Program Review of Central Washington University’s graduate program in
Resource Management (REM)
Final Report of External Reviewers.
March 21, 2007
REM Mission: “is to professionally prepare students for ethical decision-making and earth
stewardship through resources management and policy development, analysis and evaluation”.
A. Overview.
Two outside consultants (Martha Works, PSU and Linda Whiteford, USF) spent two days in
interviews with students, faculty and administrators from CWU that, in conjunction with the selfstudy documents, provide the background data for the analysis. We chose to begin this report
with the Resource Management Program (REM) Mission statement as we believe it should frame
this document as well. We found the REM program to be innovative and exciting, and that
opinion was shared by students, faculty and administrators. The current program leadership is
providing strong and vibrant support for the program and seemed to understand well the
complexities of a multidisciplinary program. In addition, they seemed open to new ideas and
ways to build on the successes of the program, while expanding and deepening its reach. The
program appears to have high student demand and to have responded effectively to the award of
the High Demand grant. While the program does face several challenges that will be outlined
below, the outstanding commitment of the faculty, the successful job placements for students,
and the strong regional focus place the REM in an enviable position within the university and the
region.
B. Curriculum
Strengths:
An unusual and positive aspect of the program is that the core courses are all team-taught.
This provides access to those faculty by all of the students in the program, often resulting in
advisor/thesis director relations. Currently the program has as outcomes measures passing the
core courses and the completion of a thesis. Students in the program with whom we spoke were
uniformly in favor of the thesis option, however, this may reflect the self-selected sample of
students with whom we met. Faculty also supported the thesis option, but not as uniformly.
Another strength of the program is the very interdisciplinarity of the courses and the range of
topics that are provided. We commend the co-directors on their decision to rotate some core
courses among different members of the program, thus increasing the areas of exposure for the
students. Student support is another considerable strength of the program, with 18 graduate
assistantships provided by several distinct sources.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 2
Challenges:
Several concerns were identified in relation to the current curriculum. Many, but not all,
of the syllabi failed to develop student learning expectations and outcome measure in meaningful
and programmatically useful ways. Another concern was the sense that many of the courses did
not appear to be reading-intensive at a graduate level. This may be, in part, a response to the
different levels of preparation of the students accepted into the program. From a review of the
syllabi provided and the interviews with students, there is concern with the proportion of in-class
time spent on student presentations rather than faculty lectures. The remaining two concerns
focused on issues related to the frequency and level of elective courses, and the faculty timeintensive work in the program. The issue of electives had two aspects: that frequency of their
offerings, and the relatively few graduate level elective available. In terms of time allocation,
everyone agreed that faculty were heavily engaged in the program and that the program required
a faculty-intensive arrangement at the moment.
Recommendations:
While maintaining a relatively open admission process, the program could respond to the
diversity of preparation and interest of the students by modifying the program to develop
specialized tracts that reflect particular interests (i.e. natural resources, cultural resource
management, and socio-cultural resource management) that students could specialize in after
taking a limited number of core courses. This would allow students to move quickly into areas of
specialization while maintaining the integrity of the team-taught core courses.
Such a track system would also facilitate the assessment of students as they moved through the
program, rather than by completion of the core courses and the thesis. In addition, such a system
would help with managing the curriculum and scheduling electives (in the tracks), and freeing up
faculty time by reducing the number of core courses. By explicitly expanding into three tracks,
an increased incorporation of members of the socio-cultural anthropology faculty could be
included, thus reducing the effort required of the current REM faculty, while simultaneously
redressing the disequilibrium between the two primary contributing departments (geography and
anthropology).
The review committee also recommends that the department consider a thesis option, and for
those students selecting a non-thesis option that their credits that otherwise would be used in
thesis production be changed into elective course credits. For students who intend to move on
into another graduate program, the thesis is an excellent choice. However, for students who plan
to move into a practice-based occupation, a long essay or some non-thesis option would be more
meaningful. The thesis option, particularly for practice-based students, might improve
completion rates without affecting the overall quality of graduate education.
Incorporate new concepts of community-based museology into the curriculum; include analyses
of socio-cultural systems in the core curriculum; include global processes, international systems,
and world ethnographies as they relate to resource management in the core curriculum.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 3
C. Program Planning and Assessment
Strengths:
The REM Program is undergoing an evolution as is shown by the Charter revision that the
program undertook and then approved in 2006. We note that curriculum revisions are discussed
by the REM Program Faculty and voted on by the committee-of-the whole. The REM program
has faculty meetings during the year and revised the curriculum in 2004. The REM Student
Progress Report was included in the documents provided to the reviewers. Student outcome
assessment is assessed by the student’s completion of the core courses and the thesis.
Challenges:
As with any interdisplinary program where the faculty have home departments other than where
the program is located, having good and participatory attendance at faculty meetings can be
difficult. Having regular and frequent faculty meetings where most of the faculty participate is a
challenge for REM. Without doubt, there is a group whose activities are central to the REM
program and who attend and contribute to the REM faculty meetings. However, the weight of
the program may be unequally distributed and borne more heavily by faculty like the two codirectors who spend considerable percentage of their time on the program. Faculty buy-in can be
difficult and means to strengthen it needs to be considered.
The reviewers saw no direct evidence of how the Student Progress Report was used to provide
programmatic feedback to the department. Simultaneously, it was not clear how students were
guided by any standardized instrument other then the Student Progress Report. Perhaps greater
and more timely evaluative feedback to students would reduce the number of students who fail to
complete their thesis and graduate. The reviewers were also not provided with any teaching
evaluations. These are an important part of program assessment and planning.
The last issue deals with enrollment management, an issue raised by students, faculty and
administration. There appears to be some lack of clarity concerning when the High Demand
grant is no longer determining program size and how to accommodate the larger number of
students in the program, as well as whether to continue the larger enrollments.
Recommendations:
The department might wish to consider employing an exit or follow-up interview with a sample
of students who choose to leave the program to determine reasons for the failure to complete.
Likewise, those students who do not formally leave the program, but never complete should be
contacted for their opinions. Additionally, exit interviews, student evaluations, and other
instruments could be used as part of an ongoing process to revise and improve the program; they
should be built into the normal functioning of the program. We also noticed that while the new
Mission statement includes the statement that the program prepares students for “ethical
decision-making” but we saw no core course on ethical decision-making. The ethics statement
should either be removed, or a class on ethical decision making (which is not the same as conflict
management) should be included in the core sequence to bring the two into compliance.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 4
D. Faculty
Strengths:
Faculty from the Geography and Anthropology departments have worked closely together to
craft an innovative and dynamic program. There is a core of dedicated faculty with teaching and
research expertise in areas central to program. Between 2001 and 2006 eight geographers
supervised 38 theses and 12 geographers served as committee members on theses; 5
anthropologists served as thesis advisors for 16 theses and 8 anthropologists served on thesis
committees. In addition to participation from the two core departments, 3 economists taught the
required economics course during this time frame. Faculty contribute based on their respective
strengths with some faculty assuming a heavy load for advising, others working closely with
students on applied research projects, others working with students on research intensive thesis
projects in anticipation of continuing for a Ph. D., and others serving in leadership roles for the
program.
Faculty have designed an excellent orientation program for students and have developed a series
of forms and documents to help students move efficiently through the program. They work
closely with students during the thesis writing portion of the program. Faculty engage students
in applied research through contract work which effectively prepares them for jobs in resource
management and also work closely with students to develop internship opportunities which often
lead to jobs.
Faculty work has resulted in external funds and state support for the program including support
for faculty and student scholarship, staffing and personnel support, and student assistantships.
Good working relationships with the administration have fostered a climate of trust and respect
and this is an excellent platform for program building.
New faculty hires in both Geography and Anthropology have research and teaching specialties
that will tie in well with the goals of and student interests in the REM program.
Challenges:
There is uneven faculty participation within and between departments, with respect to both
numbers of faculty who actively participate, and numbers of students per faculty member. Three
faculty members (2 in Geography and 1 in Anthropology) advised over 50% of the completed
master’s theses between 2001 and 2006.
Faculty members have teaching and research responsibilities in their own departments in
addition to their work for REM and often feel overwhelmed by the competing demands for their
time. Furthermore, faculty are uncertain about the impact of the new union contract on work
load and how it will affect efforts devoted to thesis supervision. Mentoring and advising of
students involves work above and beyond what they are credited for under the work plan.
Overall, faculty feel they are stretched thin and as a result overall quality of the program is
compromised.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 5
Recommendations:
The co-directors and department chairs of both departments should work together to assure an
equitable distribution of the work load for the program. This might include urging certain
faculty to limit the number of advisees they take on, or making sure faculty who are not active in
the program have additional departmental responsibilities to balance out their non-participation
in REM. While this strategic planning might initially involve more meeting time for program
and department leaders, it could result in more efficient use of faculty time in both departments
over the longer-term.
Manage enrollment with consideration of impacts of enrollment decisions on faculty time and
effort. One strategy for leveling participation between the two departments and amongst faculty
members is to broaden the program to include more socio-cultural resource management issues
thereby increasing participation by socio-cultural anthropologists, expanding the pool of
potential theses advisors, and relieving some of the work load for the over-committed.
New faculty hires in Geography and Anthropology should be mentored to focus on their own
professional development and reminded that their long-term job stability depends on getting
tenure in their respective departments and not on their level of participation in the REM program.
E. Students
Strengths:
Students have a strong commitment to resource management issues as evidenced by applications
to the program from a variety of undergraduate programs and by the innovative thesis topics
students develop while in the program. There is active student participation in campus symposia,
professional meetings, and published technical reports. The program is to be commended for its
outreach to a diverse group of students that serves specific local and regional demand for trained
resource managers. Students overall are satisfied with the advising component of their program
and of the self-selected group of students we met with, all have had good experience working
with their advisor on program and thesis completion. The core curriculum gives students the
opportunity to develop a cohort and to share ideas and work together through the program.
Challenges:
Since there are no prerequisites for the program, students are not equally prepared for
understanding the physical and social systems that underlie resource management issues.
More generally, not all students are well prepared for academically rigorous graduate level work
which undermines the quality of the core curriculum. While the program assumes that students
come into graduate work equipped with the skills necessary for successful completion of the
program (p.22 of the self-study), anecdotal evidence and completion rates suggest that this is not
necessarily the case.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 6
Students often take more than the advertised two years to complete the program, especially if
they come into the program without a clear research focus.
Recommendations:
Work with Student Affairs, or other university group, to assist students who may not be prepared
for an academically rigorous graduate level program; request assistance, perhaps with a
mentoring or tutoring program, for students who would benefit from academic support. This
should not be an additional responsibility of the REM co-directors or faculty. Student Affairs, or
a Skills and Tutoring Center or some kind of institutional support could provide this assistance.
Since the REM program is grounded in the two disciplines of geography and anthropology, some
explicit recognition of that in the core curriculum as learning objectives or assigned readings, as
well as required readings as part of the orientation process would provide a common ground for
discussion in the core courses.
Assessing graduate skills and success needs to be strengthened and formalized. Consider
instituting a meaningful 1st year committee-level review of students to ensure success in the
program. At this point the committee could recommend a thesis or non-thesis option.
Encourage students to present papers/posters at professional applied meetings such as the
Applied Geography Conference and/or the Society for Applied Anthropology annual scholarly
meetings or other appropriate scholarly venues. Continue to encourage students to publish (or
co-publish with faculty) the results of their thesis research in peer-reviewed journals.
F. Library, information resources, and facilities
Strengths:
The Departments and REM program have managed diverse demands for research facilities
within their current locations. Facilities that serve REM students include a GIS lab, a physical
geography lab, anthropology lab and museum space, space for handling specialized collections
(NAGPRA), and access to facilities for specialized research (PB& E) and are generally adequate
especially considering the diverse demands of research involving physical specimens (soils,
rock, water), material culture, human and animal remains, and spatial data analysis.
Both departments and the REM co-directors have done an excellent job in working to make the
move to Dean Hall a reality. The planned move will greatly enhance research facilities, program
coordination and collaboration, as well the cohort building opportunities for students.
Library materials and materials available through electronic and shared sources (inter-library
loan) provide students access to adequate resources for classroom work and research. REM now
has its own budget for library materials so it does not have to order on the Geography or
Anthropology budgets.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 7
Computer software for spatial data analysis is available to REM students for their own computers
through the Geography Department. REM students also have the opportunity to work on real
world applications of spatial data analysis (GIS and Remote Sensing) through the Center for
Spatial Information. Faculty have worked with administration and external funding sources to
assure that technological resources are adequate for graduate student research.
Challenges:
Graduate student offices are spread between several buildings (often without phone or computer
access). Without a common area for REM students it is hard to foster collegiality and interaction
amongst students. The same could be said for faculty interactions and coordination of the
program – the two departments are across campus from one another, both have unmet space
needs in their current locations, and both program delivery and coordination face challenges as a
result.
Facilities are functional, but far from ideal, for REM program needs. When one considers the
large number of faculty and undergraduate students and the growing (at least over the last few
years) number of REM students needing access to space and equipment, current facilities would
not serve future needs. A great deal, therefore, is resting on the planned move to Dean Hall.
While not specifically part of this category, both faculty and students mentioned problems with
final approval of the thesis at the library level.
Recommendations:
Co-directors should continue to work closely with the administration to assure that the diverse
space needs of the REM program – spanning as it does physical and cultural artifacts and spatial
data – are adequately housed in the new building to assure that teaching and research needs are
met.
Work with library and administration to allow standard Anthropology and Geography journal
formatting in the suite of the acceptable styles for reference citation.
Work with students to produce theses in the technical style required by library. Encourage
students to get advice before the final copy is produced. Copy editing should be done at program
level or through institutional assistance such as a writing center prior to thesis submission.
G. Future directions
The interdisciplinary nature of the REM program is both innovative and essential for
understanding the complex physical and social issues which are embodied in resource
management. The interdisciplinary character of the program extends to the students who come
from a variety of disciplines, to the faculty who teach the core curriculum, and to the range of
electives available to students in the program. The applied nature of the program is an excellent
opportunity for faculty, students, and the university to engage with local communities. Work by
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 8
students and faculty will continue to produce tangible results that serve local and regional
communities and to involve students in active scholarship.
Moving into Dean Hall and being able to unite both Geography and Anthropology faculty with
REM students in a common area will strengthen both departments and the REM program. As
part of a long range plan, the REM program should explore ways to add a part-time staff member
to help with the administrative details of the program, especially if the program continues to
attract high numbers of students.
Recommendations:
Curriculum:
•Increase the number of graduate level electives, or consider offering 400/500 level
courses to better serve advanced inquiry for graduate level students
•All syllabi for 400-level courses that serve as electives for the REM program should
have explicit mention of work required for REM students and how performance and
grading expectations differ for graduate level work
•Develop core course on ethics, or have explicit section(s) on ethics in the core
curriculum in order to be in compliance with the REM Mission statement
•Include aspects of socio-cultural systems and global processes in the core curriculum
Program Planning and Assessment:
•Incorporate an explicit focus on socio-cultural processes and forms of analysis; include
global processes and global resources management issues as explicit part of program
•Expand faculty participation to include socio-cultural anthropologists and publicize this
aspect of the program on program announcements, flyers to advertise REM, and as
advisors
•Develop program tracks (such as land use planning; natural resource management with
emphasis on specific resources such as soil and/or water, for example; cultural resource
management, with emphasis, for example, on archeological resources or community
development; spatial data analysis for resource management or whatever best suits
program and student interests) to better focus student and faculty efforts
•Use exit interviews and student course evaluations to revise and improve program to
enhance student learning outcomes and quality in a consistent and ongoing process of
program assessment. Faculty should pay particular attention to the effectiveness of the
team teaching model in meeting learning outcomes and to how class time is spent.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 9
•Limit enrollment for a manageable faculty workload, to improve overall program
quality, and to enhance completion rate.
•Consider non-thesis option for those who chose a more ‘practice’ rather than ‘research
trajectory
Students:
•Connect students to outside of class (and outside of REM faculty) tutoring and
mentoring to assist in the transition to a graduate program when necessary.
• Institutional commitment needed to provide academic support when necessary to help
maintain the diversity this program brings to the university.
Faculty:
•Co-directors and department chairs should:
•Mentor all faculty, and particularly probationary faculty, to prioritize
responsibilities and balance workload to avoid burn-out
• Mentor faculty to balance contract work and with grant-based research and to
focus on converting some of their applied research into peer-reviewed literature.
•Mentor probationary faculty to balance their teaching, research, and service
obligations as related to REM and their home departments.
•Increase faculty ownership of core courses, thesis advising, and mentoring of student so
that the work load does not resort to the 2 co-directors or those already carrying too
many advisees
Facilities:
• Continue to work closely with administration to assure smooth and satisfactory move to
Dean Hall, which is critical to the long term effectiveness of both departments and the
REM program.
Overall, we would like to conclude that it has been a pleasure to get to know the REM faculty
and to learn more about this very successful and exciting program. It is an asset to the two
departments and to the University.
Submitted by:
Martha Works (PSU) and Linda Whiteford (USF) on March 21, 2007.
Program Review – Resource Management Program – Central Washington University – 10