to evaluate carefully our resources, so as to not implement programs that then undergo concerted and not unfounded efforts to acquire additional staff and resources, and to grow into full-blown departments. 2. That faculty be encouraged to explore collaborative methods of designing and delivering courses, particularly across traditional course or even disciplinary boundaries. One way to not "discourage" collaborative efforts is to avoid using departments to build effective and efficient interdisciplinary programs and then turning the success of the program into a reason for creating new departments that divert increasingly scarce resources from the very departments that were responsible for the success of the original program. This is an allusion, of course, to the Administrative Studies program, which operated very successfully (from an enrolment perspective) as an interdisciplinary program and then that success was used to create an independent department. To my knowledge, the only Department involved in Administrative Studies that approved the change was Business Computing, although a few non-involved departments voted for the change in Senate. The committee might have considered how to constitute more effective governing bodies for Interdisciplinary programs. At present, they seem to operate largely under the control of a handful of self-selected individuals. I appreciate that "interest" in the area should be an important consideration, but perhaps something more structured is required. For example, Administrative Studies seems to have never had an effective cross-department structure to govern the program, which is perhaps one reason why it slipped under the control of a single department. 3. That the Dean's Office develop a program of Undergraduate Assistantships, funded initially through changes to the existing marker/demonstrator budget, and that this program be made a key feature of our recruitment strategy. It is an excellent suggestion to strengthen financial opportunities for students at UofW, but it is unclear why changes are needed, except of course to increase the existing marker/demonstrator budget. Departments presumably distribute funds to the most worthy students. Putting more funds into the marker/demonstrator budgets (returning funds??) would seem like a worthwhile plan, as would ensuring that funds are distributed equitably to departments and courses (e.g., I understand that Telecourses receive more assistant hours per student than regular courses). Although we should certainly make students aware of the opportunities for work at UofW, especially for teaching and research experiences generally reserved for graduate students at other institutions, we do need to be careful not to promise more than we can deliver. 4. That additional sources of funding be sought for some components of the Undergraduate Assistantship program. External funding should be handled carefully. The University should use student assistantships to solicit funds, but I believe it is dangerous to give excessive say in the use of the funds to an external body. I'm thinking here of the possibility that contributions might become tied to assistantships in particular programs (e.g., the Great West Life Assistantship in Business Computing). It is not that such affiliations are intrinsically bad, but rather that we then abrogate a certain degree of control over how money is used within the institution. 5. That wherever possible the University encourage and support an integrated approach to learning and working through co-op, apprenticeship, and internship programs. Shouldn't "wherever possible" be "wherever appropriate"? One should not underestimate the challenges and resources involved in integrating legitimate academic activities and work experience. During the late 1970s, I chaired a committee that oversaw a Community Studies Program in Cape Breton. Students undertook work-placement courses in 2nd and 3d year that nominally involved such an integration, but it was extremely difficult (not impossible) to ensure the achievement of both scholarly and practical objectives. Much that goes on in applied settings is non-academic, at best. Another problem is the implication that applied studies should occur throughout the undergraduate years. An alternative model for UofW is to maintain the traditional degree as a core and implement a series of mini- or post-degree programs to target certain occupational areas. For example, a post-degree BEd seems ideally suited to our institution. We could offer traditional degrees and focus our Education faculty on the one or two years required for the BEd. Similarly, might not Admin Studies operate more effectively in this manner? That is, what about a one year post-degree program in Administrative Studies that might appeal to students who already have undergraduate degrees? We could encourage other institutions in the province to adopt a similar model, which would mean that our Liberal Arts and Science students could complete their first degrees here knowing that applied studies of reasonable duration were available elsewhere. 6. That a standing committee of the Senate Academic Planning Committee be established to deal with shared mandates, structures, and processes of Continuing Education and the Faculty of Arts and Science. The committee should be co-chaired by the Dean of Continuing Education and the Dean of Arts and Science. There are major problems with the current structure of ConEd at UofW, and I do not think that such a committee would be adequate to correct all of these difficulties. Indeed such a committee demonstrates the marked inequities in the treatment of ConEd and Arts and Science by proposing that ConEd, which is in actuality comparable to a single large Department in Arts and Science, but given equal footing with the entire Faculty of Arts and Science. One of the major problems is the fact that ConEd controls its own programs and its own delivery (i.e., promotion, marketing), whereas Arts and Science controls only its program aspects. I would recommend that these ConEd functions be split. That is, marketing of all programs at UofW, both regular and ConEd, should be done by a single body. There would be a relatively modest ConEd Department responsible for developing ConEd courses and programs, but delivery of those programs would be handled by the central agency. Separating the program and marketing functions would eliminate unnecessary duplication. This separation of function would also do much to avoid the possible conflict of interest that exists in the present structure. Specifically, ConEd develops its own programs and then markets both its own programs and those of A&S. As one hypothetical example, might some kind of business Diploma in ConEd, and its associated courses, be marketed more aggressively, be represented as more relevant, or be cheaper, than corresponding A&S programs and courses? Part II - Academic Review 7. That FCAS create councils in science, social science, humanities, interdisciplinary programs, and applied programs. The identification of Interdisciplinary and Applied programs as warranting separate councils seems like a conscious effort to enhance their presence on campus. Certainly the numbers of faculty and enrolments would not seem to warrant this kind of weighting. It is not obvious to me in what sense specific "areas" within interdisciplinary and applied studies would share common interests with one another moreso than with the departments that presumably they are meant to link together. This conceptualization seems to promote the view of autonomous interdisciplinary and applied programs (i.e., separate departments), rather than integrative, cross-disciplinary programs. 8. That the university set up advisory committees for each applied/professional and community-based program as well as for broad non-applied areas (e.g., Science, Liberal Studies). Advisory committees should be organized by student Constituency and not by academic disciplines. For example, a Business and Industry Advisory Committee would include representatives from various departments in Arts and Science, not simply those perceived as directly involved in "training" business students. Similar multi-discipline representation would be desirable for other advisory committees (e.g., Education, Health, Social Services, Government, Casual). It would be damaging to constitute committees along disciplinary lines, because this encourages the false belief that some departments (e.g., Administrative Studies and Business Computing, Economics) are "relevant," whereas others (e.g., Philosophy, Sociology) are not. That kind of view has done much already to weaken the standing of academic departments and Liberal Arts institutions. Part of the mandate of these committees should be to educate various constituencies about the ways in which Liberal Arts studies benefit employers and employees in different sectors. 9. The the university implement, on a 7-year rotational basis, a formal mechanism for the review of every program and department. Seems good in principle, although one wonders about the time and energy involved in such a process and whether the benefits would be commensurate with the effort. 10. That the Faculty of Arts and Science should strike an Academic Program Review Committee, reporting to the Dean. This Committee would develop criteria by which each academic program could be evaluated. This recommendations perhaps should occur in the context of a thorough review of the committee structure of Arts and Science? 11. That responsibility for telecourses be returned to Arts and Science so that telecourse offerings arise out of a clearly articulated and coherent curricular plan. I strongly agree with this recommendation. One of the first things that A&S should do is an objective evaluation of Telecourses (e.g., full costs, student withdrawals and failures, enrolments outside our traditional student body). Perhaps that should have been a recommendation prior to "encouraging faculty participation" and "cultivating telecourse populations." 12. That a committee (which includes CLT and faculty representation) be formed to review and revise the mandate of the CLT. The technical aspects of the CLT, which I think most faculty support, should be integrated with TSS. The Media department was eliminated, I thought, to integrate functions and to reduce administrative overhead. That goal still seems laudable. University aspects of programming should have always been in A&S, which is why the recommendation that Telecourses be in ConEd was rejected by the Faculty voice at Senate. The Administration simply circumvented that vote by transferring half of the Dean of ConEd's time and salary to the Centre, along with some additional expenses. This again demonstrates the relative weakness of A&S in the control of its own house. 13. That the University of Winnipeg develop a clear strategic plan with respect to academic computing. There is a university-wide committee with this as part of its mandate. I don't know whether the committee has met over the past few years, although its terms of reference call for it to meet at least once a term. Were the recommendations included here in the report vetted by some representative group of academic users? Although I appreciate very much the functions being promoted (e.g., reduce multiplicity of systems), I wonder about the specificity of the recommended solution (i.e., item f). I have concerns that item e on general computer laboratories could be used to commandeer space and resources that were allocated by Departments for computer purposes, often with considerable sacrifice. There is a difference, I believe, between a general lab built using central funds and common space (e.g., the many classrooms that have been converted to labs), and departmental labs built using department capital funds and department space. The latter should not now be up for grabs by the Dean's Office, except perhaps in the context of some overall evaluation of all Departmental space. 14. That a comprehensive review of the library be undertaken. Could the review include examination of the fines policy? (feeble joke!) 15. That the University immediately develop a centralized office for institutional analysis. Are we recommending the creation of more administrative positions or another administrative unit? An office for institutional analysis could be unnecessary if the university's administrative software were strengthened (e.g., largely a matter of specifying queries for databases) and if A&S expertise in statistics and research was used. Part III - Faculty and Staff Development 16. That the Faculty of Arts and Science introduce a policy of staff development. 17. That a more flexible formula for defining faculty workload and a corresponding evaluation and reward system should be introduced to take into account alternative career paths and to acknowledge the increasing diversity of forms in which academic programs will be delivered. 18. That a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) on Faculty Evaluation be set up to recommend a system which would recognize alternative career paths. With respect to 17 and 18, a JCC did meet for a year to discuss these matters. As far as I know, nothing came of the recommendations. I also wonder whether there is anything that prevents this from happening at the present time. Couldn't the Dean and Departments agree to certain workload distributions (e.g., Andre's secondment to CLT, teaching reductions), presumably with the intention of making corresponding adjustments in Annual Reviews and other evaluations? 19. That a faculty development program be implemented collaboratively by the FCAS Teaching Development Committee and the FCAS Curriculum Planning Committee to provide workshops, lectures, etc. on curriculum and curriculum development. 20. That the Faculty of Arts and Science adopt policies to secure the research programs of existing scholars and to encourage the development of the research capabilities of new scholars. Minimizing committee activity, ensuring that non-research matters operate effectively, and eliminating days with no pay would probably do much to help people's research programs. Perhaps we also need a cost-benefits analysis of the research office to balance grants attributable to activities of the office against the benefits of using the money to directly fund researchers on campus. More should be done to allow or facilitate supervision of graduate students at UofM. Obtaining an adjunct position at UofM is not always easy, depends largely on the department, and is not always sufficient to ensure supervisor status. Perhaps a more streamlined approach to adjunct appointments could be negotiated with UofM and promoted among our faculty. Part IV - Recruitment and Retention 21. That a recruitment and retention strategy be developed through cooperation among the Faculty of Arts and Science, Student Services, and the UWSA as appropriate. As mentioned earlier, centralizing marketing of all UofW courses, regular and ConEd, would provide a single vehicle to focus recruitment efforts. It also seems that there are perhaps an unusually large number of different administrative units involved in recruitment at UofW? The Dean of Arts and Science should be proactive in promoting the benefits of Liberal Arts education. Too often the institution seems to adopt the view that higher education needs to be "more relevant" or "more unique," as though learning to reason well, to communicate effectively, to evaluate hypotheses scientifically, to see issues from diverse perspectives, and other intellectual benefits of traditional university education were not valuable and relevant. Part V - Relationships with Other Institutions 22. That the University encourage the continuing relationship with its adjunct Colleges. The arrangements between the institutions should be reviewed on a regular basis. I think that these statements need to be reversed. That is, the arrangements need to be reviewed before any encouraging is done. The growing presence of affiliated colleges seems not necessarily in the interests of Arts and Science, perhaps especially the Humanities and Social Sciences (e.g., courses on Conflict Resolution, Music, and Religious Studies probably appeal more to students in those areas). Although the issues are difficult to disentangle, presence of affiliated colleges seems to have at least as much potential to have a negative impact on A&S enrolment as to have a positive impact. I understand, as well, that there may be few or no controls over offerings by the affiliated colleges once the courses are on the books (i.e., affiliated colleges could offer numerous sections of courses or numerous different courses). Even more sensitive an issue is whether faith-based teaching might not conflict with a Liberal Arts philosophy. That teachers in these institutions are not members of UWFA also seems problematic. 23. That a committee be established to explore and, where feasible, initiate all avenues of linkage and joint programs with Community Colleges (including Red River, Keewatin, schools in Northern Ontario, etc.). Again, I would prefer the phrase "where appropriate" rather than "where feasible." Not everything that is feasible is desirable. As with the affiliated colleges, affiliations with community colleges are double-edged swords (or perhaps even just dangerous to Universities, as Community Colleges have much to gain and little to lose). Consider the idea of "equivalence" between University and Community College courses, for example. Community College courses are taught by faculty with high teaching loads, with little time for and perhaps even little interest in scholarly research, without the PhD degrees that are currently the norm in Universities, and working in non-research-oriented institutions. If courses taught under these conditions are "equivalent" to University courses, might not an unsympathetic government decide to develop an "Undergraduate Teaching University" in Manitoba working under similar conditions? And we would not be able to respond effectively, having already acknowledged the possibility of teaching university-equivalent courses under these conditions. I also wonder about the level of consultation that is preceding these agreements. I know that Chemistry was intimately involved in developing its joint program with RRCC, which includes the idea of equivalent courses, but in what wider forum were the above issues debated? I hear now that a Child-care Program is in the works. That seems somewhat related to Psychology, at least, but I know of no discussions about this program and I do know that it could be very prone to a non- scholarly treatment, for want of a better phrase. Part VI - Marketing and Communication 24. That the University create an advisory committee, including representatives form Arts and Science, to develop and monitor a cohesive marketing plan for its academic programs. I agree with much that is written here, especially if we are talking about effective marketing of traditional Arts and Science programs. One concern is about the telecourse recommendation (i.e., Identify new telecourse markets), and the mention of Stony Mountain. These and perhaps other constituencies are likely to be very marginal students cognitively and motivationally (failure at school is one correlate of delinquency and criminal activity). We need to be extremely cautious about promoting with such potential students a form of instrution that may require good study habits and high levels of motivation in order to be effective. More failure experiences are hardly what they need. We should approach these populations by setting up small pilot projects with systematic evaluation to ensure that our programs are effective. Otherwise, we risk alienating and losing potential students (and additional enrolments). Again my apologies for being so slow with these comments, and I hope there is a good turnout for the FCAS meeting to discuss the report (Wed 30 April 1997, 10:30am, 4M47).