Academic Program Review 2006-2007
Executive Summary
M.S. Organization and Development
The M.S. Organization and Development degree program was included in the fifth cycle of
academic program review for the 2006-2007 school year. Based upon feedback from the
previous cycles, the contents of the self-study were modified as were some of the
implementation details. Included in the process was the composition of a self-study document
based upon faculty’s analysis, a departmental retreat where the data were reviewed and the final
two sections discussed. Telephone interviews were conducted by an external reviewer, Dr.
Glenn Varney, professor, Bowling Green State University, who read the self-study, interviewed
faculty, staff, and administration, and submitted his analysis.
The departmental self-study completed by faculty and staff is the major document for this
program review. This complex document reveals the strengths and challenges through the
departmental perspective and reflects the commitment of the department for self-analysis,
reflection, and evaluation. The institutional expectation is that the department and college
administration will use the self-study document, the dean’s report, and the executive summary as
guides to the faculty, staff, and administration for the recommendations. Since this process
requires an enormous amount of time and effort from all of the participants, it is necessary to
ensure that the results are used to inform decisions and future course of actions. Therefore, the
department faculty and college administration will be expected to provide a summary of
activities undertaken during the 2007-2008 academic year as a consequence of the program
review. This report will be due to the provost in October, 2008.
It should be noted that Dr. Varney’s analysis is very thorough and detailed and, along with the
dean’s report, provide the depth and context for the faculty and administrators to move ahead in
addressing the recommendations and celebrating the commendations.
Summary
The self-study document as submitted by the M.S. Organization and Development program was
understandable and informative. It can be determined from reading the self-study report, the
observations of the reviewer, and the summary comments of the college dean that the program
has both strengths and challenges. It is clear from the self-study, external reviewer report, and
dean comments that the program lacks faculty level support for its continuance. Based on this
important factor, along with the dean’s recommendation for discontinuance, I similarly
recommend program discontinuance.
The following would need to substantively improved if the program were to be reinitiated:
Faculty:
Although dedicated, the tenured faculty currently assigned to the program do not seem to be
professionally active in the field of organization development through professional affiliations or
scholarly work. This is particularly problematic if their students are expected to develop
professionally or scholarly themselves. Adjunct faculty were also characterized by the external
reviewer as being “underqualified.” Overall, a need exists to staff the program with an adequate
number of professionally active and qualified faculty in the field of organization development.
There is also a need to recruit a strong program director to lead program faculty and help make
needed changes.
Program Location & Support:
The current location and administration of the program through the Psychology Department has
been described by the dean as “awkward.” It seems clear that the lack of support for the program
in the current department necessitates its move to another more interested and accommodating
related department or through the dean’s office. Suggestion by the dean to develop an advisory
board of various stakeholders could go far in improving program support and direction.
Curriculum & Assessment:
Although program and student learning goals seemed appropriate, the external reviewer raised
serious questions as to whether the curriculum supported or was capable of developing the skills
and knowledge expected of graduates. Review and revision should ensure that program
curriculum follows best practice and is aligned to major content areas in the field. In addition,
no student learning measures or data was provided to demonstrate student goal attainment in this
review. In fact, the review itself stated that “there is no formal assessment process.” A concerted
effort must be made in the future to collect, analyze, and discuss assessment data. Results should
be explicitly linked to programmatic and student learning outcomes and include interpretation.
Data should also be compared to established standards of mastery and be disseminated and
discussed with various stakeholders (students, faculty, administrators). It would be expected that
if the program were to be reinitiated, assessment would play a more prominent role in
programmatic decision-making and continuous improvement efforts.
Student Recruitment:
There appears to be a low number of program applicants (as self-reported). In the group that
does apply, it seems that the group varies widely from novice to experienced professional in the
field. Some attempt needs to be made to define specific competencies of knowledge and/or skills
students should have prior to entry to be successful in the program. In addition, it seems greater
effort needs to be undertaken to actively recruit potential students. Contact would need to be
made with the new Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management (Dr. John Swiney) to
determine strategies for recruitment as well as support mechanisms (e.g., marketing ideas) that
may encourage potential and current CWU students to consider program involvement.
Overall, the M.S. Organization and Development program has played an important role in
Central Washington University’s graduate offerings. However, adequate resources (faculty
support and staffing), curriculum integrity, continuous involvement of stakeholders, and
effective continuous improvement processes are necessary for program viability. Currently,
there seems to be major gaps in each of these areas. Thus, recommendation for discontinuance
seems very appropriate. A recommendation for program reinstatement should be considered if a
plan is developed to address these program deficiencies.