UW Gazette, February 26, 1997
     
     A plan for reviewing UW's academic departments - "to
increase accountability and to help improve quality" - got
final approval from the university senate last week and
will now be put into effect.
     The first departments to be reviewed, in 1997-98, are
to be earth sciences, kinesiology, recreation and leisure
studies, French studies, and management sciences. Another
five will follow in 1998-99.
     Eventually, every department is to be reviewed "at
least once every seven years".
     "We're trying to make it as easy as possible and still
give it meaning," says Dr. Gary Waller, associate provost
(academic and student affairs), who's in charge of
administering the review process at least until the long-
awaited associate vice-president (academic) is appointed.
     "Most universities do department reviews," Waller
commented last week, a few days after the meeting at which
the senate gave the plan a final half-hour of discussion
and then approved the motion without a dissenting vote.
     He pointed out that UW really has little choice: some
form of appraisal of academic departments is being required
by government and provincial university organizations, as a
major element of "accountability". If the university
doesn't do the job itself, somebody would step in and do
it, he predicted.
     "This proposal," says the document that was approved
last week, "is designed to meet a pending Ministry
requirement for regular reviews of all undergraduate
programs.É
     "To increase accountability review procedures should
be public and open to audit by an external body. Review
results should be publicly available."
     Work on the idea has been going on for some two years,
since "accountability" hit the headlines with the report of
a provincial government commission. Its recommendations
have helped produce other changes as well, ranging from
salary disclosure and new ways of selecting board of
governors members to greater involvement of students in the
governance of universities.
     "Our document meets the letter of the law in terms of
process," says Waller.
     The review process at UW will be in three parts:
     ù "A self-study through which a department presents
itself, its goals, activities and achievements in
teaching/learning, research/creative activity and
professional service."
     ù Review of the self-study by three "assessors", two
from outside UW and one from inside, who "prepare a report
dealing with appropriateness of goals, the degree to which
goals are being met, strengths and weaknesses of the
Department, responses to questions raised by the Department
or Faculty and recommendations for the future".
     ù "A procedural audit conducted by an external
authority," expected to be a committee of the Council of
Ontario Universities.
     "To help improve quality," says the document,
"departments should be centrally involved in the design and
conduct of the review to ensure the review deals with
matters of importance to the department. The review should
solicit the advice of experts in the area from outside the
university. The department should receive the full results
of the review and have an opportunity to seek
clarification. The review should pay particular attention
to programs not reviewed in a regular way."
     Carrying out the self-study part of the review "is the
responsibility of the Chair" in the department being
reviewed, "but all members of the department, students,
staff and faculty alike, should be invited to contribute to
and comment on it. The self-study document should have wide
departmental support. If consensus is not possible,
differing views should be noted."
     Then comes the visit by three assessors, "well-
respected teachers and scholars in their disciplines",
chosen by the dean from a list of names submitted by the
department chair. "Reviewers should visit the department at
the same time and write a joint report," the document says.
     They will meet not just the department chair but
faculty members, staff and students, "and representatives
of academic and academic support departments receiving or
providing services. The visit should include physical re
sources of interest (e.g. computing facilities, labs). When
graduate programs are involved reviewers should meet with
Dean of Graduate Studies."
     The reviewers' report "can be relatively brief" but is
expected to cover "appropriateness of goals, the degree to
which goals are being met, strengths and weaknesses of
department, recommendations for the future" - and also
"degree to which activities comply with general
institutional goals" and "adequacy of resources". (But the
document explicitly says that "In light of financial
constraints it is not realistic to expect allocations of
additional ongoing funds to the department.")
     The department then has a chance to respond to the
report and "outline future plans arising from it".
     Says the document: "The Dean, in consultation with the
Department Chair, develops year x year objectives and
forwards report, departmental response and Dean's recommen
dations" to the vice-president (academic), "who
approves/rejects, seeks additional information, etc."
     The report, including the self-study and the response,
is then made public.
     The document notes that reviews "should be scheduled
to avoid duplication of effort" in cases where a department
already has to go through a somewhat similar exercise.
External review of graduate programs already takes place
every so often, for example, and many professional programs
have to undergo external scrutiny for professional
accreditation.
     The idea would be to carry out UW's own department
review at the same time, so that information has to be
collected just once instead of twice.
     That's why the school of architecture is scheduled for
review in 1998-99 - to coincide with the appraisal process
for professional architecture - and most engineering
departments are scheduled for 2001-02, the year that the
professional engineering accreditation will be happening
anyway.