An “academic unit” should be understood as one responsible for the design and delivery of a particular course or courses of study. At Mount Allison, such units are generally termed “departments” or “programs.” All departments shall be reviewed according to the provisions of this policy. In the first instance, programs shall normally be reviewed along with their associated department, but may also undergo individual review. For the purposes of this policy, the Library is considered to be an academic unit.
Academic unit reviews are conducted at the level of the
unit as a whole and are not concerned with the evaluation of the performance
of individual employees, as provided for in the Collective Agreement between
Mount Allison University and the Mount Allison University Faculty Association.
All units will be reviewed on a ten-year cycle, with two
or three units being reviewed each year. Approximately five years after
the initial review, an internal mid-term review will be scheduled. Individual
circumstances in an academic unit may dictate an earlier or an off-cycle
review.
The coordination of all unit reviews is the responsibility of the Vice-President, Academic and Research, working with University Planning Committee of Senate. The Office of the Vice-President, Academic and Research, will be the office of record for the unit review process and shall keep copies of all documentation generated by the process.
Specifically, the Vice-President, Academic and Research,
will, in consultation with the appropriate Dean and following the guidelines
set out in Article 7 of the Collective Agreement:
- Develop a schedule for reviews;
- Receive the self-study report;
- Appoint the review team;
- Develop any additional terms of reference for the review team; and
- Receive and transmit the report of the review team.
- Meet with the Dean and unit head to discuss the report and the unit’s response (both informal and formal);
- Advise the unit with respect to the recommendations made in the report;
- Receive the unit’s plan;
- Meet with the dean and unit head approximately 18 months and again five years after submission of the unit’s formal response to discuss progress on implementing recommendations;
- Report regularly to Senate on the status of reviews; and
- Identify issues of university-wide concern and make recommendations concerning them to appropriate bodies or individuals
| 4.1 | Time frame | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reviews take place in accord with a ten-year cycle. The review process itself is typically completed over a 16-month period as indicated below. Depending on the circumstances alternate time frames may be considered. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.2 | Unit Self-Study | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The self-study is prepared by the unit and should address the following points: history, current status, pending changes, strengths, challenges, opportunities and future plans. All members of the unit should play a role in the development of the self-study. The focus for the self-study should be on key issues. This requires a frank but balanced consideration of both strengths and areas for improvement, and strategies for future changes. It is also essential that the self-study take into consideration the larger institutional issues and the vision, mission, goals and priorities of the University, as articulated by the Strategic Statement. The self-study report serves as a primary document for the external unit review team. The most successful reviews are assisted by self-studies that are well organized, clearly written, and complete but concise. While the most successful reviews result from inclusive processes that involve the majority, if not all, of the members of the unit at each stage of the review, the quality of the self-study may be enhanced if a small steering group is responsible for its preparation and drafts are circulated to all members for comment. The self-study should contain a profile of the academic staff in an appendix. Each unit shall develop a uniform and brief format (one to two pages) that summarizes the important information from each member’s curriculum vitae. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The self-study report must contain the following elements: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Additional material such as university and faculty planning documents and calendars will also be provided. The goal is to provide the reviewers with sufficient information to have a broad understanding both of the unit and the context in which it operates without burdening them with excessive information. Further, the Vice-President, Academic and Research, working with the Dean will in each case determine specific issues to be considered by the review team. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.3 | Review Team Selection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The review team shall consist of three members, chosen by the Vice-President, Academic and Research, from a shortlist of 5-6 names agreed upon by the academic unit and the Dean. The shortlist should include a very brief statement about each of the external nominees and a rationalization for their participation. At least two members (including the chair) of the review team will be well-respected, impartial experts in the particular discipline or area, normally chosen from other universities. The other member may be a Mount Allison faculty member from a different academic unit (and normally from another Faculty). Wherever appropriate, one of the members may be replaced by a member of the relevant professional community. All members of the review team shall be chosen to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest. Once the review team is selected only the Vice-President, Academic and Research, shall communicate directly with the review team. Academic units are not to contact members of the review team directly without the approval of the Vice-President, Academic and Research. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.4 | Site Visit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The review team will visit the university for two to three days, prior to preparing its report. While on campus the review team will consult widely with academic and administrative staff, students, administrators, alumni and external partners involved with the programs and activities of the unit under review. The visit of the review team is to be advertised widely to the university community with an invitation for those who have a vested interest in the program(s) to contribute a written brief or to meet with the review team. The schedule of interviews during the visit will be developed by the unit under review with appropriate input from the office of the Vice-President, Academic and Research. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.5 | Terms of Reference for the Review Team | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Without intending to restrict the scope of the review, the expectation is that the review team will: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The findings and recommendations of the review team should be presented in the form of a brief, concisely written report (with an executive summary) which will be received by the Vice-President, Academic and Research, on behalf of the Planning Committee. Provided that matters of individual sensitivity or confidentiality are handled with discretion, the report (in its entirety) will be made available to the Dean, the unit under review, the Planning Committee, and other interested parties. Normally, the report will be considered a public document and at the completion of the review process will be available (on request) to members of Senate along with the unit’s response. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.6 | Response and Implementation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On receipt of the report the members of the unit will meet to discuss the report. The Dean and the unit head will then meet with the Planning Committee to review the report. Based on the report, comments received from the Planning Committee, and relevant university planning documents, the unit will then prepare a formal written response. The response will address the issues raised and clearly outline priorities and future directions over the next three to five years - where possible describing goals and timelines for achieving them. As such it should be prepared in close partnership with the Dean. The response and any subsequent comments from Planning will inform the unit’s and the faculty’s long-term planning and strategy development. The Vice-President, Academic and Research, shall prepare for Senate a brief (1-2 pages) summary of the issues identified in the self study, the external report, and the unit response. This summary shall identify the next steps, if any, to be taken by the University. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.7 | Follow-up | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fifteen to eighteen months after the formal written response is received by the Planning Committee, the unit head and Dean will meet with the Committee to describe progress on the implementation of the recommendations. Five years after the review (and mid-way before the next review) the Planning Committee will initiate a midterm review with the unit. The unit will be asked to prepare and submit a brief report in which members of the unit comment on the consequences of the review and initiatives undertaken in response to it and any comments from the Planning Committee. In particular they will be asked to describe initiatives and plans for the coming 3 to 5 years until the next review takes place. The midterm review will be reported to Senate and the report and any comments from the Planning Committee will be made available on request. |
October 1, 2007