1 July 2009
To:
Wayne Quirk, Provost
Tracy Pellett, AVP for Undergraduate Studies
From:
Marji Morgan, Dean, College of Arts and Humanities
Re:
2008-2009 Program Review, Department of Communication
c:
Lois Breedlove, Chair, Department of Communication
________________________________________________________________________________
I write to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the program review process for the
Department of Communication. These remarks are based on the Department’s Self-Study and the
external reviewer’s evaluation, and take into account college mission and resources. It also takes into
account a conversation that I had with the Department about the review. I want to take this opportunity to
thank everyone involved in this review process, especially the Communication faculty and Dr. Scott
Olson, as I know how very time consuming the review process is for everyone involved. The
Communication Self-Study was outstanding, and I want to commend Chair Breedlove and other
Communication faculty for their careful attention to this important document.
COMMENDATIONS
Dr. Olson offered strong praise for the Communication Department, including a long list of key markers
of excellence (p. 16). It is a pleasure to reinforce this very positive assessment here with some highlights
of outstanding work in the department. Communication faculty are very dedicated to their students and to
making their various programs a success. Evidence of this dedication to success and improvement can be
seen in the department strategic and assessment plans, which are among the strongest in the college. In
fact, the department has the most well thought out strategic plan of any in our college, and has one of the
award winning assessment plans. It is impressive that the faculty are open to curricular revisions in order
to keep in sync with industry trends and technological innovations, which can be dizzying in the
Communication fields. The Department is to be commended for striking an effective balance between
change and continuity when it comes to curricular and learning issues. Communication students often do
well in regional and national competitions, reflecting the excellent mentoring they are getting from our
faculty.
The Communication Department is especially strong in two very important areas: diversity and civic
engagement. I agree with Dr. Olson when he says, “The department displays tremendous commitment to
diversity in its staffing and curriculum.” In fact, the department has made multicultural and international
education the foundation of its new curriculum, with the goal of preparing students for effective
communication in our global society. A stellar example of the department’s commitment to diversity and
to civic engagement is the Bridges program, which provides a hugely important service to CWU and our
region, and brings in significant grant money to the university. I agree with Dr. Olson that the university
should continue to support this valuable program in every way it can, but especially by providing stable
funding for a coordinator position.
Page 2
The Communication Department is very good at hands-on, practical education that enables students to
engage with real world problems and community organizations. For a start, the curriculum requires every
student to do an internship. But in addition to the required internship, a number of classes incorporate
service learning projects that enable students to work with local organizations on solving problems related
to communication fields. This type of educational experience is excellent preparation for the workplace
and for citizenship. Our high quality student media also provide students with invaluable hands-on
educational experiences. Perhaps the best example of a civic engagement project that has brought the
campus and community together to explore a critically important issue has been the First Amendment
Festival, which garnered regional and national recognition for Central. I agree with Dr. Olson that the
department should continue with First Amendment Festival activities, so that it continues to be a
nationally recognized center for First Amendment Studies. This initiative has also resulted in external
funding, and should continue to be an important source of such funding in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The external reviewer offered the most exhaustive set of recommendations I’ve seen in a review, and I
will address key ones below. They fall into the categories of mission, processes, curriculum, resources,
and scholarship. Many of the recommendations made to the central administration I have commented on
in the appropriate sections listed above.
A. Mission, Vision and Strategy
Expand the mission statement to include preparing students for advanced, or graduate, studies—not only
professional studies – after talking with the department, we realize that this is simply an oversight; the
department certainly prepares students for both, and means to include both in the mission. I assume the
mission statement will be revised soon, if it hasn’t been already.
Select three signature areas for focus – I have been asking departments to identify signature areas ever
since I’ve been at CWU. I couldn’t agree more that this is an important thing to do, especially now that
the core courses in the Communication curriculum have been streamlined. Dr. Olson suggested
convergence, first amendment studies, and globalization/diversity as the three areas, and these areas
make very good sense given the department’s mission, curriculum, and strategic plan. Whichever areas
the department adopts, they should infuse the curriculum and be highlighted in the department’s
promotional materials and on the website.
Define a vision for graduation education and assess department’s capacities - I believe that a graduate
program in the Department of Communication is a long-term possibility. As faculty recognize, they are
stretched far too thin now, and there are still ambitious plans for the undergraduate program that have not
yet been realized. While I think a graduate program is a good idea in the long run, the department first
needs to have the faculty, space, and technology resources for its undergraduate program, so that people
are not feeling as if they are spread too thin in far too little space. A graduate program may be most
sensible to think about once the department is in a new building. Having said that, there is nothing wrong
with having a vision for such a program, and assessing what is needed to make it feasible. Planning is
always a useful exercise, and can help shape faculty efforts now, particularly in the area of scholarship
and creative work (see Olson’s scholarship section on p. 9 and 3B on p. 18), and also faculty hiring.
B. Processes
Create industry and student advisory boards – In theory, I think this is an excellent idea, particularly
Page 3
the industry advisory board. In the fast changing, high-tech world of communication, it is important to
stay current with what’s happening in the workplace, and an advisory board can help a department to do
this as well as to raise funds. In practice, however, I do not recommend that the department create these
advisory boards. In my experience, they are a huge amount of work, and cannot be done effectively
without a staff person such as a development officer, which our college no longer has. The
Communication faculty are spread much too thin to devote time and money to creating and maintaining
advisory boards. What we did discuss is for me to continue to attract communication alums to our college
advisory board, who can then assist the department with forging strong connections with the workplace.
This is already happening, and Chair Breedlove and I are planning to meet with an additional alum this
summer to discuss changes in the PR workplace, and also to recruit him to our college advisory board.
The department has a robust set of student clubs, which I believe can be used in much the same ways a
student advisory board might be used.
C. Curriculum and co-curriculum
Off-campus centers – Dr. Olson notes that the department has plans to hire faculty at the centers and to
extend two of their minors and majors to the centers. I have been hearing about the need at centers for
one of these minors/majors (Organizational Communication) since I arrived at CWU. The department
seeks to add these programs at the centers with what Dr. Olson calls “a wise mix of on site, ITV, hybrid,
and online courses to serve students across the state.” He goes on to say that such extension to the centers
“is all in keeping with the university’s wise strategic vision, and should be supported to the extent
possible.” I couldn’t agree more. The Communication Department has grown more dramatically than
just about any other department on campus in the past few years. It is a growth phenomenon on campuses
across the country and in the workplace. Our new President indicated to me that we needed to grow
Communication at the centers. I am thus at a loss to know why our modest funding request for a
replacement faculty line, one new line, and a part time lecturer (new and part time at centers) have not
been approved for funding. We will continue to argue for these resources and others in order both to
sustain the amazing growth COMM has already realized and to realize the potential growth it clearly has
to offer our students throughout the state.
Assist students with professional skill development, especially job seeking skills - The Communication
Department probably does more of this sort of thing than most of our departments, but students always
want and need more. This suggestion has appeared in other program reviews, so we might think of
having college wide professional skill development events/workshops. I know the recent etiquette dinner
sponsored by Career Services was sold out. That office might help us to schedule some events/workshops
for our students, including a workshop on selecting/applying to graduate schools. I will be discussing this
idea with all CAH Chairs at our September retreat. We do have an annual alumni day that brings students
together with alums who offer much advice about the workplace, but students indicate that they would
like more opportunities to interact with alums, and to attend talks by alums about how to prepare for the
workplace. We might try to have more department specific alumni visits throughout the year. The
Department might think of inviting an alum back in fall and winter, in addition to the alum we invite in
spring, to ensure that students in all COMM programs have the opportunity to interact with alums in their
areas.
First Amendment Festival – Dr. Olson suggests that the Department sponsor a small-scale version of the
First Amendment Festival every year, and I think this is an excellent idea. As far as I know, the
Department is planning to do this, and Professor Mitchell is applying for external funding to help support
such an effort. It is highly commendable that Communication faculty are active in trying to obtain
external funding. It would be good to continue working the Festival activities into as many courses as
Page 4
possible, both within and outside of the Communication Department.
Radio Station – Dr. Olson suggests that the student radio station be added to the newly created Student
Media Board. He argues that this move will “more closely align the radio station with the academic
mission of the institution.” While this might be true, it is important for us to recognize that radio studies
are not currently part of our Communication program, and there is no plan in place to incorporate this
form of media into our academic programs. Having said that, I agree that having the radio as part of the
student media board is a good idea.
D. Resources
Equipment and Space – there was considerable discussion in the external reviewer’s report about
resources, but the primary recommendation seemed to be to purchase a much needed color printer and to
make funding processes more transparent at CWU. The department clearly needs additional space for
offices, labs, and production studios, but those space needs will be solved in the not too distant future by a
new building. In the shorter term, work on a critically important new convergent media lab for broadcast
journalism and film and video studies students will be completed this fall. Roughly $20,000 of one-time
money will be essential to make that lab operational, and I will be requesting that funding in my budget
request due 1 August. The department is to be highly commended for raising and saving $90,000 of its
own funds to make this new lab possible. My budget request will include funds for a color printer that is
now required for student work in multiple disciplines, but especially in COMM and ART. My annual
budget request is one place where equipment needs can be addressed. The Win-Win program was
another. There are also occasional campus-wide calls for equipment requests, occasional support from
David Kauffman’s unit, and funding from student tech fees for general use equipment. But to my
knowledge, there is no regular funding for equipment upgrades other than the much appreciated Win Win
program for faculty and staff computer upgrades. I agree with Dr. Olson that the university should have a
more regular and transparent way to fund upgrades for heavily used lab and studio equipment such as that
found in our art and communication programs.
Transparency regarding link between SCH and resource allocation – I certainly agree that more
transparency regarding how faculty lines are allocated would be good, especially since the criteria for
funding seem to change each year. One year it’s high demand, the next it’s SCH/FTE, the next it’s what
will do well at university centers. Unfortunately, the central administration is often at the mercy of state
priorities and state budget cuts, and so does not have complete control over the priorities and criteria.
While it’s true that FTE or SCH are often important factors, and were key in recent additions to COMM,
they are not the only considerations. For example, see section 5.2 of the CAH Handbook for the many
things considered when justifying and prioritizing faculty hires in our college. Having said that, actual or
potential SCH/FTE generation may figure more prominently in hiring decisions in this time of economic
downturn. The President has certainly been emphasizing the importance of growing resources, whether
FTE, external dollars, or private funding, so faculty positions likely to do that seem to have the best
chance of being funded in the near future.
Website – Although Dr. Olson did not offer a recommendation concerning the department website, he
noted under “Key Opportunities for Improvement” that the “website content is not consistently up-to-date
or compelling.” I will take the opportunity to recommend that the department make maintaining a firstrate website one of its highest priorities. Having a user friendly, up-to-date website is important in this
day and age for any department, but it seems particularly important for a Department of Communication.
Websites are now key to recruiting students and faculty and must be a high priority. I will likely raise this
issue at our chairs’ retreat to see if there are ways we can help each other with our website needs.
Page 5
E. Scholarship
Commit to achieving rich scholarship…sufficient to meet university Grad Faculty status standards and
national norms for Masters-granting departments in the communication disciplines – this
recommendation was made particularly in connection with having a solid foundation for graduate degrees
in the future. Dr. Olson noted that although all faculty are engaging in some form of scholarly or creative
activity, “the scholarship may not be sufficient in every area being considered for a Masters degree focus
to warrant all members of the faculty being awarded full Graduate Faculty status.” Given that COMM
faculty participate on graduate committees, have some students working on individualized studies
programs, and have their sites set on a future MA program, it seems important to ensure that departmental
scholarship criteria are in sync with expectations for Graduate Faculty status and with comparable
Masters-granting departments in the communication disciplines. The current standards may be in sync as
suggested, but it would be a good exercise for the Department to compare the current COMM scholarship
criteria with those at one or two comparable institutions with similar teaching loads.
SUMMARY
The Department of Communication is doing an excellent job of educating its students for both the
academic and professional worlds. The department has extremely robust enrollments, and is one of the
fastest growing departments on campus. In order to sustain and enhance this remarkable growth, it will
be important for the university to provide faculty, space and equipment resources. When it comes to
strategic planning, assessment, engaged learning, and diversity, the Department of Communication is a
model for others to emulate. We are lucky to have such an innovative and dynamic department at
Central.