Date:
November 9, 2007
To:
Tracy Pellett
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
From:
M. Meghan Miller
Dean, College of the Sciences
Subject:
2006-2007 Program review, Anthropology and Museum Studies
You have asked me to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the
program review process for Anthropology and Museum Studies. These observations consider
the self-study and the external evaluator’s report, the department’s written response to the report,
as well as context and resource issues within the college.
The department prepared a self-study and hosted the campus visit of the external
reviewer. Dr. Linda Whiteford provided a focused set of recommendations in her report. My
commendations and recommendations closely follow hers.
COMMENDATIONS:
The external reviewer notes several critical department strengths:

Anthropology is an energetic department with strong and vigorous leadership. It has a strong
sense of its own, holistic, four-field orientation and is also committed to interdisciplinary
programs. The department has undergone articulation of a meaningful strategic plan.

Curriculum strength is realized through a strong core that reflects national standards, an
innovative set of electives, and the commitment of a faculty of teacher-scholars.

The committed involvement of its faculty is another strength of the program, including
instruction, student-teacher collaboration, scholarship, and campus wide events. The number
and breadth of the faculty who participate in the program give it strength and academic rigor.
The engagement of a strong mix of regular faculty and lecturers also enrich it.

Students are deeply engaged and value the strengths of the program.

Library resources appear adequate, facilities needs are planned for in the ambitious Dean
Hall remodel yet the large shortfall in funding for equipment and furnishings must be
addressed at the university level to assure the success of this project
These areas stand out among the many for which Anthropology and Museum Studies
deserves commendation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The external review identifies several issues that require planning or support. The
following recommendations reflect the issues identified in the report.

Strategic Planning implementation. The department has undertaken strategic planning, yet
many key resources are not controlled at the department level. Because I am not familiar in
detail with the plan, I cannot speak to the extent to which it is grounded in the resource and
schedule constraints of the university. Vetting of this plan at higher levels and clear linkages
between resource streams (FTES and external funds) will determine its success. I encourage
the department to ensure that the dean’s and provost’s offices are on board with the goals and
have clear understanding of the resource streams that are anticipated to ensure its success. If
left to a reallocation from other efforts in the current, resource lean environment where many
worthy initiatives vie for diminishing annual per-student state allocations, plans without
strategic resource links typically don’t advance.

Curriculum, staffing and scheduling. The reviewer suggests that tighter focus might bring
greater strength to the curriculum. While this recommendation triggered a particular narrow
interpretation in the department’s initial response to the external review, all programs benefit
from ongoing review with the goal of optimization. A hard look at numbers of students
served in each degree program, costs and benefits of the various degree and field school
options, frequency of offerings and ability to annually vs. biannually fill sections, and the
potential for streamlining annual course offerings could help the department create
efficiencies that would support other goals. Faculty staffing is currently stretched too thinly.
For instance, elective majors courses could be put on a biannual schedule rotation where
enrollments are insufficient to justify annual offerings.

Assessment. While appropriate goals and assessment measures are in place, the
implementation and integration of results needs work. While this will be more closely
tracked as part of the university accreditation effort, the real work is done at the department
level.

Faculty and faculty morale: Maintaining the dedication and professionalism of this gifted
faculty is at issue. We have made important strides in the provision of appropriate technical
support recently (NAGPRA specialist, a half time instructional tech committed as match by
GSR for the recent high demand grant). Realizing focus and efficiencies in the course
scheduling and support for a collections specialist will further this goal. In addition, the
university has already allocated a new faculty position to this department pending review of
the position description.

Graduate education. Ancillary to the faculty issues, the role of graduate education is
identified as an area where integration might provide sustenance to faculty, especially in the
area of scholarship. How can graduate work in REM or PB&E be integrated into faculty
scholarship, instead of competing against scholarship for faculty time? This model requires
the right mix of student numbers, student topics, and faculty interests and works best when
thesis mentoring is shared across the faculty. For instance: “Greater incorporation of the
socio-cultural faculty and students into the REM program would provide a graduate
experience for them both, as it would strengthen the diversity of the REM program.
Integration of the socio-cultural faculty would also strength the REM Program.”

Students. Student concerns centered on two topics – timely and predictable offering of
required and elective courses and getting help to students in need. The first is addressed
above; for the second, inviting key staff who support supplemental instruction, the writing
and math centers to a department meeting might help with integration of such resources to
the benefit of students.

Niche definition. This department has great strengths in its self-definition – through the fourfield identification, and through specialized programs in Museum Studies, Primate Behavior
and Ecology, Resource Management, American Indian Studies, among others. Regardless of
whether the suggested “Applied Anthropology” is the appropriate label for these distinctive
elements, or a better one could be found, such a moniker can be quite useful in conveying the
focus and strengths of the department both within and outside the university.
Process:
The process worked well on the whole. In this case, the department chose to respond to
several of the recommendations in the external review before the process was finalized, objecting
to some and pointing out progress on others. For those that triggered objections, I would
encourage the department to interpret the reviewer’s comments as broadly as possible and look
for areas where progress might be made or efficiencies found. For those where progress is
already evident, the department will be ahead of the game in documenting program progress in
response to review.
SUMMARY:
In summary, Anthropology is very strong although it is also stressed by resource
constraints and faculty over-commitment. Finding efficiencies and aligning academic initiatives
with resource streams lies at the heart of the challenges that face the department.
C:
David Soltz, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Kathleen Barlow, Chair, Anthropology and Museum Studies