Academic Unit Reviews
Introduction
Academic unit reviews (AURs) provide the opportunity for innovation and improvement of academic programming. Through a consultative review process, including self-study, the AUR potentially identifies strengths, challenges, and opportunities which serve to stimulate program development and revision. The reviews result in more focused planning to address teaching and student supervision, research opportunities, and unit infrastructure and administration.
Academic unit reviews may be at the departmental level, at the faculty level for non-departmentalized faculties, or across departments and faculties for programs that are interdisciplinary in character. As academic units, the Centre for Continuing Education, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, La Cité and the Library will also undergo academic unit reviews.
AURs will focus on the following areas:
- Priorities and aspirations of each unit and the extent to which they are being realized
- Challenges and opportunities faced by the unit
- Structure and quality of undergraduate and graduate programs, including instruction
- Contribution of each program to related disciplines and fields of study
- Scope and significance of research being pursued
- The degree to which academic programs meet students’ learning needs and goals
- Characteristics of staffing complements
- The extent to which the unit is meeting its internal and external service responsibilities
- The unit's contribution to community-based programming, if relevant
- The role the unit plays in meeting the University’s Strategic Plan, including vision, mission, goals and priorities; and
- Financial sustainability of the unit
Policy
Regular academic unit reviews are required of all academic units to ensure that effectiveness and efficiency are maintained in the context of the University's strategic plan.
Review Coordination
The coordination of all unit reviews is the responsibility of the Provost's Office working in partnership with the Council Committee on Academic Mission (CCAM), the Dean or equivalent of the faculty/academic unit, and the unit under review. The Associate Vice-President Academic is the administrative lead for academic unit reviews on behalf of the Provost's Office. The recommendations of CCAM, based on the review process, are advisory. Specifically, the Provost's Office and CCAM will:
- In consultation with the University of Regina Deans’ Council, develop a schedule for reviews
- Receive, review and comment on the self-study report
- Appoint the review team
- Develop and approve terms of reference for the review team
- Receive and transmit the report of the review team as appropriate
- Meet with the Dean or equivalent and unit head to discuss the report and the unit’s response
- Receive and consider the unit’s implementation plan
- Report regularly to Executive of Council on the status of reviews; and
- Identify issues of university-wide concern and make recommendations about them to appropriate bodies or individuals
Consequences for Noncompliance
All academic units must participate in the cycle of Academic Unit Reviews as scheduled by the Provost’s Office and CCAM. Any postponement to the scheduled review of an academic unit requires approval of the Provost Office and CCAM. If an academic unit repeatedly fails to participate in the scheduled Academic Unit Review, the head of the unit will meet with the Provost’s Office and CCAM to identify the reason(s) for the delay and to engage in a definitive timeline for review.
Academic units that do not engage in the Academic Unit Review cycle potentially undermine the University’s continued pursuit of improvement in programming and do not benefit from the review itself. In the absence of an academic unit review in alignment with the review cycle, academic position approvals may be impacted.
Processes
Review Process
Types of Academic Unit Review
Reviews normally take place in the framework of a 7-year cycle. Where applicable and whenever possible, unit reviews should be scheduled to coincide with (re-)accreditation.
There are two types of academic unit review: external review and internal review.
External review: External review is the default form of review at the University of Regina.
External review requires a team of two reviewers who are academic experts from other universities and one academic reviewer who is external to the unit under review but internal to the university including the federated colleges. The unit prepares a self-study report, which is provided to the academic unit review team in advance of the team’s site visit. The review team engages in an on-site visit and submits a report, including recommendations for the unit, to the Provost’s Office. The report is then shared concurrently with CCAM, Dean/equivalent and the department head (if applicable). The unit submits its written response to the review team’s report to CCAM and the unit head and Dean/equivalent attend a CCAM meeting and speak to the unit’s response. CCAM responds to the unit’s response and may make recommendations.
Internal review:
Internal review meets the requirements of an effective academic unit review in the case of those units approved for an internal review based on the criteria outlined later in this document. While it will be a rigorous process, internal review will involve lighter workload for individual academic units as well as other units of the university assisting in the review process. Completion of an internal review will also need shorter time compared to an external review.
At the 5th year mark from the start date of the unit’s last external academic unit review, the unit decides whether the unit will request an internal review in lieu of external review for their next academic unit review, which will be scheduled for the 7th academic year from the start date of the last academic unit review. If the unit is a department in a departmentalized faculty, the unit consults with the Dean. If the unit requests an internal review and the Dean supports this request, the Dean makes a recommendation to CCAM. In the case of non-departmentalized faculties/academic units, the Dean/equivalent of the faculty/academic unit consults with the Provost regarding the forthcoming review of the faculty/academic unit. If the Dean requests an internal review and the Provost supports this request, the Provost makes a recommendation to CCAM.
CCAM considers the Dean’s or the Provost’s recommendation of an internal review for the unit, as the case may be, and provides a written rationale to the Dean or Provost and the unit.
The decisions of the unit, Dean, Provost, and CCAM to request or accept an internal review in lieu of an external review must be informed by the unit’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, examination of the results of the last external review, and considerations outlined below.
Internal review is conducted by a team of two academic reviewers who are external to the unit under review but internal to the university. The unit prepares a report incorporating a SWOT analysis and a review of the results of the unit’s last external academic unit review, the responses to that review, and any outstanding follow-up actions arising from the last academic unit review. The SWOT analysis in the report is normally an updated version of the SWOT analysis the unit prepared earlier to decide whether the unit would like an internal review as opposed to an external review at the 5th year mark from their last external review.
The review team examines the unit’s report and makes recommendations. The review team may also recommend a regular external review earlier than the regular schedule depending on the results of their review of the unit’s report. The review team’s recommendations are submitted to CCAM. CCAM responds to the unit and may make recommendations.
For further clarity, all academic units must undergo an external review and an internal review or two external reviews in a period of 14 years. When an academic unit undergoes an internal review, it must have an external review in the 7th academic year from the start date of the last internal review. If the unit’s last review were an external review, in the 5th academic year following the start of the last external review, the unit may request an internal review following the process outlined above. Thus, the 7-year academic unit review cycle continues.
Considerations for deciding whether internal review should replace external review
• To what extent have the agreed-upon recommendations from the last external academic unit review been implemented?
• Have the implemented recommendations produced positive results (while taking into consideration the possibility that some recommendations could take much longer to show results)?
• Have there been some developments in the unit causing significant concerns to the unit and/or the university since the last external review?
• Have there been major transformations in the relevant academic discipline(s), provincially, nationally and/or internationally, that indicate a need to consider a substantial revision of the unit’s academic program(s)?
Accreditation in lieu of external review
Should a Faculty or academic unit undergoing external (re-)accreditation wish to use the (re-)accreditation process to replace part or all of an Academic Unit Review, the faculty or academic unit is invited to consult with the Provost's Office and CCAM about the possibility of doing so. The faculty/academic unit will provide information on the accreditation requirements and process as required by CCAM to make a decision on the substitution of an external academic unit review by the accreditation.
CCAMs approval is required for the substitution of a unit's academic unit review in part or whole by its accreditation. The accreditation policy and process must be comparable to the university's academic unit review to be accepted in lieu of an academic unit review.
In the case where such a substitution is agreed to, the unit head and the relevant Dean will regularly update the Provost's Office and will meet with CCAM to provide updates on the progress on the accreditation recommendations in alignment with the timelines outlined in the table below.
Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary Programs
The University has interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary certificate or diploma programs delivered by one or multiple partner faculties. In the case of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary certificate or diploma programs that are offered at a departmentalized faculty but do not have a home department that is subject to the Academic Unit Review process as outlined in this Policy, the Faculty Dean shall establish an internal process for reviewing such programs. This review will normally take place as per the academic unit review framework of a 7-year cycle and will be conducted by a team of two or three reviewers appointed by the Dean. The reviewers need not be external to the University but must be from outside the academic program to be reviewed. The Dean is responsible for submitting the review report to CCAM.
Interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary degree programs that have more than one home department or faculty may also need to be reviewed as a unit on their own in accordance with the review process described above, not only as part of each individual home department’s or faculty’s academic unit review. The Provost’s Office and CCAM will consult with the relevant faculty/academic unit dean(s)/equivalents before scheduling such programs for an academic unit review.
Federated Colleges
The federated colleges are academically integrated with the University of Regina while they are legally and financially independent. Therefore, when a University of Regina faculty or academic unit that houses a federated college academic program leading to a certificate, diploma, or degree conferred by the University of Regina undergoes academic unit review, it is important that the academic unit review also consider how the university faculty’s or academic unit’s academic programming relates to the federated college-offered academic program(s). This is to ensure that the academic unit review is based on all pertinent information and that the academic unit review team develops a good understanding of the relationship between the university and the federated colleges with respect to the university unit being reviewed.
In such cases where the academic unit review of a University of Regina faculty or academic unit includes one or more academic programs offered at a federated college in the manner described above, the Provost’s Office and the relevant university unit will work collaboratively with the federated college delivering the academic program(s) to facilitate the academic unit review of the relevant University of Regina unit or program.
Time Frame
The main steps in the external and internal review processes and the respective responsibilities of the Provost’s Office and the unit under review are identified in this chart. In the case of reviews of the Library and large non-departmentalized faculties, alternate time frames may be considered.
For more information, please click here
Unit Self-Study
All members of the unit should have a voice in the preparation of the self-study. The self-study addresses aspects such as the unit's history, current state, budget and resources, future prospects and opportunities of the unit, and any pending changes to the unit's academic program(s). Strengths and limitations of the program(s) under review require critical examination. Although the specific procedures for the self-study are for the members of the unit to determine, as many as unit members as possible should participate in examining the unit's strengths, challenges, and opportunities. For program areas that have federated college faculty members, it is essential that they participate in the development of the self-study.
If the academic unit offers one or more graduate programs (including special-case graduate programs), the unit head must invite the Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research (FGSR), to provide input for the unit self-study with regard to the unit's graduate programs.
The most successful reviews are assisted by reports that are clearly written, and complete but concise. The quality of the self-study report is enhanced if a small steering group is responsible for its preparation and drafts are circulated to all members for comment. In general, the focus for the self-study should be a frank and balanced consideration of both strengths and areas for improvement, and strategies for future change. It is also essential that the self-study take into consideration the university's strategic plan, as well as institutional issues and the vision, mission, goals and priorities of the University. The result of the self-study is a report that serves as a primary document for the external unit review team. When requested by the unit, CCAM will provide advice on the development of the self-study.
CCAM has developed a template for the unit self study and requests that units use this template. The template is composed of the following categories:
- Background – a brief description of the unit, including history and structure
- Staffing, resources, and space
- Research and creative output – published scholarly output and/or professional creative activity over the last seven to ten years, with an emphasis on the impact of that scholarship/activity
- Community service initiatives – community service initiatives carried out by the unit or its members
- Academic programs, including service teaching, enrolment trends, and student successes
- Unit budget
- SWOT analysis – unit strengths, weakness, opportunities, threats
The report should also include a profile of the academic staff in an appendix to the main body of the self-study report. It is highly recommended that the members adopt a uniform and brief format that summarizes the important information from each member’s curriculum vitae. CCAM has also prepared a template for academic curricula vitae.
Self-studies will be augmented by data from the Office of Institutional Research (enrolments, course offerings, teaching credit hours, and convocation) at the AVP (Academic)'s request, as well as data from the Dean's Office (such as grants and contracts, budget, staff and faculty numbers). Links will be provided to additional material such as university planning documents, budgets, and academic calendars. The goal is to provide reviewers with sufficient information to have a broad understanding both of the unit and the context in which it operates. In the case of the Library, alternate data and information will be necessary. The academic unit reviews of La Cite and Centre for Continuing Education may also require additional data given their unique roles at the University.
Selection of the Review Team: External and Internal
The composition of the review team is vital to the review's success. Team members must have credibility both inside and outside the unit under review. When nominating and appointing review team members, it is important to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest (see GOV-022-010 Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment).
Typically, the external review team will consist of three members. Two of these, including the chair, will be well-respected, impartial experts in the particular discipline or area of studies, chosen from other universities. The third member will be chosen from a closely related discipline or area at the University of Regina with its federated colleges. The review team will designate one of the external members as chair. When appropriate, any of the members may be replaced by a representative of a relevant professional body or a representative of a relevant professional body may be added to the review team. The unit is requested to submit six external and two internal review team members to the AVP Academic. A brief statement of rationale for the external nominees must accompany the submission. The AVP Academic will appoint the review team members from the unit's list of nominees in consultation with the Provost.
The internal review team will normally be composed of two academic colleagues who are external to the unit being reviewed, but internal to the university with its three federated colleges. These members will have expertise in a related area of studies at the university. The unit may nominate four potential reviewers to the AVP Academic, who will then appoint two from the unit’s list of nominees in consultation with the Provost.
Responsibilities of the Review Team
The expectation of the review team is that they will provide an assessment about the strengths, challenges, and opportunities for improvement or growth with respect to the unit’s teaching, research, scholarship, creative works (when relevant), and service programs. This will include an assessment of the numbers and diversity of academic and non-academic staff and their responsibilities, the resources provided, the effectiveness of the unit’s organization, the quality of the working environment, the relations of the unit to others, the quality of educational opportunities provided to both graduate and undergraduate students, and the effectiveness of the evaluation methods used to gauge student and program success. The review team is expected to offer recommendations for improvement and innovation regarding the unit under review.
As members of a research institution, our faculty and students are expected to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their particular field of study. It is essential that the review team provide an assessment of the quality of the research, scholarly activities, and creative works (when relevant) of the unit, and the effectiveness of the relationships between teaching and research, particularly at the graduate level.
In addition, the Provost's Office, working with CCAM, the Dean of the faculty and the unit under review may identify specific strengths and challenges to be addressed by the review team.
External Review Team's Site Visit
The external review team will meet at the University for an appropriate period of time, normally two days, and prepare a comprehensive report on the unit reviewed. In preparing the report, the team will consult widely with academic and administrative staff, students, administrators and alumni involved with the programs and activities of the unit under review. Departmental faculty from the federated colleges will be invited to participate in the site visit.
Typically, the review team’s time will provide opportunities for consultation within the academic unit (faculty, staff and students); members of the university administration; and other individuals inside and outside of the university who influence or who are influenced by the activities of the unit and graduates of the program. Efforts must be made to ensure student participation. The on-site consultations commence with a meet and greet meeting hosted by the Provost's Office and end with an exit interview with the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), the Vice-President (Research), and the Associate Vice-President (Academic). A separate exit interview may also be scheduled with the Dean of the faculty/academic unit.
The visit of the review team is to be advertised widely to the university community with an invitation for those who have an interest in the program(s) to contribute a written brief to the team, which is to be submitted to the AVP Academic, prior to an advertised date. Such briefs are for use by the review team and will be held in confidence by the AVP Academic and the review team.
The schedule of interviews during the visit will be developed by the unit under review in consultation with the AVP Academic.
In extenuating circumstances, a virtual site visit will be considered in lieu of or in combination with an in-person site visit.
Report
While the team prepares the report, the Provost's Office will be available to provide any additional information requested. The findings and recommendations of the review team should be presented in the form of a concise written report (with an executive summary) which will be received by the Provost's Office on behalf of CCAM. Provided that matters of individual sensitivity or confidentiality are handled with appropriate discretion, the report (in its entirety) will be made publicly available on the Academic Unit Review webpage, as will the unit's response to the report.
Response and Implementation
On receipt of the report, the members of the unit will meet in committee for discussion. The unit will prepare a response to the review report. The response will address the issues raised and clearly outline priorities and future directions and initiatives for the unit over the next three to five years. As such it should be prepared in close partnership with the Dean/equivalent. The unit's response will be submitted to the Provost's Office and CCAM, CCAM will offer comments on the unit's response. The response and any comments from CCAM will inform the unit’s long-term planning. The Provost may also provide a separate written response to the unit.
Follow-up and Final Reports
At the 18-month mark following the receipt of the review report, the unit will submit a written follow-up report to the Provost’s Office and CCAM using the CCAM template. The report outlines the progress made and challenges experienced in implementing the review recommendations and describes initiatives and plans for the next two-three years until the unit’s 5-year final report. The Provost’s Office and/or CCAM may request more information and want to meet with the unit head and the Dean.
At the five-year end following the unit review report, the unit will prepare a final report summarizing the results of the review and lessons learned. The report will be submitted to the Provost’s Office and CCAM.
The reports and any responses from CCAM will be made available on the Academic Unit Review webpage.
