Review of the Department of Communication
Central Washington University
February 23-24, 2004
Submitted by:
Gerald J. Baldasty
Professor and Chair
Department of Communication
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
Basis of review:
This review is based on (a) the Department of Communication’s self study and (b) a visit
to CWU February 23-24, 2004. While on campus, I met with University and college
administrators, Communication faculty, staff, students and alumni, observed one class,
The Department of Communication at Central Washington University has many
strengths. The faculty and staff are truly student-centered, dedicated to providing a
forward- looking curriculum and extracurricular activities that give students a liberal
education and professional training skills in several vital areas of communication. True
to its mission, the Department of Communication strives “to prepare students to become
active participants in communication within – and shaping – modern culture.”
Indicators of quality
There are numerous indicators of the quality of the program. These include:
 Dedicated faculty. The faculty have great ability and are a great resource for
students and university.
 Enthusiastic students. Communication students are generally extremely positive
about their educational experiences in the Department.
 Core courses. The Department has undertaken a comprehensive curriculum
review and created strong programs in its pre-professional areas. The
establishment of a 7-course core is particularly good, because it begins to provide
a centralized focus for the department. (The courses are: Introduction to Mass
Media, Survey of Oral Communication, Introduction to Media Writing,
Communication Orientation, Visual Communication Law and Assessment).
 Combination of theory, practice. Courses provide a good combination of theory
and practice. Students are required to participate in an internship (or, write a
thesis in the Communication Studies major) and all are engaged in some sort of
practicum as part of their classes (e.g., working on Newswatch or the Observer).
 Active student organizations and strong pre-professional training. The
Department regularly has a strong presence at the national Public Relations
Student Society of American conference; students also regularly attend the
Northwest Communication Association Conference and the National
Broadcasting Society Conference. Students in PRSSA and NBC have all won
1



substantive awards in regional and national competitions; these awards reflect the
strong pre-professional training offered by the Department.
Innovative work and civic engagement. Members of the faculty have received
several grants; most notable is the Department’s role in the GEAR-UP Bridges
program in community journalism. Service learning projects and civic
engagement are an important part of several courses in the Department. Last
term, National Broadcasting Society members worked with students at a middle
school, teaching them about radio with a low wattage station. The Public
Relations Student Society of America chapter is frequently engaged in campaigns
for local charities and concerns.
Strong guidance for students. The required portfolio course for all seniors
provides substantive guidance to students in preparing for jobs.
Equipment. Remodel of the Bouillon Hall TV studio and acquisition of new
digital equipment. This has been of vital importance for the broadcasting courses.
Comments from Students
Students attest to the dedication and the faculty, often providing lavish praise for a
faculty that “truly cares” about students. In particular, students praised the faculty for
their high degree of accessibility, noting that faculty were frequently in their offices – and
that they were available by phone or email in the case of emergencies. Students also
praised the faculty for knowledgeable advising, both on academic matters and broader
career strategy. Students in broadcasting and in public relations were enthusiastic about
the “hands on” experiences they received in their classes, noting that they believed these
experiences would prepare them well for the work world. Students reported that they
were confident of their ability to enter the workforce following graduation – based on the
experiences they had had in internships, service learning and department-related activities
(such as involvement with the Public Relations Student Society of America). Students
were also happy that most classes were relatively small, providing them with an
opportunity for exchange with their professors.
Challenges
Despite these indicators of success, the faculty of the Department of Communication face
many challenges. Foremost is an overriding sense that the campus in general, and the
administration of the college and the University in particular, do not appreciate the hard
work of the faculty or the many successes of Communication students. This
environment produces a risk-avoidance stance for many faculty, so they turn inward
(toward their students, the department) rather than attempting to engage the broader
university. Both the university and department are poorer because of this.
In addition, the Department faces several significant challenges that should be addressed
soon. None of this will be particularly easy, as some of these challenges reflect the
changing nature of the university (and thus the need for a much more enterprising stance
by faculty) while others reflect intellectual rivalries in the field broadly or even more
difficult issues of personal and professional trust. The Department will need sensitive
guidance from both the college and university throughout this process. A collaborative
2
process, with the Department, College and University, seems necessary if the Department
is to capitalize on its strengths and build for the future.
A faculty spread fairly thin
A major problem the Department faces is the generous but self-defeating willingness of
the faculty to take on far too many tasks. The self study and site-visit conversations
reveal a faculty that is already stretched thin, as they struggle to deal with a fairly heavy
teaching load, independent studies, student organizations (such as the Public Relations
Student Society of America, the National Broadcasting Society, the Student Video and
Film Society and Lambda Pi Eta), and a student body hungry for advice and professional
guidance. Faculty members admit that they are stretched thin, but surprisingly they also
express enthusiasm for a host of new time-intensive endeavors – including such
proposals as a new M.A. degree, involvement in university general education, creation of
new majors, involvement with university centers, etc. There seems to be not enough
recognition that there are opportunity costs in all activities --- e.g., a higher research
profile might be a better strategy vis a vis the university than new, time-intensive
teaching programs. Adding new programs may not be the best option for a relatively
small faculty that is already stretched thin by numerous demands. Excellence does not
necessarily derive from additional programs.
Need to develop priorities, long-term plan
The enthusiasm for new endeavors is praise-worthy in that it indicates the real dedication
of the faculty both to students and to the over-all mission of the university. Still, the
faculty desperately need to prioritize the many options they have outlined in the self
study; they also need to spend a good deal of thought and attention to thinking through
the implications of each of these proposals. They have not yet done so – although it’s fair
to note that they have been very busy on many fronts.
This lack of setting priorities—basically, this lack of long-range planning -- is one of the
most pressing challenges the Department of Communication faces. There are always
many “good” reasons why long-range planning and strategies are not developed; but none
of these really can excuse the lack of planning. The Department needs to make a very
careful assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and then develop a strategy for the
future that enhances its mission and allows it to contribute to the larger University and
College mission.
What is the core focus?
In its planning, the Department needs to develop a clear sense of its core focus. The
faculty of the Department appear inclined to be a full service communication department
– providing journalism (print, online and broadcast), advertising, public relations,
interpersonal and oral communication and conceivably even film and video studies and a
master’s degree. In truth, the Department does not do all of these things; some are
covered much more fully than others. The goal is admirable but not very realistic with a
faculty of 8 or 9. Students are not well served by majors in which most courses are
taught by just one or two faculty members. The faculty, already quite busy, are not well
served with the addition of more areas and demands.
3
In developing a core focus, the Department needs to define its core strengths. If it cannot
do everything it has outlined – then, what can it do? What can it do well? What things
are not done particularly well? What are its core goals? How should it implement those?
As part of this planning process, the Department would do well to consider how it deals
with communication generally, particularly in the context of the liberal arts. This could
help the Department better articulate its position within the college and university. This
might also help the Communication Studies major, turning it into a broad liberal arts
communication program.
As part of this planning process, the Department needs to confront not just its teaching
goals but also other goals in service and research. Much of the self study and site-visit
conversations focused on teaching; that’s indicative of the faculty’s deep dedication to
students. However, given the nature of higher education, planning should also pay
greater attention to research (including student research).
The Department also needs to develop a plan for engaging its alumni. Alumni can
provide valuable mentoring relationships for students; they are also central to
development efforts. Given the paucity of funds in higher education, the Department
needs to look to external sources of funding if it plans to create innovative programs in
the future. Even relatively small but steady donations from donors can make a real
difference in a program’s ability to support faculty projects and innovation.
Relation to the College and the University
Part of this planning process should also involve developing a more enterprising stance
toward the college and university. The Department needs to engage much more with
administrators and with the university in general; the exact nature of this engagement
should derive from conversations between the Department and others on campus (such as
the dean, representatives of the provost’s office). It’s clear, though, that the Department
needs to make the case much more aggressively that it is credibly engaged in liberal arts
education and that pre-professional training has a strong conceptual component. Faculty
need, too, to engage with the administration (such as the dean, representatives of the
provost’s office) in thinking about ways the department can contribute to the university’s
broader mission (e.g., general education). The range of options here is broad; discussion
and innovation would serve both the department and the university well. This is a twoway street, of course, and the college and the university need to think creatively about
ways to engage with the department.
Collegiality Issues
Any planning process can be difficult; adding to the task at CWU is the fact that the
Department does not have a highly collegial culture. Indeed, the faculty are greatly
divided. The exact nature of the divisions were not immediately clear to the reviewer,
although they seemed to revolve around several areas – mass versus interpersonal
communication, area of program (public relations versus broadcasting versus
communication studies), gender and just personality. Whatever the cause, most faculty
4
admitted that divisions existed and that they had a deleterious impact on the department..
Most importantly, students volunteered that they recognized these divisions – and that
faculty were at times openly disrespectful of each other or of parts of the Department.
What many students described was not a cohesive and cooperative department but three
strongly defended turfs: communication studies, journalism (primarily broadcasting) and
public relations.
Whatever the causes, the implications of this divisiveness are many. Rather than turning
outward, to engage the larger university and college, some faculty are turned inward in
turf battles. Some faculty reported that there was a sense of a “zero sum” game in the
department; some faculty, they said, resented the successes of others, thinking that such
success precluded their own success. There is not enough department-wide thinking and
too much turf-related thinking.
Consequently, many things simply have not occurred – and many of these are things that
are vitally needed. Systematic planning has fallen victim of faculty rivalries and distrust.
Developing systematic assessment indicators, for example, has not been done—as they
faculty seem unable to come to terms on those indicators. The Department is simply
unable to capitalize on its many strengths; it is clearly unable to move forward
energetically as long as its energy is diverted into short-sighted rivalries. Faculty should
realize that they – and their students – are the real losers in such a process. A substantial
portion of the students were aware of this; if nothing else, that should jolt faculty into
more professional behavior. Strong leadership is needed to transcend these differences
among the faculty; strong professionalism is needed among faculty to set aside their
differences. This will require real effort by many, for the sense of grievance among some
is quite large while others are convinced of the correctness of their vision. All involved
must rise to this challenge; all of the faculty need to realize that they need to work
together. This is particularly compelling for those who are in position to shape the
department over the next decade or more.
Summary
The Department of Communication at Central Washington University has many fine
attributes; among these are a truly dedicated faculty who work extraordinarily hard in the
service of students. Despite this proclivity for hard work, the Department has not been
to define – at least in a meaningful way – its core focus. Without that definition, the
program runs the risk of spreading itself even thinner than it is now – and that is
particularly worrisome both for faculty recruitment and retention and for meeting
students’ needs. The lack of strategic planning means that the Department has not yet
articulated its position in the university, charted a clear course for its own future or
capitalized on its own strengths.
5