Senators:
Below you will find the report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Decennial Review, chaired by Van Kolpin. Van will formally present the report--and it is in the nature of a report, not a motion--to the Senate at the meeting of May 12, and I hope the Senate will agree to accept it and forward it to the Provost's office. Jeffrey Hurwit, President University Senate, 1998-99
Our adhoc committee was appointed by Jeffrey Hurwit, UO Senate president,
to review and offer broad recommendations for revising the University's
Program Review process. In addition to studying current Program Review
guidelines, we examined the results of two surveys - one distributed by
the 1997-98 UO Faculty Advisory Council to the heads of recently reviewed
programs and the other distributed by our own committee to the administrative
personnel involved in program review. Our report offers a series of recommendations
for structural revision that we feel will both enhance the benefits of
program review as well as mitigate its burdens.
1) Formation of a "University Program Review Committee" Faculty oversight of the program review process has been one of the Graduate Council's many charges. Although this arrangement has worked reasonably well, we recommend a mild strengthening of faculty oversight which is better served by a committee exclusively dedicated to program review. These changes are intended to enhance uniformity of the review process, not necessarily the outcomes of the reviews themselves. An outline of the current arrangement as well as our proposed framework follows below. Previous arrangement:
i) Each internal review committee had three members, including one member from the Graduate Council. Each internal committee was responsible for producing an independent report on the program reviewed; ii) the Graduate Council provided a forum in which revisions to the review process could be discussed but only a minority of the membership were experienced as both present and past reviewers. New arrangement: i) Each internal committee will have three members with equal responsibilities for drafting the report, including one member from the University Program Review Committee who will also be responsible for convening the committee. Each internal committee will continue to be responsible for producing an independent report on the program reviewed.Our hope is that this committee would serve to improve and update the process as needed as well as facilitate uniformity of the process in any given year. The committee will meet as necessary, which we anticipate would typically be two times per year. We emphasize that we intend for this structure to merely reallocate current faculty workload, not manifest itself as a substantial net increase in faculty committee work. The one apparent net increase in faculty time is the chair of the University Program Review Committee. However, our hope is that this oversight will substantially decrease tensions that may arise from a perceived lack of uniformity in the implementation of the process. If successful in this regard, this apparent increase in workload should manifest itself as a net savings in time across our campus.
ii) In order to facilitate both actual and perceived uniformity in the review process, the Chair of the University Program Review Committee will serve as a witness to preliminary and final discussions between the program and administration.
iii) Chair of the University Program Review Committee will not serve on internal committees nor will the individual materially participate in negotiating details for the MOU beyond those required for due process.
iv) The University Program Review Committee will provide a forum in which revisions to the review process are discussed and all members will be both experienced and actively engaged in reviews.
2) Composition of the University Program Review Committee We recommend that the University Program Review Committee be selected from the previous year's pool of internal reviewers. These appointments will be for a one year term and are made by the administrator overseeing the program review process after soliciting the views of both the deans and the department heads involved in the upcoming reviews. This administrator will also serve as an ex-officio member of this committee, as will the Program Review Faculty Liaison. (Although administrative oversight has historically been controlled by the graduate dean, we recognize that there may be a need to reshuffle administrative duties in the future. If such a change is deemed necessary, we recommend that the administrative position receiving this assignment should come out of the Office of Academic Affairs.)
3) Pre-Review Discussion We recommend that each review begin with a preliminary discussion that will occur sometime prior to the appointment of review committees, but after the appointment of the University Program Review Committee chair. It will involve a meeting to exchange agendas between the program head, University Program Review Committee chair, and relevant administrators. The purpose of this exchange is to ensure that both sides are familiar with the expectations of the other and, perhaps more importantly, provide a forum in which the two sides can collaborate on the review's goals. An outline of these goals will result from the meeting and is to be distributed to all parties attending the meeting as well as the corresponding review committees. This component is not intended to be a protracted process and the outline that results should just be a compendium of concerns which does not require a consensus of those present.
4) MOU Process The MOU process begins after the completion of the internal and external committee reports. The administrative overseer will solicit reactions of the program head and relevant administrators regarding these reports. This individual will then draft a working copy of the MOU to be distributed to all parties present at the first stage meeting. These parties will then meet to discuss the final version of the MOU. The final version is to be signed by these parties and will become public record. All participants in the review will be notified of its availability.
5) Goals and objectives We recommend that a more extensive list of goals and objectives be included in the "Program Review Handbook" to assist the programs and administrators in organizing a productive review. Special emphasis should be placed on goals that are resource independent.
6) Frequency of reviews We recommend that a maximum of six reviews take place in any given academic year, with the expectation that reviews continue to occur on a roughly ten year cycle. Although special circumstances may occasionally require modification of the long term schedule, programs must be notified at least one year in advance of their review's site visit.
7) Data We recommend that the office of Resource Management be consulted on how best to integrate university collected data with the program review process. Careful consideration should be given to the fact that departments often express concern that "one size does not necessarily fit all" when it comes to data organization. (For instance, some disciplines have few majors declare until late in their career, potentially making comparisons across disciplines misleading).
8) Appointment of internal and external review committees Program heads will be asked to submit a list of at least nine potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers. (Generally the nine potential external reviewers are partitioned into three categories in such a way that those in any given category are reasonably close "substitutes".) These lists will be passed on to the relevant administrators to solicit their reactions. If administrators suggest any additions, reactions of the program reviewed will be solicited and recruitment of the committees will begin.
9) Role identification The roles and obligations of all parties involved in the program review process should be clearly identified in the "Program Review Handbook."
10) Streamlining One of the most important revisions to the Program Review process that can be made is to streamline the mechanics of the process so as to facilitate the realization of substantive benefits sans the burden of unnecessary efforts. We recommend that there be an ongoing effort to collect helpful hints and innovations in self-study design, internal review methodology, administrative pointers, etc., from those participating in the review process. This evolving collection would serve both as a resource to review participants and as a guide toward revisions of the process itself.
Ad Hoc Committee on Program Review Ian Duncan - English Roger Haydock
- Physics Van Kolpin - Economics Kate Nicholson - Art History Marjorie
Woollacott - Exercise and Movement Science