“The Department of Political Science believes that its primary purpose is to pursue knowledge and understanding of the political aspects of the human endeavor; to transmit this knowledge to others; to relate this knowledge to the real world in creative, critical, and constructive ways; and to encourage through pedagogical means a real interest in politics.” Jan. 08
The University and College missions inform the planning and activities of the department philosophically. The main missions of creating a responsible citizenry (University) and leading students to enlightened and productive lives (University and College of the Sciences) serve as the backdrop for curriculum, instruction, research and service of the Political Science Department. The Department in essence believes it best supports the main mission of both units by doing what we do the best we can: being a political science department, and thus learning and teaching effectively about politics. It is through these activities that we contribute to these larger roles. The Department also has an unstated ethic of serving as a resource about politics, government, and public affairs for the University and greater (state and regional) communities, and faculty members readily participate in a variety of activities that promote that element of the mission as well. Indeed, one element of the departmental performance expectations asks that faculty members “get out of the department” broadly defined, and do some sort of “public service” related to the field (such as lectures to campus or local groups, media appearances, etc.). Jan. 08
1. Staff the Program with Sufficient Faculty to meet current/existing needs; fill regional, topical and disciplinary holes, and expand our course offerings and better provide service to the community. -As mentioned, with additional faculty members - especially in the areas of Comparative Politics: Latin America and Comparative Politics: Russia and Eastern Europe; International Relations; Native American Politics, Ethnic Minority Politics, and State and Local Government, and possibly Public Policy - we could meet existing enrollment demands in general education and upper-division courses, various interdisciplinary needs, as well as expand the program. This would enable us to better meet university goals of educating for responsible citizenship in a global world, and in the areas of multi-cultural and multinational education, and diversity. We would note, too, that these are areas of relevance to the Central Washington region. 2. (Continue to) Increase our Research, Scholarly, and Grant-Writing Activity. -Although we do not have a graduate program, and see undergraduate education as our primary mission, current faculty value scholarly work and believe it holds the key to keeping faculty vibrant, active, and engaged. This is one area of clear expansion and increased quality over the last five years, and we would like it to continue. This would support our goals of disseminating our knowledge to a broader audience. 3. Achieve regular, periodic scheduling of course offerings, and teach everything in our catalog (regular courses) every 2 or so years. -This is obvious, but one of the difficulties for student and faculty planning and course offerings has been lack of effective planning and faculty resources (FIEF) to actually to do this. While we will use workload planning under C.A. to help, additional staff is necessary to achieve this objective. 4. Develop Flexibility in Program Activities and Workloads to accommodate variations in faculty career goals (not only in terms of mixes in teaching, research, and service, but other areas). -While fairly self-explanatory, we believe that the department should be given the ability to flexibly alter faculty work assignments to meet their career goals as well as balance them with program needs. The Department has a commitment (as it has shown in the past) to the adjust to the needs of its members, and through planning, consensus, and compromise should be allowed to do so. 5. Continue to Refine our Assessment of Student Learning; reassess the Senior Assessment Course and its measures and content. -While there has clearly been useful information from our 489 course, it needs improvement, and what (apparently valid) lessons we can draw from it have not been fully applied in practice. 6. Improve Career Advisement, Discussions and “Applications” to Life After Graduation for Student Majors. -This was one criticism/suggestion for improvement arising from our survey of graduating seniors in the Senior Assessment course. -We would also like to reestablish Department student organizations such as the Pi Sigma Alpha Honor Society, and a department campus club. 7. Increase Department involvement in training students for civic engagement and making an impact on society and the political world. -The Department could take a more active role in these areas. 8. Create and Sustain a Better Environment for Faculty and Student Work. -Achieve adequate (improved and larger) facilities and space; -technical and technology support for faculty research and teaching; -addition of student study and computer lounge, part of which was lost due to addition of FTNTT faculty office 9. Improve, or at least provide adequate mentoring of, Junior Faculty; assist the continuing Professional Development of Tenured Faculty. -We believe faculty need to be supported in their professional growth. -While we see the formal mentoring “role model” process as inappropriate, at the same time we recognize we have new faculty who should be assisted in their early learning stages of their career. At the same time, older/existing faculty need opportunities for retraining, recharging and the like. 10. Strike a Balance between General Education, Interdisciplinary, and Major Course Offerings. -To the degree that these conflict, especially in terms of upper-division elective offerings, we need to find a better mix in terms of - to use a Congressional metaphor - “servicing and courting our various constituencies.” To some extent, this applies to FIEF and faculty staffing needs. Jan. 08
Based on the findings of our Senior Assessment Exit Survey, and the Senior Assessment Exam results, we are initiating some changes. In response to student feedback that we were not doing enough career counseling, advising, and the like, the Department initiated a major/career fair to discuss general academic and career strategies, internship and study abroad opportunities, and the like. Exam and survey results, along with the Assessment course itself, also suggested some changes in core course concepts to be covered in Political Science 101 and other core, introductory classes. Members of the Department are currently in discussions over how best to alter some aspects of these courses to respond to these concerns. The program review undertaken in 2005-06 identified further issues, such as in curriculum, student preparation, and faculty workload balance and development, which we detail more fully elsewhere. In this vein, we are currently undertaking a reevaluation of the department as a result of program review, and a broader understanding of the assessment process (as being about programmatic as well as student-academic assessments). Jan. 08
We would point to the following that we are already doing as measures of quality, effectiveness and efficiency: 1. In the area of teaching, we show a generally high degree of quality in terms of our student evaluations in both course SEOIs and the Senior Survey; we are rated even more highly for rapport and access, etc.; and our student majors, graduates, and overall FTE have been increasing. 2. As mentioned earlier, according to our Senior Assessment Exit Survey, the Department receives high marks for the quality of education it provides, and clearly has a profound or at least significant impact on its majors in terms of their own understanding, comprehension, and thinking about politics and public affairs. 3. Again, as mentioned, our research productivity has increased, and faculty have made notable achievements outside the classroom in a variety of venues that credit the university. 4. The Department has increased its efficiency in terms of student output (degrees granted) and especially, per capita FTE (FTE/FTEF) at rates greater than comparable departments or the University as a whole. We previously noted FTE growth, but actually, in terms of faculty output, we compare favorably: the Department consistently ranked 10th in size in faculty, and between 10th and 11th in size in students in COTS over the last five years, yet when one compares FTE per faculty member the department in each year in the five-year period (1999-04, the only years for which we have comparative data), we moved from 10th to 7th. In other words, while we are one of the smallest departments in the College in absolute terms, in terms of students served per faculty member, we are near the middle. Thus, we rank more highly than our size would indicate, and are thus more efficient relatively speaking. (See Appendix E of Program Review) 5. While a number of our graduates are employed in politics or attending graduate or law school, more attention to career advising, or at least badgering, of our students, coupled with internship encouragement and advertising, might lead to more students going on to work and/or study in the field or other areas. This is pure speculation, but the department is going to make new efforts in these realms. Jan. 08
We are still waiting for the official response from the administration. However, the external reviewer, Dr. Frank Baber (see letter in Dept. Program Review documents) made several recommendations (paraphrased below): 1) Dept. should experiment with alternatives (class size, delivery, etc.) and Univ. give flexibility to balance its large, general-education and service courses with more advanced courses in the major; 2)The joint public-policy degree may need to become a free-standing major, or should allow students to use geography and economics electives within the major/political science, and in any event should be marketed more aggressively; 3) Faculty workload issues should be reexamined, including perhaps a focus on FTE generation rather than mere course-hour/workload units (so that, for example, a faculty member could teach a large section of a lower-divison course in lieu of 2 smaller, etc.). 4) More univ. support in scholarship of teaching would potentially help address increased workload demands and tradeoffs between teaching and scholarship 5) More library and information resources are necessary to support faculty scholarship 6) Dept. should consider incorporating disciplinary standards of integrity into the intro course. --The Dept. has not had the opportunity to implement or address these yet. [Mar. 08]
1. Despite turnover in faculty personnel, and increased student demand, we were able to retain two tenure-track faculty lines, one in 2002-03 and the other for 2006-07. These two replacements were in needed, vital areas (American Politics/Public Law, and Political Theory/Comparative: Middle East). The Department successfully completed competitive, national searches to fill these positions. Though obviously it is still early, appearances suggest we were able to hire highly qualified individuals to replace two excellent faculty. We were also able to procure non-tenure-track lecturers to help fill in some of the remaining gaps. 2. The Department saw a significant increase in the number of majors and student FTE. While the University did as well, we increased at a rate greater than overall enrollment growth. For example, according to data from the College of the Sciences (presumably, originally from Institutional Research), Political Science showed a 15% increase over the last three years – greater relatively speaking than the University or College of the Sciences. 3. The Department has broadened its course offerings to meet new interests, demands, and the changing environments of the contemporary political scene. As noted, we developed a number of new courses under the “contemporary issues” rubric to adapt to new issues and developments, and we also created new courses for emerging inter-disciplinary studies areas such as Native American Studies and Film and Video Studies. These added to the University’s mission and goals in the areas of civic engagement, diversity, and global understanding/international education. 4. The research and scholarly productivity/output of the faculty increased significantly during the period. More faculty were involved in scholarly activities, and in publishing or disseminating research. While noted elsewhere, it is important to put this in context. Two members coauthored undergraduate textbooks; one had their dissertation published as a scholarly book; and several had chapters in scholarly edited volumes. More articles were published, and papers given at conferences. Previously, faculty only had occasional articles published and presented at conferences. 5. Members of the Department sponsored or participated in a number of events and activities that contribute to the community, showcase our academic expertise, and increase our public visibility. These include (as mentioned), the Colloquium on the 2002 (midterm) Elections; the panel on Terror and Torture in American Life following Abu Ghraib in 2004; the Comfort Woman Testimony and Exhibition; and the punditry of various faculty in local media outlets, such as professors who write regular columns in the Ellensburg Daily Record and occasional interviews for Yakima-area television stations or Prof. Manweller’s discussion show on the KCWU cable access channel. 6. We attempted to obtain, and were moderately successful at procuring, outside funding for research activities. Prof. Launius was involved in part of a multi-faculty, inter-disciplinary effort which landed a National Science Foundation Grant for Undergraduate Research on the Environment in China. He also was awarded a Fulbright-Hays Exchange to South Africa and Namibia. Prof. Yoon received a Fulbright Fellowship (or Fulbright Scholar) to South Korea. Prof. Schaefer and Yoon were awarded sabbatical leaves during the period as well. Profs. Wirth and Schaefer both applied for outside funding for research to Spain, and Kenya, respectively, though were unsuccessful. 7. Student involvement in research and professional activities continued, and a number of them went on to secure jobs in the related areas of the field. We have clearly re-built the Department’s presence in the Washington State Legislative Intern Program in Olympia, and around ten students per year (an increase) undertook internships in Washington DC, Olympia, and other positions in the region. We went from 5 student interns with 27 credit hours in 2001-02, to 8 with 61 in 2002-03, 12 with 71 in 2003-04, 11 with 78 in 2004-05, and 10 with 60 in 2005-06. A number of them are now working as Legislative Assistants at the State or Federal levels, and we have one student in the Governor’s office. Again, this is detailed elsewhere 8. During the period, Profs. Bang-Soon Yoon and Todd Schaefer were successfully promoted to Full Professor. Jan. 08
Challenge 1. Faculty and support personnel staffing suffers from lack of continuity/stability and inadequacy to cover needs when changes occur. Challenge 2. Difficulties in delivering program and meeting diverse demands: The Department is so stretched covering lower division and general education courses, that we are unable to offer regular upper division courses as part of the major (and general) electives as regularly as we should. Challenge 3. Faculty are overtaxed, and find it difficult to balance competing professional demands on their time and energy. Challenge 4. Senior Assessment: while we have a clear assessment regime, the 489 course, which is the only feasible mechanism, we continue to struggle with the best way to accurately measure our students’ skills, knowledge, and learning. Challenge 5. Lack of Institutional Appreciation for Department and its role, discipline, and challenges, coupled with lack of political power on campus. Challenge 6. University Expectations challenge Department’s traditional and primary mission of undergraduate education. We are asked to do more research and publication, without commensurate increases in institutional support; we don’t have a graduate program, and indeed are too small to legitimately offer one, yet are expected to publish on par with larger departments that have graduate research and teaching assistants; university emphasis on undergraduate research, while admirable, is usually unrealistic given our student abilities, and in any event in political science is unlikely to produce peer-review quality material, since there is a large gap in the field between graduate and undergraduate education. Challenge 7. Faculty Development and Reward: Faculty feel there is a lack of institutional support for faculty development and appropriate reward structure Challenge 8. Curricular Limitations: we have no prerequisites for upper-division courses, which might help teaching and learning at the upper division/elective level. Jan. 08
Given that the stated Mission of the University is to prepare students for responsible citizenship, [emphasis added] as responsible stewards of the earth, and to lead enlightened and productive lives, our Department obviously plays a central and essential role in at least the first and third objectives, and an indirect role in the second. Jan. 08 -By its very nature, political science deals directly with issues of responsible citizenship and what it means to be part of a community. Twenty-four centuries ago, Aristotle made the claim for political science that it is the study which [pursues The Good] and has most authority and control over the rest. One could say, then, that political science is truly essential to all the sciences and all learning. Indeed, if to be a citizen, especially in a democracy, means to be informed, interested and involved in its civic life, then political science plays a key role in civic education and engagement. Our courses and curricula thus directly relate to this part of the University Mission. -We prepare students for responsible citizenship in other ways, as well: through internship and other professional opportunities with politically-related organizations and institutions; through Departmental colloquia and other campus events we sponsor or participate in; and through advising politically-oriented student groups. -We have a limited role in preparing them to be "responsible stewards of the earth," though political science courses touch on related issues of public policy, and we have offered occassional courses on Comparative Environmental Politics and the like. -We also help prepare students for enlightened and productive lives though general department goals of teaching them to think critically and for themselves, especially about the political system if not more generally.
The department curriculum, as it has been for years, attempts to balance breadth, depth, and synthesis, while also being practical given faculty resources, student interests, scheduling realities, etc. The department curriculum for both versions of the major essentially consists of a set of “core” courses which introduce the student to the field and its four major subfields. These consist of: -Political Science 101, Introduction to Politics and Political Science -Political Science 210, American Politics (US political system) -Political Science 260, Comparative Politics (other political systems) -Political Science 270, International Politics (politics between nations, etc.) -One course from the 400-level Political Theory sequence (481, Early Political Thought; 482, Early Modern Political Thought; 483, Recent Political Thought; or 485, American Political Thought.) Then the student is required to take a certain number of elective credits, which amount to advanced, upper-division courses of their choosing in whatever subfield(s) they wish. (For minors, the theory requirement is removed, and less electives are required.) The upper-division courses are thus more “concentrated” or in-depth treatments of aspects in the core. For example, a student taking the introductory American politics and government survey course would spend about a week (out of a ten-week term) on the topic of Congress, yet we have an entire upper-division course that spends ten weeks on that very subject. The same goes with elections, courts, etc. Similarly, a student might spend only a week or so on Britain or France in the Comparative Politics course, but can take an entire course on Western European Politics as an upper-division elective. Unfortunately, due to staff size and expertise, we haven’t been able to fully offer in-depth upper division courses that cover all of the topics in the sub-fields, as the department is stronger in some areas than others. (One example: until the addition of a new faculty member in 2007-08, the Department was unable to offer an upper-division Latin American politics class in the subfield of comparative politics, a glaring weakness. As noted elsewhere, other such gaps remain. Hence, part of our reason for desiring more faculty.) - Thus, the Department curriculum certainly is coherent and meets the criteria of both breadth and depth: to graduate with a degree in political science, students must know something about all the main pillars of the field, but at the same time have climbed up higher on some of those pillars than others. The sequencing of courses is perhaps the weakest link in this; because of faculty staffing limitations, we do not require the lower-division “core” course in a subfield before taking a upper-division course. Ideally, a student would, to use an earlier example, take Political Science 101 first, before taking American Politics (210); after getting more interested in Congress, said student then would later take the Congress course (313). However, due to scheduling concerns and the fact we are a small department, forcing such a result is probably not feasible. We also wish to attract students of related disciplines (history, economics, business, communications, sociology, etc.) to take upper-division courses without requiring specific prerequisites. We attempt to guide students into courses through numbering system and through advising them that they should take lower-level survey course before an upper-division elective. The same might be said of synthesis of student learning, but presumably this is achieved in the Senior Assessment exit course, the only course we do have pre- and co-requisites for (since they must have senior standing, within two quarters of graduating, and have taken or be taking all the core.) As further justification for such flexibility, we would note most political science programs around the country do something similar, and some even are less structured. For example, Harvard University requires one course in each of the four sub-fields, along with upper-division electives, but courses counting in the sub-field don’t have to be the introductory ones; Yale University simply requires 11 courses (including a senior seminar) but there must be at least two from three of five subfields (they split theory into analytical and philosophical). [We use these two because we presume that most people would agree these two institutions have reputable programs, not that we are comparable in other ways.] It does mean however, that in terms of assessment we must focus on broader goals (such ) and can only directly assess the basic knowledge in the four subfields. Jan. 08
There are no official curricular standards per se as put forth by the American Political Science Association or the like. Given the wide diversity and size of political science programs throughout the country, this is probably understandable. However, the American Political Science Association lists various organized sections and other sub-fields of the discipline within its organizations. In particular, the APSA “Fields of Interest” designation for Members includes the following major sub-classifications: American Politics Comparative Politics International Politics Political Philosophy (Theory) Public Administration Public Policy Public Law and Courts Notably, our curriculum covers all of these areas, with at least one course or more. Furthermore, our core curriculum of Introduction to Politics, American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Politics, and one of four Theory courses follows this motif quite closely. (Note: public administration, public policy, and public law are all part of American Politics, though have somewhat of an autonomous tradition within the field. At CWU, Public Policy is also an inter-disciplinary major with Economics, Geography, and Political Science). At some schools, there is no Introduction to Politics course, as the Introduction to American Politics (survey) course serves that function. This compares quite closely and favorably to undergraduate programs at University of Washington, Eastern Washington University, and Western Washington University, and indeed others around the nation. We would note, however, that our “sister schools” in the state all have more faculty in their Departments than do we. Western Washington has 13 full-time faculty, and Eastern, eight. As a result, they offer more, and a wider variety of, courses, especially upper division. In terms of outside evaluation, our Senior Assessment exit survey shows a very high degree of satisfaction with the program and education delivery (e.g., 76% of seniors from 2001-06 commented positively that their “education prepared them well for their future,”(9% were negative, and the rest mixed), and 80% would recommend majoring in political science to others), though some felt that it either didn’t help them directly into a career (such as advising, etc.) or alternatively to get into graduate school. We have made some changes to address these concerns, though we would note that few of our students either end up working in politics and government or go into graduate school in the field. Jan. 08
As part of the department performance standards and procedures, we periodically - based on rank and evaluation cycles - review faculty members’ instructional performance and attempt to provide feedback. These include examinations of syllabi, student course evaluations (the SEOI), and relevant portions of the Senior Assessment exit survey. As of 2004-05, the Department has begun implementing a peer evaluation of instruction for all tenured, tenure-track, and full-time non-tenure track faculty. Once course per year is sampled, wherein the chair or a tenured member of the department discusses the course with the instructor, its goals, how they approach it, etc.; reviews the syllabi; makes a classroom visitation, and then writes a formal letter of review. -Faculty members may also use their development funds from the University, College, and (if available) Department to attend conferences. Elsewhere, we comment on the (in)adequacy of such resources. In addition: -The faculty are involved in varying degrees with the Senior Assessment course, as several different members have taught it over the years (currently, however, only the chair has the “workload units” to do it). All faculty are given results of the course survey, and performance of students on exams and papers, which they are welcome to review if they wish. -Various members of the Department utilize other innovative, or at least, non-traditional, methods of instruction in their courses. Some use simulation exercises or games that have students role play (such as members of Congress in a committee or countries in the international system or model United Nations), class debates, poster presentations, etc. Jan. 08
The faculty are involved in varying degrees with the Senior Assessment course, as several different members have taught it over the years (currently, however, only the chair has the “workload units” to do it). All faculty are given results of the course (Senior Exit) survey, and informed of performance of students on exams and papers; the specific contents of which, they are welcome to review if they wish. -As for instructional assessment, all faculty administer the SEOI in their courses; we are developing a peer evaluation of instruction mechanism; and the senior assessment survey includes items on teaching in the department. These are included as part of faculty performance reviews, detailed elsewhere. -Program assessment is done primarily through a combination of the Senior Assessment course and informal faculty review. As mentioned, all faculty are given copies of the senior assessment survey. We also assess the program through program review, obviously. -The administration has been given an assessment report on the specifics of the senior assessment course results (an explanation and analysis of the results of the exam, paper, and survey). Programmatic assessment is just now being formalized through assessment planning. Jan. 08
The Administration has yet to review and respond to our assessment results. Jan. 08
The Department contributes one course to each of the three sub-parts of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Breadth Requirement under General Education (please see the official University Catalog for more details): a) Within Perspectives on the Cultures and Experiences of the United States, we offer multiple sections of Political Science 210, American Politics, each year. b) Within Perspectives on World Cultures, we offer multiple sections of Political Science 270, International Politics, each year. c) Within Foundations of Human Adaptation and Behavior, we offer multiple sections of Political Science 101, Introduction to Politics, each year. Individual instructors assess student learning outcomes in their courses as they see fit, through exams, papers, projects, reports, in-class and out-of-class assignments, etc. While not directly assessed (especially as some general education goals are not relevant to the courses within the department) the three political science courses within the general education, social science curriculum (American Politics, International Politics, and Introduction to Politics and Political Science), all promote and assess the aims of: students becoming thoughtful and responsible members of society; respecting diversity and valuing different perspectives; fluency in reading, writing, talking and information literacy; and asking incisive questions. In particular, those courses with “W” designation as writing-intensive all have different and course-specific writing assignments that fit in with course-specific goals yet nevertheless allow the instructors to assess writing and thinking proficiency. We suggest one review specific course syllabi for more information. Jan. 08
We don’t formally incorporate general education learning goals into the major. Some of ours are likely compatible, but the department has not made this connection directly. Indirectly, however, we implement and assess these skills through our major courses. All of our courses deal with critical thinking in some form or fashion, and writing is a required part of almost all of our upper-division courses. Assessment is done primarily through the paper project in the 489 course (though we don’t really assess quantitative symbolic reasoning, except for logical arguments within the paper’s structure). As noted elsewhere, we are reasonably satisfied with the results of the papers students write, though there is variation, and they could of course all improve. Jan. 08
The Political Science Department does not offer any graduate programs. Some of our faculty do, however, participate on an ad-hoc basis as committee members on graduate student theses and the like in other departments such as Psychology and Resource Management, when requested. Jan. 08
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The department does not offer any online courses; in the past, an online option was provided for POSC 101 in the Summer term. Jan. 08 Update, July '08: the Dept. has experimented with some online courses, such as POSC 101, 320, and some special-topics, courses over the summer. Some new attempts at online delivery may be initiated during the 2008-09 academic year.
None
POSC 101, Summer 08: 17 POSC 320, Summer 08: 26 POSC 406, Current Issues in Comparative Politics: Contemporary Turkey, Summer, 08: 11
Blackboard has been used as a supplementary tool in POSC 101, 260, 270 (depending upon instructor) and 320 and 325. Some instructors have used website support for their textbooks in POSC 210. Jan. 08
With the exception of those who use Blackboard, the bulk of the faculty obviously think distance education is less effective than face-to-face or we would offer these courses. Jan. 08
The Department currently only offers the Public Law Sequence (350, 451, 452) as upper-level elective offerings for Law and Justice and general elective requirements. This may change, however. As we only have one-to-a-few faculty who teach occasional courses at the Centers, there naturally isn’t much assessment or review. The Chair does receive student course evaluations, syllabi, and otherwise communicates on an ad hoc basis with the faculty. Since the faculty there don’t have regular office space, and mainly have contact with their students via class, email, or phone, the “student’s learning experience” is likely not the same as on the Ellensburg campus, but it may be equivalent in other ways. In terms of faculty expertise, faculty are initially chosen by the Chair, after consultation with the department, from an employment pool based on their documented expertise to teach specific courses; and later, an informal telephone interview is conducted with them before an official contract request is made to the Dean. Jan. 08
-Students receive ad hoc advising by coming into the Department, and usually visiting with the Department Chair, or by individual discussions with faculty members. Throughout the year, we also participate in new student orientations, transfer orientation, and the Career Centers Major Fair. --Advisors are given copies of dept. materials and Univ. advising handbook, and receive information and training in dept. meetings. -As far as major advising is concerned, prior to students being accepted into the major, they complete a Major Declaration (and Advising) Form wherein they list the core and elective courses they’ve already taken, along with a rough plan as to when (and what) they will take for their remaining courses. (Form is attached or pasted below.) They then ask for an advisor, or one is assigned to them. One copy is given to the student, one to the advisor, and the Department keeps one on file. This form then forms (no pun intended) the basis, along with the CAPS report, of strategy for the student’s academic career. Students are expected to meet with their advisor periodically. The Chair also currently sends out an email in Fall Quarter to all majors with senior standing reminding them to review their CAPS report and meet with an advisor over the last two quarters. A reminder is also made during the Senior Assessment course, taken in the last or second-to-last quarter before graduation, though admittedly that may be too late for some. Jan. 08
Course equivalencies are determined on a case-by-case basis. The Chair reviews other institutions’ catalogs and course descriptions in making such decisions; in the case of individual students wishing transfer or substitution credit for specific courses, either from domestic or international higher educational institutions, the Chair reviews syllabi, catalog descriptions, and in some cases contacts the instructor/institution directly. For the most part, it is a straightforward exercise, as political science programs, despite variation, usually have certain upper and lower division courses in common. In cases where it is difficult to determine, the Chair either grants general elective credit; credit for “special topics”; or denies the request altogether. Jan. 08
The department has a web site (www.cwu.edu/~polisci) which describes the basic nature of the discipline, structure of the major, faculty profiles, and the like. Also, we have a brochure which outlines the structure and requirements of the major(s) and minor, and gives a brief synopsis of department services and faculty, which we hand out at admissions and majors events, or to interested students who drop by the department. The Department also has a quarterly newsletter that highlights departmental activities, upcoming events or opportunities, student and faculty accomplishments, future course schedules, and bits of political and academic humor that is distributed to students in all our courses each term. Finally, we also send out (excellent) student recognition letters following the completion of each term. Each faculty member nominates the “best” student(s) in their course from that term, and we then send each of them a letter of congratulation on their accomplishment, mentioning that they appear to have an aptitude for the field, etc. Mainly, this is meant to as a form of accolade or positive reinforcement, but the department hopes it may have a public relations/recruitment benefit as well. Jan. 08
There is no formal process; faculty who identify students who may need such services are encouraged to refer them to the appropriate areas. Jan. 08
-During the period under review, there was a political science student club, the Political Enlightenment Society (2000-03(?)), which undertook several campus events of a non-partisan but political education nature. These included: having certain faculty members speak on important political events (such as Prof. Launius on North Korea in Spring 2002); and having Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, State Sen. Joyce Mulliken, and Kittitas County Commissioner Perry Huston come to CWU to talk on what it means to be a Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian, respectively, etc. However, as student clubs are prone to do, the club went kaput when enthusiastic students graduated. -The Department is also a member (Mu Lambda Chapter) of Pi Sigma Alpha, the Political Science Honorary Society. Juniors and Seniors who have attained a 3.0+ grade point average in Political Science courses, and meet other requirements, may join the national honorary society. The Mu Lambda Chapter, established in 1981, served as a vehicle for the organization of campus events and addresses by people interested in or involved in politics. It, too, however, has fallen on hard times, as few students applied, and even fewer participated in its activities, becoming mostly a honor bestowed upon graduation. -It is the goal of the department to put more emphasis on renewing both Pi Sigma Alpha and the Student Club (whatever its name may be) in coming years. Jan. 08
-Students from Prof. Wirths policy seminar regularly present at SOURCE (CWU Symposium on University Research & Creative Expression), and occasionally students of other professors do as well. During the period under review, 20 students did so – 7 in 2002; 1 in 2003; 5 in 2004; 3 in 2005; and 5 in 2006. -about half of the students of Prof. Wirth who present at SOURCE also present in the student portion of the National Social Science Association meeting in Las Vegas, NV each Spring. -As for Career Placement information, we have only anecdotal evidence (though as Noam Chomsky notes, the plural of anecdote is data), since there is no systematic way to track our majors. However, several of our graduates from the time period under review are in some way working in the field, broadly construed. Examples: Shawn Bills (2003), is regional office director for US Senator Patty Murray, in Yakima, WA; Althea Cawley-Murphree (2001) is Communications Director for Gov. Christine Gregoire, Olympia, WA, and previously was lead policy analyst for the Housing Authority of Snohomish County; Colin McLaurin (2001) is Legislative Analyst for the National Association of Realtors in Washington, DC; Jessica Lautz (2001) is Research Analyst at Westat, a federal government contractor dealing with special education policy in Washington, DC; Josh Dazey (2002) worked as a staffer for state Sen. Harold Hochstatter (Olympia) and for the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, WA and was Communications Director for nointernettax.org (before going on to law school); Emily Washines(2006) is Native American Liaison for CWU Admissions; Robert “Bo” McHaney (2005) is Legislative Assistant to State Rep. Mary Skinner (R-Yakima). -During the period, we had a number of students go on to graduate school: Jessica Lautz, MPP, American University; Althea Cawley-Murphree, MA, Evans School of Public Policy, University of Washington; Scott Leadingham, PhD Program in Public Policy, Indiana University; Kevin Bourgault, MA/ABD in Environmental Studies and Policy, Duke University; Andrew Nicholas, MPP, American University; Casey Rettenmeier, Masters in Education, Pacific Lutheran University; Jake Santestevan, MA in Political Science, Univ. of Montana; Jameson Kelleher, now getting an MA in International Affairs; Michael Skiff, who is pursuing an MPA at University of Nebraska-Omaha. -During the period, we had many students go on to law school, though these are the only confirmed ones: Jamie Danielson (Univ. of Oregon); Josh Dazey (Georgetown University); Trevor Zandell (Gonzaga University); Christina Morovics (Australian National University); Roslyn Sterling (Gonzaga). NOTE: The above applies to students from 2001-05, the years of the program review. Updated information can be provided if necessary. Jan. 08
Prior to 2006-07, the department only made informal, individual, and ad hoc efforts to assist students in career placement, through the usual activities of advising, encouraging and supervising internships or other related experiences, writing letters of recommendation, etc. However, in response to Program Review and in particular, the results of five years of Senior Exit Surveys from the Senior Assessment course - in which students expressed that the department was not doing enough, and specifically requested greater support - in 2006-07 the Department initiated an annual “Major/Career Fair” day during Winter Term. With the assistance of staff from Career Services, the Department Chair and Faculty as well as Career Services staff, discuss the nature of the major, what students should do while in the program to prepare for life after it, internship opportunities, study abroad, graduate school strategies, etc. We hope to coordinate this more fully with Career and Major Fairs put on by Career Services in the future. Jan. 08
Based on our record of student accomplishment, the department appears to be relatively successful at aiding, directly or indirectly, student achievement - given that the vast majority of our students do not choose to either work in the field of politics or go into graduate school in political science (more go to law school). Admittedly, we have little to compare this to, but it does appear that more students are involved directly in the field both during and after their college career. Still, as mentioned, students expressed desire for more active departmental assistance in this area in our senior exit survey, and the department is now trying to respond to this. While we continue to believe that such services are not the primary responsibility of the department, we do recognize that more effort could be made to reach out to students and attempt to assist them and Career Services in their life after graduation. As mentioned above, we are attempting to do more in this area, and it is part of the Department’s future goals to increase internships, study abroad and direct career or graduate school placements in the future. Through this and the assessment process we hope to achieve such results. Jah. 08
As of 06-07, the Department of Political Science consisted of six full-time equivalent faculty members, along with miscellaneous (approximately two) adjuncts, with varying interests and expertise.
Two of our most senior faculty (Drs. Robert Jacobs in 2002, and Jim Brown (also Chair) in 2005, with over 50 years of service to the University and Department between them) retired during the period, and another, Dr. Michael Launius, took administrative leave to run the Office of International Studies and Programs. We have also hired some adjunct and non-tenure-track faculty to fill in the gaps in our program. During the period, the University faculty also voted to unionize and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was negotiated which went into effect for the 2006-07 year. Thus, one could say we are somewhat in flux, and this review (5-year program review) comes at a time of some uncertainty and examination about our future direction.
In 2007-08, the Department added a tenure-track shared position in Latino Politics and Studies through the auspices of an internal ("Spheres of Distinction") grant. This grant was given to Latino and Latin American Studies, and it was that program that decided to lodge it in our department (we note this because our past efforts to add a Latin Americanist - a slightly different position - fell on deaf ears). The Department continues with a Full-Time, Non-Tenure Track visiting position to "replace" the loss of Dr. Mike Launius (in the area of Comparative: Asia and International Relations) who became the Director of the Office of International Studies and Programs. That position has been held by Dr. Cameron Otopalik since 2005. We obviously would like that position converted to tenure-track to provide stability, but recognize the University's reluctance to do so given Dr. Launius's tenure within our department.
The Department also uses a non-tenure track lecturer on the West side campuses for teaching our "law" sequence, and occasional 'random' lecturers to offer specific courses as electives at the branch campuses and occasionally Ellensburg. For example, Emeritus Prof. Jacobs continues to offer a course roughly once per term to supplement the loss of offerings due to faculty involvement in service activities. As mentioned elsewhere in our program review, we believe we could best deliver a political science program with the addition of another tenure-track member in US and/or European politics. This is primarily because we did not fully replicate the expertise of Dr. Brown with our new hire (Dr. Flanagan), and because years ago Prof. Wirth was hired to replace two positions. Jan. 08The Department does not conduct faculty development activities per se, though it does attempt to make resources available for faculty to do so, though are extremely limited by the department budget. Residual revenues from summer session classes - after a large University and College "tax" -are used to supplement the amounts the University and College provides. The University now (as of 2006-07) $700 to all tenured/track faculty for development activities, and the Dean of the College of the Sciences provides $300 additional. These funds can be used for professional travel for teaching or research conferences, research, and the like, but are rather meager though somewhat of an improvement from the past. Matching funds can be found from other sources depending on the use the faculty member wants to put the money to. The Department on average has been able to fund another $300 on its own. The Department tries to support faculty in sabbatical or research leaves as best it can, given replacement difficulties. There are also faculty "development days" once each quarter before finals meet, though they are taken up by University or College activities which may or may not contribute to faculty development, depending on topic. The Department is given one day (before Spring finals), but this is usually utilized for end-of-the-year meetings or business. The Department does try to encourage faculty, following performance reviews, to improve their performance in the relevant category(ies), but beyond the funding, and informal advice, etc. There has been talk of a University "Teacher/Scholar Center," but nothing has come of it, and as cynical political scientists, we fear it will be another case of hiring an administrator at an exorbitant salary to make a symbolic gesture that the administration is doing something, wasting valuable resources in the process. Jan. 08
The Department Performance Standards and Policy Manual is on file with the Department and the Dean, College of the Sciences (COTS). It should be able to be accessed electronically via the COTS Policy Manual at www.cwu.edu/~cots/reports_and_communications/cotspolicymanual2007.pdf or see www.cwu.edu/~cots for the appropriate link. Here is a brief description of the process: --First, philosophically the Dept. believes its primary mission is teaching, though it recognizes the necessity of both scholarship and service in the life of the academy and this discipline in particular. Thus, while teaching is weighted most heavily, it does not compensate for deficiencies in the other areas, nor does the reverse hold true. We also recognize that there is no "one size fits all" equation, or quasi-scientific, pseudo-objective, or bureaucratic way of judging any of this. Each case is different and subjective. --Following the CBA, the Dept. Personnel Committee - consisting of the 3 tenured, full professors besides the chair - and the Chair (independently) act to evaluate candidates' dossiers based on Dept. standards RE: teaching, scholarship, service, and collegiality. (Standards are listed in the Dept. documents referred to above). --The Dept. Personnel Committee and Chair each write a separate letter evaluating candidates for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review based on their application of dept. criteria to, and evaluation of, the candidate's record. Jan. 08
-By way of introduction, the Department continues to stress, and pride itself on, its role in undergraduate teaching, and believes this is the primary mission at an institution such as CWU. However, faculty also are committed to scholarly and service activities, and while believing these are not mutually exclusive, does recognize that there is an inherent tradeoff between all three. One cannot expect faculty to do more in all of these areas and expect that all of it will be done better. -Absent any flexibility (or changes to the status quo) in Department program delivery or workload, we expect that our jobs will remain essentially the same. Teaching will continue to take the bulk of our time, and juggling it with research and service responsibilities will continue to be a tough balancing act. -If the Administration wants improvement, or at least increased faculty activity, in the areas of research and service, they need to make resources (again, financial and/or temporal) available to adequately do so. When push comes to shove, we believe service activities will be the ones sacrificed, which is particularly ironic given our field of study - but that is the logical conclusion of the current professional environment at this University (i.e., because it is the one that is least-valued). Jan. 08
-As of 2004-05, the Department has begun implementing a peer evaluation of instruction procedure of tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty. One course per year is sampled (all course syllabi and SEOIs are examined already as part of performance review) by a faculty member (peer reviewer), consisting of the chair or a tenured member. This reviewer then has a discussion with the instructor about the course and how they approach it; reviews the syllabus, makes a classroom visit complete with a report via a standard form; and then composes a formal letter of evaluation which is placed in the reviewee's Dept. personnel file. -The Department does relatively well on the Student Evaluation of Instruction survey measure. Overall, for all courses/quarters under the period, the Department had a score of 4.33; the College, 4.29; and the University, 4.32, out of 5. On a quarter-by-quarter basis, the Department received ratings above the College and University means 9 out of the 15 terms. Jan. 08
Our faculty is well-qualified and prepared in terms of the teaching and research areas within our program, though improved support through reassigned time or flexible workloads for scholarship, professional and technological development opportunities, etc., would be beneficial. Before 2007-08, as mentioned in our 5-year program review, the department was strapped by having a number of members with reduced teaching loads due to administrative (chair, director, etc.) reassignments as well as missing certain subfield specialties, especially Latin American politics. With the hiring of a new tenure-track Assistant Professor in Latino and Latin American studies (granted, only 2/3 time in the department), we are in better shape than before. Thus, overall the Department appears relatively strong. Jan. 08
Data provided by Instructional Research and other appropriate offices.
-Since we are a social science, and short of interviewing political actors or engaging in politics ourselves, by necessity we rely upon gathering and analyzing data and information, so library resources are crucial to our educational and research objectives. All of our upper-division courses require some kind of research project component, and library materials are generally the primary means by which all students interact with the field. Given the increased emphasis on research and scholarship by the University, in similar fashion faculty also need strong library resources. -The library resources for the department have, over the past five years, generally been less than adequate, in the estimation of most faculty, but the situation has been improving the last few years. -For example, according to data provided by library collections, at the beginning of the review period, the library budget for purchases of books and monographs for the department was restored (following a cut) to where it had been two years earlier (1998-99), at $3234, but this was over $500 less than its level in 1996-97. When inflation is taken into account, this amounts to be a net cut over time. It has increased, however, to $4629 for 2005-06, which is notable – but this remains LESS than the level of inflation during the period under review. (Assuming 3% inflation, probably somewhat low, the actual budget should be $5016 to equal what we had in 1996-97.) The journal holdings for the department have also stagnated; after years of cutting, the library held only 26 titles in the field in 2001; this has leveled off after a decline to 21 (the budget, however, has increased from $4500 to $8000, perhaps part of the problem?). Jan. 08
Given the increased emphasis by the administration on faculty (and even student) research, then, we believe that our library resources are less than ideal. They remain adequate in some respects and deficient in others (especially in terms of foreign and international politics), though overall there has been some improvement over five years ago. On the other hand, there have been some positive developments. The library has expanded its electronic database resources to include such services as Lexis-Nexis, JSTOR, and the like. We now have access to SUMMIT, an electronic interlibrary loan system pooling the holdings of libraries in the Northwest region, which helps considerably in gaining access to research materials. However, this does not replace or reduce the ability to find research materials in our home library, and may even lead to important delays in the case of source competition between people at various institutions; but at the same time, we welcome the expanded research base. Jan. 08
-Use of technology varies by instructor and is also affected by classroom facilities. Over the five-year period, the Psychology Building (our home building) went from having no smart classrooms to where now a number of them (roughly half) do. However, this is also limited by size, as there are few large classrooms in the building and most yet not all have technology capabilities, thus limiting their use. We are often forced to go outside our building to Black Hall and the like, or instead be placed in Farrell, Michaelsen, or L&L (with or without technology). -At the beginning of the review period, very few of our instructors used any form of technology beyond a VCR, nor was it available. With the adaptation of classrooms, and the addition of some new faculty, that is changing. The most common form of technology continues to be Video players, but others include: -Blackboard course management software (2 use) -Internet/WWW (most faculty use in and out of classroom for teaching) -Information databases (Lexis-Nexis; JSTOR; etc.[4 faculty]) -text supplementary programs(?) -Power point and other presentation software -SPSS statistics software (limited usage) Jan. 08
The Chair serves as library collections and acquisitions liaison; periodically, the library sends out review cards of new titles, and the Chair circulates these around the department. Each faculty member ranks certain selections from one to three - from essential to “please buy if funds available,” (or not at all, meaning do not buy) and the cards are sent back to the library. Presumably, this ranking is used to determine which selections will be purchased for the library from the department’s allocated budget. The Chair also occasionally discusses library journal holdings and the like with relevant librarians. Jan. 08
The department keeps an informal, ad hoc collection of old textbooks, course materials, journals, and other scholarly materials in our faculty/student lounge. These basically are “donated” by faculty (and possibly, students) who don’t or no longer want them. Any one is allowed to peruse or take these materials as they wish, provided (on an honor system) they return them unless they are specified as keepers. Partly, these items are meant as reference materials for students in their own personal research, and for resources for students preparing for the Senior Assessment exit exam. As of 2006-07, the department also decided to subscribe to four relevant periodicals on current public affairs: National Review (a leading conservative magazine), American Prospect (a leading liberal magazine), Foreign Affairs (a leading publication on international relations), and the Economist (a highbrow news magazine from England). The department is considering cataloguing a “video library” of private, faculty-owned video resources for better collective use as resources for classroom instruction. Jan. 08
Perhaps ironically, given our field of study, the Department of Political Science has a rather informal and simple governance structure. There are essentially two formal institutions, the Department Chair and the Personnel Committee. The Department Chair is chiefly involved in conducting the day-to-day administrative and decision-making functions of the Department and other roles such as signatory authority, supervision of support staff, and liaison with the Dean of the College of the Sciences and higher administration, etc. The Chair also has an independent evaluation and oversight role on personnel matters. During four of the five years under review, Dr. Jim Brown was Chair of the Department. A full professor who had previously served in the position in the 1980s, he brought experience and stability to the position. Upon his rather sudden retirement at the end of 2004-05, Associate Professor Todd Schaefer was elected by the Department and formally appointed by the Dean, and in 2005-06 was in his first year in that or any such capacity. He continues his term in 2006-07. The Personnel Committee works in conjunction with the Chair to deliberate and formally recommend upon matters of reappointment, tenure, promotion, merit and the like. The Chair of the Personnel Committee, a tenured faculty member, organizes and directs its operations, meetings, and business. For 2001-04, Todd Schaefer was the Chair; and for 05-06 (and continuing) Prof. Bang-Soon Yoon has held that post. Voting is limited by the CBA contract (previously, from 2001-05, the Faculty Code) to tenured members for tenure, and appropriately "ranked" members for each rank (absent the candidate, of course), though tenure-track assistant professors participate in the deliberations except for their own reappointment. [Note: this changed under the new amended bargaining agreement for 2008-.] On other matters, the Department generally operates on a Committee of the Whole approach, owing to its small size. All full-time faculty are allowed to attend, participate in, and vote at faculty meetings, except where personnel and other related matters are concerned; adjunct faculty are allowed to attend and participate only. Department meetings, held periodically (at least once per term) when important matters are at hand or enough issues arise to warrant them, are the informal consulting and decision-making mechanism for greater-than-mundane issues that affect the department collectively or multiple members of its faculty. The Department also creates ad-hoc committees such as faculty searches, as well, which may or may not equal the whole, though we attempt to maximize participation where feasible. Department policies and procedures follow that in the Department Personnel manual and those of the College and University policies. The Department is supported by a Secretary Senior (on a part-year contact) and a work-study student assistant who are vital to its operations. In Summer of 2006, we undertook a search to replace Ms. Linda Rubio, our Secretary and guiding star for the past five years; happily, Ms. Cyndie Strawder took the job and began in September 2006. We note this only because, like with our faculty, our staff is in transition or relatively new as well. Jan. 08
The Department has a taken an active role in governance of the University, as befits our field, though the effectiveness of that involvement might be open to question. At different points in time over the past 6 years, 2 of our members of the Faculty Senate took active roles on key committees, including the Executive Committee; Prof. Manweller currently (07-08) serves as Senate Vice-Chair, and will take over as Chair next year. Of course, part of this has changed with the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and it is unclear how the Faculty Senate and CBA interact or have separate jurisdictions, as this is still being worked out. The Department Chair is involved indirectly in planning and policy development matters through interaction with the Dean and other College chairs, and participates in the Academic Department Chairs Organization (ADCO). These are mainly advisory roles, however. It is the opinion of this Department that the faculty are not fully consulted on budgeting matters, and are largely kept in the dark. Jan. 08
As Political Scientists, we naturally have a different take on "adequacy" in the area of governance. We believe governance implies an effective role in decision-making and some real power; in this respect, faculty do have some degree of input, but not much formal power outside of some academic matters. A look at the organization chart confirms as much. The fact is, the Faculty Senate is mostly a recommending body, as the Board of Trustees itself has recognized and the Administration knows. It does have some degree of influence over academic matters, though Since unionization in 2006, the faculty has gained some degree of influence through able to negotiate its working conditions and the like, though without the power to strike. Nevertheless, we would argue this is somewhat of an improvement. All of these mechanisms suffer from what political analyst Robert Michels called the "Iron Law of Oligarchy": that even in pseudo-democratic organizations (like political parties), the development of bureaucracy for "efficiency" reasons, along with the fact that certain "doers" tend to run organizations as opposed to the more apathetic (or busy with more important things) grassroots, leads to a small elite making decisions for the larger whole. Jan. '08
To pursue future objectives, we believe we would require: 1. Funding for, and the hiring of, two new tenure-track lines. While the exact makeup of the positions would be determined, we clearly have needs in the areas of Comparative politics (especially Latin America and Russia); International politics; and some aspects of American Politics (State/Local, Native American, etc.) We also anticipate requiring a replacement tenure-track position in the short-term future for a retirement. 2. Reassigned time, and flexibility in workloads, etc., from the administration, for faculty to pursue varied, innovative, and evolving goals. Currently, despite new provisions for individual workload planning under the CBA, we are constrained by traditional expectations of workload and departmental goals in terms of program delivery. 3. Real (or at least, additional) support (both temporal and financial) for Faculty Development. 4. More Office Space, facilities, and accessories, along with regular computer and technology upgrades. 5. Full-time Support Staff/Secretarial position. 6. Increased Library Monograph, Periodicals, and Electronic Resources Budget to increase holdings and better support faculty and student research without going to archives elsewhere (except for obscure or rare items). Faculty and students could better carry out their research work with better facilities and holdings. 7. Alteration and Creativity in Course Scheduling, Calendar, and Academic Scheduling by the University. Allow faculty to get away from every day, 50-min. modules, or at least don not penalize the Department for experimenting with scheduling and the like when enrollment does not follow. Jan. 08
The Dept. doesn't have any formal activities, though engages in ad hoc outreach to certain donors, etc., as identified by College and University development staff. Frankly, the dept. believes this is a responsibility that primarily rests elsewhere. Individual faculty members have attempted (with limited degrees of success) to procure outside funding for scholarly and educational activities on an ad hoc basis.
The classroom facilities with technology appear to be adequate, for the most part. Indeed, at the beginning of the review period, we had no (or very few) smart classrooms at all, and now there are a number of them in many medium-sized and large rooms. However, in the Psychology Building, our home building, there are still limitations given that there are only limited rooms of certain size (especially large ones) with such capabilities; and therefore, being the very kind of rooms which people might want to use said technology, competition for use of these rooms is often fierce. Faculty who put in specific requests for such technology thus end up being sent all across campus, which is sometimes difficult due to scheduling (getting from one class to another in time). However, on another note, we would argue our physical facilities in terms of office and storage space within the Psychology Building are limited. Our previous chair was successful in territorial aggrandizement as he put it, by gaining an extra office which we made into a faculty/student lounge and meeting room. But we were forced to convert one of our offices that was a student mini-computer lab to a faculty office when we added Cameron Otopalik, as a FTNTT. We also have no storage closets, and our outer office shares copier and other space with Law and Justice to some extent. If we add any faculty, or want to alter our administrative procedures, we need more office space.
Our office equipment is fine, though we would argue that as we do not use laboratory or other equipment, computers are instead the primary equipment for teaching and research in political science, and these need to be updated regularly. During the period under review, we were able to obtain some new upgraded computers for some faculty through a University trade in program. Essentially, the Department exchanged outdated computers/CPUs - or CPUs with outdated operating systems (which were a potential information security risk) - for new ones at half the cost (i.e., the ITS department covered half of it), not counting monitors. While this program has been extended, and put into the base, it is unclear how often (or old) computers will be eligible. We would like to go on the record saying that regular computer upgrades are essential for faculty in political science. Second, we would again note that we share our photocopier with the Law and Justice Department, and are unable to fully fund it ourselves. If they leave the building (which is part of the University Master Plan), our ability to have such a machine is in doubt. Again, this is a vital piece of equipment, and sharing with Psychology (given their large size) is not practical. Other than this, the Department has the equipment with which to do its job.
The technology – namely smart classrooms with computers, Internet and intranet access, video projectors, and the like – are generally fine. However, they often vary as to their newness or uniformity in operation. As one faculty member put it, The process to use the technology varies across rooms on campus and in the building. In some rooms, one jumps through hoop A, B, and C and then in another room, the process is different. It deters people from using the technology we’ve paid for. Another noted that all computers should have zip, CD, and disk drives. Again, there is limited availability for these classrooms, depending upon class size. -One of the biggest limits to the use of technology is in fact training and skill in using it; several of newer faculty are already familiar, and some of the longer-serving have used it as well, but finding time and ability to take courses or seminars to learn how to use new technologies (and thus assessing whether they are applicable) is difficult. This is one area where the University needs to invest more time, effort and resources into faculty development, and likewise give faculty reassigned time to pursue these activities.
Faculty are not involved much in space planning; at least, there has been little consultation with the Department about space matters (except when we need more, as we do). Jan. 08
While the department does not have a written policy on ethics and standards of integrity, we obviously adhere to all applicable University policies and state and federal rules and regulations. As far as disciplinary and professional standards, the American Political Science Association does have a Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science, which endorses, and is based upon the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics, as well as including some discipline-specific Codes of Conduct. This Guide covers areas of academic freedom and integrity, working with students, etc. - - standards and procedures that this department fully supports. For more details, see http://www.apsanet.org/section_513.cfm Jan. 08
The Chair communicates all relevant University policies and other information to the faculty, updating them on any changes over time. If the American Political Science Association revises its ethics code, referenced above, it is likely the Department would endorse these changes. Jan. 08