College of Graduate Studies and Research
MEMORANDUM
To:
Cathie Fornssler, Secretary
Academic Programs Committee of University Council
From:
Trever Crowe, Acting Associate Dean
College of Graduate Studies and Research
Maureen Reed, Acting Director
School of Environment and Sustainability
Jim Basinger, Executive Sponsor
School of Environment and Sustainability
Date:
March 05, 2008
Re:
Graduate Programs in School of Environment and Sustainability
Consistent with the agreement between the College of Graduate Studies and Research (CGSR) and the Academic
Programs Committee (APC) of Council, attached is a report that describes the comprehensive and thorough review
of the proposed graduate programs in the School of the Environment and Sustainability. Specifically, this includes a
Master of Sustainable Environment Management, Master of Environment and Sustainability and Ph.D. Following
the extensive and thorough review, the CGSR is satisfied that the programs meet the expectations for MSc, PhD,
and project-based Master’s programs. While these have yet to be confirmed, the faculty who have been identified to
hold joint appointments within the SENS are truly impressive. In addition to being accomplished and respected
scholars, many are current Graduate Chairs (or have been in the recent past). Further, there is a close association
between the backgrounds of these people and the topical areas of the graduate courses that will be taught. I hope
the APC will be able to “…focus its discussions on the program rationale and its relationship to the University’s and
college’s stated priorities…” (University of Saskatchewan Course and Program Approval Information Guide, 2007)
If questions arise during the review by APC, Drs. Reed, Basinger or I would be happy to respond.
Review of the Proposal for Development of
Master of Sustainable Environment Management (M.S.E.M.),
Master of Environment and Sustainability (M.E.S.) and
Ph.D.
A Report Submitted to the Academic Programs
Committee of University Council
By: T. Crowe, Acting Associate Dean
College of Graduate Studies and Research
March, 2008
Included herein are proposals for 3 graduate programs in the School of Environment and
Sustainability (SENS). This report is submitted to the Academic Programs Committee of
University Council, consistent with the agreement between the College of Graduate Studies and
Research (CGSR) and the Academic Programs Committee of Council (CGSR), regarding review
of graduate program proposals. These program proposals are also available from the College of
Graduate Studies and Research website (http://www.usask.ca/cgsr/proposals.php).
The CGSR strongly supports the concept of inter-disciplinary programs and views the “schools”
concept as a very positive step. The development, approval and implementation of graduate
programs that will be managed within the SENS are logical and essential steps in the university’s
plan to support inter-disciplinary programming in environment and sustainability.
Indeed, University Council approved the School of Environment and Sustainability on June 14,
2007 and signaled that the University of Saskatchewan will have graduate programs in the
School of Environment and Sustainability. It’s not a question of whether we should approve
graduate program(s) in this school. Rather, the questions is, “Should we approve those that have
been proposed?” The College of Graduate Studies and Research has reviewed and
enthusiastically supports these 3 programs. These programs meet the standards of the CGSR.
One could argue the content of the programs should be dictated by the faculty available to teach
them (select faculty before developing program). Conversely, one might argue that the content
of programs should dictate the backgrounds of the people that are recruited to deliver them
(develop the programs before selecting faculty). It is important to acknowledge that these
graduate programs, and others associated with the other inter-disciplinary schools, have been
developed and proposed prior to having in place the faculty who will be delivering the programs.
These programs proposed in the SENS (as in all the other inter-disciplinary schools) were
developed by an Acting Director, working with an advisory committee that included members
from the Toxicology Centre and Colleges of Arts and Science, Agriculture and Bioresources, and
Engineering.
Proposals for these 3 programs were received by CGSR and first considered by the Joint
Master’s and PhD Committee (Joint) November 22, 2007. A series of questions was developed
at this meeting, and these were shared with the Acting Director of the SENS. Drs. Reed (Acting
Director) and Basinger (Executive Sponsor) were invited to attend the next meeting of the Joint
Committee. The Joint Committee next met December 06, 2007, and they were joined by Dr.
Reed, Dr. Basinger and Dr. Liber. Dr. Reed responded to the Committee’s questions.
Subsequently, the Joint Committee recommended approval of all 3 graduate programs to the
Executive Committee and Grad Council of the CGSR.
The Executive Committee of CGSR first considered these 3 programs at a meeting December 18,
2007, at which Dr. Reed was invited to respond to questions. The primary concern at this
meeting was related to personnel (numbers of faculty and technical background) who will be
assigned to the SENS and the impact these assignments will have on other programs and
Departments. The Executive Committee voted to table the recommendation for approval,
pending a report from Associate V.P. Chad who volunteered to look into the matter of faculty
appointments within the SENS.
At the next meeting of the CGSR Executive (January 09, 2008), Dr. Chad provided a summary
of her review of the situation surrounding faculty appointments within the SENS. Following Dr.
Chad’s report, the Executive Committee discussed the proposals further then passed a motion to
recommend approval of the programs and included courses to the Graduate Council. The
Graduate Council met January 15, 2008 and, following discussion, passed a motion to
recommend approval of the graduate programs and included courses.
Issues noted during the review of the proposals
The Joint Committee reviewed the proposed curricula, the content of the proposed programs and
the associated courses and the relationships with other units. Following this review, the Joint
Committee felt that the proposals were very well assembled and summarized their primary
queries with 6 specific questions that were shared with Dr. Reed. These questions and a
summary of Dr. Reed’s responses follow. Excerpts from the minutes of the Joint Committee
meetings are included in Appendix A, and the written responses provided by Dr. Reed are
provided in Appendix B.
1) Are course-based students eligible for funding?
Students enrolled in the project-based Master’s degree would not be considered eligible for
scholarship funding, but these students could be eligible for stipends if the project work was
associated with a researcher’s funded research.
2) How does funding for this program impact other students across campus?
The project-based Master’s program would not affect other students. Scholarship funds in
addition to the current devolved scholarship envelope have been allocated for each of the
inter-disciplinary schools ($30 000 per year for 3 years). During this initial period, the
thesis-based programs would not have any effect on scholarship levels in other programs.
Assuming that these programs are eligible after 3 years, they would be required to compete
as any other unit on campus for devolved scholarship funds. It is uncertain at this time,
whether the additional $30 000 per year will be added to the university’s devolved
scholarships pool, following the initial 3 years.
3) Would summer internships be available or would industrial scholarships be possible?
Both are possible. In addition, the SENS will seek additional sources of funding for students
in the form of scholarships and endowments. These activities will be coordinated by a
development/advancement officer.
4) The requirements for the M.Sc. program seem less rigorous than comparable programs at
other Canadian institutions. Why?
The decision to require a minimum of 12 cu for the MSc program followed careful
deliberation. First, recognize that this credit-unit requirement is a minimum, and advisory
committees are welcome to prescribe additional course requirements. It was concluded that
12 cu of course work (as a minimum) was consistent with practice at the U of S, and it
supported the concept of students’ completing the degree requirements in 2 years. It was felt
that 12 cu of course work would be sufficient to set the grounding within the interdisciplinary field.
5) Course descriptions indicate that students will be assessed based on class participation. What
does this mean and how will this be assessed and monitored?
Professor Reed provides a complete and thorough response in Appendix B, and members of
the APC are encouraged to review this response, as necessary. Dr. Reed (in Appendix B)
demonstrates that there are numerous ways that class participation can be assessed,
including cases that involve students whose first language is not English.
6) Some course descriptions include seminars. Are these seminars given by invited experts or
by students enrolled in the courses?
Seminars may be given by invited experts or students, depending on the course and topic of
discussion.
7) The minutes from the meeting held November 22, 2007 also document a query, regarding the
indication of a final exam exemption in ENVS 801.
By way of clarification, the course proposal form (GSR 400.1) is correctly completed in this
case (ENVS 801) and for ENVS 804. The exam exemption box near the top of the first page
of the course proposal was selected in both cases, because the proposed final exam in these
courses will constitute less than 30% of the final grade.
8) The Joint Committee also asked about the level of consultation with other units on campus,
regarding the program proposals.
Dr. Reed stated that the proposal was sent to units in the College of Engineering and the
Departments of Biology, Geography, Soil Science and History, with generally positive
feedback. A compilation of the feedback received is available in Appendix C.
Excerpts from the minutes of the Executive Committee meetings have been provided in
Appendix D. A summary of the questions and issues raised during those meetings has been
included here.
9) Faculty positions are not being backfilled and the departments will get little or nothing in
return if a member is transferred to the SENS.
The structure of inter-disciplinary schools was approved by University Council and the
Deans have accepted the proposed principles for appointing faculty within the schools. Dr.
Reed explained that, to the greatest extent possible, programs within the SENS have been
designed to be integrated with other existing courses and to serve a supportive and
synergistic role. The issue of the effect of schools on the current departments/units persisted,
and this was at the heart of the discussion during the second meeting of the Executive
Committee. The arguments in support of the appointment process within the schools weren’t
appreciably different during the second meeting.
10) What will be the order of implementation of the 3 programs?
The intention is to initiate all 3 programs simultaneously (September 2008). The delivery of
some courses will be phased in such that some courses, specifically those that will be
included in the project-based Master’s degree, will be delivered for the first time in
September, 2009 or later.
11) The Executive Committee expressed concern, regarding the limited feedback received by the
SENS.
Dr. Reed explained that widespread consultation had taken place prior to assembly of the
program proposals. She also indicated that course proposals were sent to department heads
within areas related to the business of the SENS. Nine of these 12 departments responded
12) Removal of research-intense faculty members from a department will reduce the graduate
student count and possibly jeopardize the eligibility of these units for devolved scholarship
funding.
Dean Wishart explained that currently, students within inter-disciplinary programs are
credited to both Interdisciplinary Programs and the department in which the supervisor is
tenured, and he suggested that this was possible for students in the Schools.
13) The inability to double count research grants or indirect costs, as an indication of research
activity within a department was an unresolved issue. The Executive Committee accepted
that discussions outside the Exectuive Committee will be required to address issues of
indirect costs and resources.
14) Members of the Executive Committee expressed concern about the uncertainty of who will
be teaching the courses.
While the proponents were unable to address this issue specifically during either of the
meetings, it is discussed in an attached document, “Draft Proposal for Personnel Appointed
within the School of Environment and Sustainability”.
Excerpts from the minutes of the Graduate Council meeting have been provided in Appendix E.
A summary of the questions and issues raised during this meeting has been included here.
Members of Graduate Council queried the following issues:
15) Could the needs of students in the College of Engineering and SENS be met concomitantly?
Courses within SENS would be available to students in engineering, and the reverse is also
expected to be true. There may be more courses identified in the future, where these 2
groups could collaborate.
16) Will the M.E.S. be recognized?
The programs described here are variations of what are available at other universities. It’s
expected that these programs will be comparable to others in the country. Currently, there
are no graduate programs that are accredited in Canada. Meetings with other programs are
being held (one March 19) to discuss this possibility. The U of S will participate in those
discussions and attempt to ensure that should opportunities arise for accreditation that our
programs meet the required standards.
17) What is the background of students entering these programs?
Students would require a degree in a relevant background, and regulatory entrance
requirements set by CGSR must be met.
18) Again, the uncertainty of the members of SENS was raised. (See #14 above)
The proposed programs receive the highest level of support from the Dean’s Office in the
College of Graduate Studies and Research. The School of Environment and Sustainability is a
new entity on campus and it is fair to conclude that the role and “fit” of the SENS graduate
programs within the fabric of other graduate programs at the U of S are yet to be determined.
It’s expected, that the inter-disciplinary nature of SENS will allow and invite faculty members
from a wide variety of disciplines to participate in research and graduate-level training. The
SENS is intended to serve as a nucleus of research and graduate activity involving the
environment and sustainability. This should not be misinterpreted as the only research and
graduate activity involving the environment and sustainability. Graduate programs in the SENS
will depend on graduate-level courses that will continue to be taught outside of the SENS, and in
time, programs outside of the SENS will be able to take advantage of courses offered within
SENS.
The SENS and its programs will serve as a “lightning rod” of sorts, attracting high-caliber
students and faculty to the University of Saskatchewan. It’s essential to provide high-quality
programs and a supportive research environment. University Council approved the SENS, with
the expectation that development of graduate programs would follow. Developing and
implementing new programs within the three inter-disciplinary schools, including SENS, are of
the utmost priority for the CGSR.
Appendix C. Input received from departments, regarding the proposed programs and
courses.
______________________________________________________________________________
Correspondence from Reed to departments for course consultation
From: Maureen Reed
To: brett.fairbairn@usask.ca ; Fran Walley ; francois.messier@usask.ca ; Dirk de Boer ; Kevin Ansdell ;
bernard.schissel@usask.ca ; reg.wickett@usask.ca ; Karsten Liber ; clarke@edwards.usask.ca ;
bruce.coulman@usask.ca ; jill.hobbs@usask.ca ; trever.crowe@usask.ca ; gordon.hill@usask.ca ;
lee.barbour@usask.ca
Cc: Maureen Reed ; Sharla Daviduik ; Jim Basinger
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:06 PM
Subject: School of Envt & Sustainability Course Consultation
Dear Department Heads:
Please excuse the rather impersonal touch of a mass mailing. The School of Environment and Sustainability has
developed a proposal for three new graduate programs - a course-based Master's, a thesis-based Master's, and a
Ph.D. program. The advisory committee identified your department as one that may be interested in and having the
expertise to review one or more of the attached courses.
As these programs are just being introduced, I have attached a little background information to the programs, along
with the specific course forms. If we have identified your interests/expertise incorrectly, please accept my apologies.
We also want to ensure that faculty who may review these proposals realize that they are NOT set in stone. Indeed,
the requirements of the approval process ensure that we provide details such as readings and evaluation mechanisms.
However, as the teaching faculty have not yet been identified, these proposals reflect our best efforts. We fully
anticipate that they will be modified and improved by the faculty who will be assigned to teach them. We would be
grateful to receive comments about the general intentions/directions of the courses rather specific details.
We also anticipate that any courses in the school will be open to students in departments, should they be interested
in taking them. Therefore, any comments related to the utility of any course for your own programs would also be
welcome.
Would you please send this email to faculty in your department who you believe might be interested in reviewing
these course proposals? We require a reply by December 3, 2007 so we can consolidate the input and provide the
feedback to CGSR.
Thank you for your help. Don't hesitate to email me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Maureen Reed
Please find 2 attachments below
December 9, 2007
To: brett.fairbairn@usask.ca, fran.walley@usask.ca, francois.messier@usask.ca, dirk.deboer@usask.ca,
kevin.ansdell@usask.ca, bernard.schissel@usask.ca, reg.wickett@usask.ca, karsten.liber@usask.ca,
clarke@edwards.usask.ca, bruce.coulman@usask.ca, jill.hobbs@usask.ca, trever.crowe@usask.ca,
gordon.hill@usask.ca, lee.barbour@usask.ca, m.reed@usask.ca, sharla.daviduik@usask.ca,
jim.basinger@artsandscience.usask.ca
From: Maureen Reed
Dear Department Heads:
I realize that this has been a very busy time for everyone. The School presented its programs proposal to CGSR on
Dec 06. As per the note below, we had requested any comments so that we could discuss them with CGSR. The
College requested that it receive any comments regarding the program. I would be grateful if you would make your
comments to me directly and we will compile them and pass them along to CGSR. General comments about the
programs or specific comments about individual programs are useful. It needn't be long. I would appreciate
receiving your comments by Thursday December 13. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best wishes of the season.
Maureen Reed
(Below, I inserted the original note sent Nov 15).
______________________________________________________________________________
Comments received by Reed to SENS regarding courses
November 20, 2007
Dear Dr. Reed,
Thank you for sharing the new program information with us. I am a new faculty in the sociology department. My
research interests include white-collar crime and green criminology (actions and outcomes that harm the
environment, food crimes and toxic crimes by corporations, etc.). Just a quick comment on Human Dimensions of
Environmental Change (for M.SEM. and M.E.S.). I personally think it is a great course for graduate students. The
general intentions/directions of the course are pretty clear and straightforward.
I have a few thoughts that I would like to share. First, I am wondering if this course will instruct students in theories
and methods that combine the physical and social sciences on human dimensions of environmental change. Students
may have an interest in the available approaches to this kind of interdisciplinary work, institutional analysis and
design, and multidisciplinary research methods. Second, students in my area in my department may be more
interested in justice issues, such as environmental justice and ecological justice – examples include the impacts of
particular social practices and environmental hazards on specific populations, conservation of specific environments,
animal rights, the health of the biosphere, ecological citizenship, eco-human rights, etc. So if this course is open to
our department, I would suggest a section of justice issues could be included.
Again, this course proposal is excellent, using a multidisciplinary survey of the human dimensions of environmental
problems. It addresses ways that environment has molded human societies and ways that people have altered nature.
Best regards,
Hongming Cheng
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
University of Saskatchewan
#1111 - 9 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A5
November 22, 2007
Dear Maureen, I am glad to see the course proposal for ENVS 801.3 Ecosystem Science and Sustainability and
ENVS 802.3 Human Dimensions of Environmental Change. Graduate students in the ecology program at Plant
Sciences may find them benefitial. I would like to mention that some topics in these courses, such as introduction to
ecology and ecosystems, major ecosystem types, population, community, landscape, disturbances, biodiversity, and
climate change are covered in our courses, particularly PLSC 213.3 Principles of Plant Ecology.
–Yuguang (Bai) with a cc to Bruce Coulman (Head of Plant Sciences)
November 22, 2007
Dear Maureen,
Essentially, it is difficult to focus and give meaningful feedbacks on these programs/courses without having a
greater certainty about faculty appointments to the School. I fear that we are developing these programs in a
vacuum.
Departments must be involved in the building of the School, from the faculty complement to the academic
programming. The role of Departments cannot be one of consultation. Where is the Steering Committee?
Sincerely,
Francois Messier
December 8, 2007
Maureen:
I circulated your e-mail to faculty in our department and we discussed the course proposals at a recent departmental
meeting.
Most of the comments and concerns raised at our department meeting focused on the fact that course proposals were
being developed before the founding faculty were in place. There were concerns expressed that incoming faculty
might feel restricted by proposals that had been developed without their specific input. There were also some
concerns expressed regarding the depth of the courses. Generally it was felt that students may get sufficient breadth
but the depth might be compromised, particularly for students at the Ph.D. level. However, it also was noted that
ultimately graduate advisory committees would act as gate-keepers and could ensure that each student's program
was sufficiently rigorous to meet Ph.D. requirements. Finally, it also was noted that many of the proposed courses
might be suitable for students in our SLSC program with an interest in environmental issues and it is hoped that
students from outside SENS could take these courses.
Fran Walley
Prof. and Head
Department of Soil Science
From: Michael Pietrock, Ph.D.
Assistant Director and Research Scientist
Toxicology Centre
December 14, 2007
To: Maureen G. Reed, Ph.D.
Acting Director, School of Environment and Sustainability
and Department of Geography
Re: Departmental consultation for SENS courses
Dear Dr. Reed,
Some time ago we received the proposal and description of courses to be taught in the new School of Environment
and Sustainability. As requested, we would like to provide some feedback on general directions and intentions of the
courses. In addition, please find some comments on how these courses may be useful for students enrolled in the
Toxicology Graduate Program.
When evaluating the proposed courses and course descriptions one has to take into consideration the target
audiences and the degree the respective party might pursue. The Toxicology Graduate Program strongly supports the
current proposal which enables students to either strive for a Master of Sustainable Environmental Management
(M.SEM.), Master of Environment and Sustainability (M.E.S.), or Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. We
specifically see the merit of a non-thesis program which can be completed within one year of full-time study
(M.SEM.) and which is directed to, among others, prospective or current environmental practitioners. The
opportunity of receiving an (additional) university degree in a relatively short period of time will certainly be
attractive to a number of students from a wide range of disciplines and to professionals already working in the field.
In view of the degree requirements (M.SEM.: 24 cu of course work, 6 cu-project, seminar participation; M.E.S.: 9 cu
from the list of required courses and 3 cu from elsewhere on campus, seminar participation, thesis; Ph.D.: qualifying
and comprehensive exams, 6 cu of course work, seminar participation, dissertation) we support the current proposal.
The number of credits requested is adequate for the respective programs and in line with similar programs in other
departments on campus.
As it was pointed out in your accompanying letter, course contents are not finalized yet and prospective teaching
faculty will be in charge of delivery and final content. We generally agree that there should be some core courses
and a number of electives which can be offered on a rotational basis. This ensures that students receive a good
foundation and educational background in environmental and sustainability issues and it provides flexibility. We
nevertheless would like to make a few short comments and suggestions regarding general course contents:
ENVS 801.3 Ecosystem science and sustainability In its present form, ENVS 801.3 focuses on ecological themes
(such as principles and concepts in ecology, biodiversity and biological interactions). This is a good place to start as
there are concerns regarding conservation of species and habitats, and sustainability measures are directed toward
preservation of biodiversity and habitat functions. It is, therefore, essential that prospective students get a solid
grounding in this field.
ENVS 802.3 Human dimensions of environmental change The proposed ENVS 802.3 course presently deals with
various issues, like ecosystem management (e.g., water management, material flows, fire ecology), farmed and
industrially altered landscapes (grassland, boreal forests, arctic systems), and institution and governance.
Biodiversity and climate change are proposed themes as well. We are fully aware that these are initial suggestions
and that it is difficult or even impossible to make a statement without knowing the details of each lecture. We
assume that this course nevertheless focuses on the interactions between people and the natural world as outlined in
the calendar. A description of the respective ecosystems with all their components and interactions among them may
be inappropriate here and should be taught in ENVS 801.3 course (which could be easily done along with
explanations on food-webs and energy flows in the various environments.) Additionally, biodiversity and global
climate change are planned on being taught in the ENVS 801.3 course as well. As all prospective M.SEM. and
M.E.S. students are required to attend both ENVS 801.3 and ENVS 802.3, there should be no need to teach these
themes in both courses. In view of an effective use of time, we suggest deleting biodiversity and climate change
from ENVS 802.3 and replace with further examples of anthropogenic impacts on the natural environments instead.
ENVS 803.3 Research in environment and sustainability
This is a required course for the proposed M.E.S. students which all have to write a thesis. The course can be helpful
in getting an understanding of science and research, and in developing a research plan. By preparing for and
contributing to a number of seminars, students get the chance to improve their presentation and communication
skills.
ENVS 804.3 Strategic environmental planning and project management
In this course, which is required for the proposed M.SEM. students, participants will become introduced to different
planning and project development approaches and ethical considerations associated with professional practices,
among others. Without doubt these are important skills needed to become a successful and caring professional.
Assuming that current environmental practitioners will enrol in the proposed M.SEM. program, ENVS 804.3 may
benefit from their experiences and thus has the potential to become a vivid course which can attract students from
other programs as well.
ENVS 805.3 Environmental data analysis and management
As outlined in the proposal, in environmental sciences large amounts of data accumulate and need to be handled,
processed, and evaluated. A course on data analysis and management, therefore, is essential for prospective students
in the environment and sustainability program. When appealingly presented and well arranged, this course would
likely be welcomed by many students. Certainly, it will be attended not only by M.SEM. but also by M.E.S.
students, if the capacity is available. As there are already other statistics courses on campus, ENVS 805.3 should
preferentially use “real” data sets from environmental studies to further increase its attractiveness. Based on the
experience in our program, however, we see the possibility that a problem will arise if students do not have any
previous or weak knowledge in statistics. The current course outline covers a broad range of statistical methods,
spanning from qualitative to quantitative data analyses, as well as from simple descriptive statistics to more complex
factor or principal component analyses. For this course to become successful and broadly accepted, students have to
get something more out of it than merely getting to know that there are a wide array of tests and methods available
for data analysis. We, therefore, recommend focusing on relatively simple techniques which students could learn
hands-on in ENVS 805.3. Advanced models could be mentioned but it is questionable whether students will develop
a practical understanding for them within the short period of time available. Alternatively, students could be
required to have already some knowledge in statistics (which they can receive from elsewhere on campus) and
ENVS 805.3. could place emphasis on advanced techniques, which are very helpful then dealing with large
environmental datasets.
ENVS 990, ENVS 992.6, ENVS 994, ENVS 996
There are no specific comments on the courses listed above.
Restricted electives (ENVS 821.3, ENVS 831.3, others)
The restricted electives are very valuable and find our full support. It is particularly acknowledged that these courses
(as currently outlined) include problems of practical relevancy and local interest. We are certain that the electives as
they develop and become established will be very popular among students from within the School and
from other units and departments.
To sum up, the study of our natural environment and sustainable use of resources has so many facets that it seems
impossible to cover them all in a restricted number of courses. What is needed is good fundamental knowledge,
problem solving skills, and the ability to interact with different stakeholder groups, authorities, and people with
different cultural background, professional training and expertise. The proposed program of the School of
Environment and Sustainability addresses all of these needs and thus is “on the right track”. Even though there are a
few minor details which might need some further thoughts or clarification, it finds our full support. Further electives
are already listed and will be developing and, consequently, will make the program even more attractive. The
proposed program has the potential to spawn students with a solid background and specific knowledge of current
environment and sustainability issues, along with soft skills to communicate and resolve problems in collaboration
with various sector partners.
In view of the Toxicology Graduate Program, a number of SENS electives, as well as the proposed statistics course
(ENVS 805.3 Environmental data analysis and management) might become of interest to our students who pursue
an “environmental stream” within the Toxicology Graduate Program. Overall, as stated at the beginning of this
letter, to receive an M.SEM. degree in addition to a M.Sc. in Toxicology could be an option which some students
might be open to.
Signed by Michael Pietrock
Assistant Director, Toxicology Centre
Response to APC questions of SENS programs for April 11, 2008
1. Instructional capacity:
Professor Crowe distributed a chart at the meeting which indicated responsibility for the courses to be
taught as well as for the time allocated to the school. It was noted that the agreements for joint
appointments have not been completed yet. It was suggested that a column should be added to the chart
indicating explicit support of department Heads with regard to the teaching assignments in the School by
individual faculty members. It is most important as Heads will be signing agreements for joint
appointments and will assign teaching duties in accordance with such agreements.
Please see revised chart attached that includes agreements from Heads (where applicable).
2. Participation:
A concern was raised that smaller departments will have difficulty participating in the School because
they do not have the resources to provide support to schools. In particular, departments in Engineering
try to persuade their best students to go into the Environmental Engineering programs, but these students
will be outside of the School. The question was raised about why Associate Members are not being
permitted to have graduate students in this School's programs of graduate studies. The committee views
such flexibility as important to build linkage with Departments.
Associate members have always been viewed as a potential source of supervisors for students. They are
indeed permitted to have graduate students. At this time, however, associate members will not be able to
draw funding for graduate students from the small pool assigned to the School for graduate support
(currently $30,000 p.a. for 3 years).
3. Program governance:
The proposal indicates the program will be managed by the "standard" and “primary appointment”
faculty. It was suggested that faculty who are listed in a “secondary appointment” role should be part of
the faculty council for the School so that they are involved in how the programs are governed.
This is a good suggestion and likely necessary, given the proportion of secondary versus primary and
standard appointments.
Re: Program content
The proposed content of the graduate program was initially developed by a curriculum sub-committee of
the Advisory committee to the School, and then approved by the Advisory committee. The sub-committee
reviewed other programs at U of S and at other Universities to develop the proposed programs. The subcommittee found great variability across the campus and the country in its delivery of “similar” Master’s
and Ph.D. programs. The sub-committee elected to develop a model that they felt would be suitable, and
then to allow the program to run. It is the expectation that some details will change during implementation
of the programs as students and founding faculty figure out what works best in these programs.
4. Comprehensive examination:
The proposed structure and timing of the comprehensive exam are problematic. The committee asked
whether the proposed format of the comprehensive exam is consistent with university standards for
Ph.D. programs. The exam must be "comprehensive" in nature, going beyond the bonds of the area of
research (i.e., the thesis project proposal has limited relevance). Further, completion of the
comprehensive examination within the first 16 months will mean that many students may not have the
academic maturity yet.
This format of comprehensive exam is indeed used at the University of Saskatchewan and meets
university standards (e.g. Toxicology). It is also used in other programs elsewhere (e.g. Queen’s). The
assessment of the proposal is one component; while the oral examination is intended to be broader.
The timing of the comprehensive examination is intended to allow students to complete their program
within the timeframe allotted for funding by the College of Graduate Studies and Research (3 calendar
years). While we recognize that many students do not meet this target, we felt it only responsible to
ensure that the deadlines of the program did not prohibit this possibility. For example, students who may
be given 24 months would, by definition, be unlikely to complete within 36 months of their program.
Funding agencies (e.g. NSERC, SSHRC) are placing increasing pressure on Universities to have students
complete in a timely fashion. Discussions with the previous Dean of CGSR suggested that the College
supports more timely completion and that setting “earlier” deadlines for these milestones is consistent
with this effort. There are other programs at the University that require completion of the comprehensive
examination within the first 16 months (e.g. Geography, Geological Sciences) and this deadline has
facilitated improved completion times and retention, without detracting from the student’s overall
knowledge or maturity. Ph.D> students, by definition, come equipped with prior knowledge and graduate
experience, and therefore, should have a significant level of maturity after completing 16 months at the
Ph.D. level.
5. Transfer between a Masters and a PhD:
This proposal requires students to transfer within their first year, which may reduce the flexibility that
students need. A timeframe of 12-24 months seems more appropriate. The program proposal should be
clearer in showing that only the thesis-based masters students could transfer to a PhD program. Further,
the requirement to revise/refine the research proposal should be stated as the scope of the research will
be changed in a substantive way.
We understand that students may transfer upon completion of their course work. Currently, students
frequently transfer within the first 12 months, or upon completion of course work. In exceptional
circumstances, there is no reason why a course-based Master’s student could not transfer into the PhD
program, if they have demonstrated excellence in their course work and exceptional promise in research
(although this is likely to be rare). While normally students may transfer upon completion of their first
year f studies, there is no reason for denying transfer in the second year. The point is that transfer occurs
before research at the Master’s level nears completion and writing begins – that is, transfer should
efficiently incorporate the Master’s research into a Ph.D. of broader scope. We can certainly state that the
revised research proposal intended for the Ph.D. must illustrate that the scope of the research will be
changed in a substantive way.
6. Program content questions:
It appears that students give only one 20-minute seminar for the duration of their program.
Research communication is a high priority in the programs and will be a component of all graduate
courses. Additionally, students will present their work, at appropriate milestones (e.g. permission to
defend), to their committee members. Students will also be encouraged to present at an appropriate
conference. The 20 minute presentation is the formal delivery of a high-level conference-style
presentation of the significant results of the student’s research to their scholarly peers. We felt that as the
numbers of students will be quite large over time and expecting students to make several presentations in
a specific colloquium format would be difficult to organize logistically and ensure that faculty were
consistently able to attend and grade.
It was suggested that the courses should provide greater strength in terms of quantitative skills such as
statistics.
A faculty retreat for May 1 will be examining curriculum. We will discuss ways to increase the
quantitative skills and other methodological skills with the founding faculty at this time.
It was also noted that the section on ethical approval should be revised to capture new developments in
that area, and to specifically consider Animal Care protocols.
All graduate students whose work falls under the animal and human ethics policies are required to
complete prescribed training and research proposals must pass scrutiny of the appropriate Research Ethics
Boards. This requirement can be written into the programs, however, the details of these requirements
will continue to be provided by the Office of Research Services. We can include wording about the
requirement to meet these protocols in the programs proposal before it goes before University Council.
Faculty confirmations to the School of Environment and Sustainability REVISED 6 May 2008
Faculty
% time to
Faculty
Head
Dean
Other notes
name
SENS
confirmed
confirmed
confirmed
Draft letters of appointment have been sent to the following people and/or their Heads and Deans. We are
finalizing wording.
Barrett
10, 25
W
W
W
Will not begin teaching until 09-10
(Educ)
(ENVS 802).
Bélanger
30
W
W
W
Responsible for ENVS 801:
(Ag & Bio)
Ecosystem Science and
Sustainability
Belcher
30
W
W
W
Responsible for AG ECON 898:
(Ag & Bio)
Environmental Economics and
Policy Making
Bowden
40
W
n.a.
W
Responsible for EVSE 810:
(Law)
Environmental Issues and the Law
Cunfer
25
W
W
W
Responsible for ENVS 802:
(A & S)
Human Dimensions of
Environmental Change
Harrison
30
W
W
W
Responsible for ENVS 804:
(Business)
Strategic Environmental Planning
and Project Management
McKenzie
25
W
Responsible for EDFDT 898:
(Education)
Agency, politics, and education:
Investigations in culture and
environment
Noble
30
W
W
W
Responsible for GEOG 886:
(A & S)
Environmental Impact Assessment
Pomeroy
10
W
W
W
Will lead ENVS 821: Sustainable
(A & S)
Water Resources
Reed
70
W
W
W
Responsible for ENVS 803:
(A & S)
Research in Environment and
Sustainability; will serve as Grad
Chair. Could also teach GEOG
885: Advanced Applications of
Environmental Management for
students in both Geography and
the School (if necessary)
Si
30
W
W
W
Responsible for ENVS 805:
(Ag & Bio)
Environmental Data Analysis and
Management
Other contributors …. % allocation not defined.
Franklin
W
n.a.
Will transfer his tenure to the
(OVPR)
School in 2008, but will resume
teaching upon completion of term
with OVPR.
Kozinski
W
Will teach a new course in 08-09.
(Eng)
Not yet processed.
Maulé (Eng)
W
Can provide limited support, but
may teach ENVS 831: Current
Issues in Land Reclamation and
Remediation
Natcher (Ag
(verbal
Will teach AGEC 898: Aboriginal
& Bio)
agreement)
Peoples and the Environment in
2008-2009. He has confirmed
this with his Head, but will remain
as an “associate.”
We are currently negotiating their involvement in co-planning and teaching in ENVS 801 and
Johnston,
802. Both have expressed interest in being adjunct to the School. A formal agreement is being
Wheaton
established between SRC and SENS.
(SRC)
W = written agreement