Central Washington University Women’s Studies Program External Review
Barbara Scott Winkler, Southern Oregon University
May 27, 2007
I would like to thank everyone for their hospitality, generosity and candor in speaking
with me during my visit to Central Washington University. I want to thank the Director,
Bang-Soon Yoon for arranging several meetings and discussing her vision of the
Program’s needs and future. AVP for Undergraduate Studies Linda Beath, COTS Dean
M. Meghan Miller, and the Women’s Studies Faculty also helped make my short but
intense stay informative and helpful. In addition I want to thank Dean of Arts and
Humanities Marji Morgan for her willingness to speak with me via telephone after I
returned home to discuss some of the changes that the school and interdisciplinary
programs in particular have undergone in the past two years.
In this report I will discuss some of the strengths of the Women’s Studies Program at
Central Washington University, as well as challenges it continues to face. Dr. Beath has
suggested that I focus on particular areas, including curriculum, program planning and
assessment, faculty, students, library and information literacy and future directions. I
have done so. I am also providing separate sections on overall program strengths as well
as need for better communication between Director and WSP Faculty since I have
concluded that this has become a major obstacle to continued program development.
While I have made suggestions in this area as well as others and have outlined some
possible courses of action, I believe it is the responsibility of Program participants (and
relevant administrators) to make the necessary decisions. I hope you will find at least
some of my suggestions pertinent and helpful.
Overall Program Strengths
One strength of the Program is its focus on a solid and structured interdisciplinary
curriculum that reflects the WSP goals. This includes both WS prefix courses and 16
departmentally based requirements or electives for the minor. While there are disciplines
not represented, including the Sciences, Business, and Education, the WS minor provides
courses in both the Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences that are necessary to any
WS minor and provide both U.S. and globally based perspectives. I would argue that the
WSP, curriculum, given its few disciplinary limitations stated above, is broadly
comprehensive, missing only a course in lbgt or queer studies. WS Programs that are not
departments with WS-dedicated faculty are dependent on the disciplines and expertise of
departmentally faculty. Developing a coherent and meaningful curriculum is no mean
task. The mechanisms provided by the Program to recruit faculty and assess potential
courses are central to this endeavor. The recent recruitment of seven (7) faculty
interested in teaching women’s and/or gender studies to the WSP Faculty as well as four
(4) lecturers to teach the introductory course is a significant accomplishment.
Another strength of the Program is connected to its curriculum: the committed
involvement of its faculty. The tenure-track/tenured faculty’s commitment to service to
WSP is particularly noteworthy, given the usual departmental responsibilities they also
incur, as well as their dedication to scholarship. The Program has benefited from the
faculty’s scholarship, not only through the curriculum and student-teacher collaboration,
but also through WSP colloquia. The Women’s History Month celebrations, the
Margaret Mead Film Festival and the colloquium on Dr. Bang-Soon Yoon’s work on the
Korean Comfort Women (including bringing one of the last surviving comfort women to
campus) are all examples of this dedication. The involvement of the WSP Faculty in the
program needs to be given further avenues for expression, which I will discuss later.
Recruiting Minors
One of the problems facing the Program is the number of minors: according to the SelfStudy only six (6) WS minors graduated between 2001-2006, although the number of
students declaring the minor has increased as of Fall 2006 to eleven (11). Only one
student attended the meeting with me. While she was enthusiastic about the kind of
education the Program offered she had not been in touch with the Director recently.
While students cannot be forced to seek out faculty, the low number of minors and lack
of contact are cause for concern and development of new strategies for recruitment of
students to the Program. The Director hopes that a newly developed website, as well as
email notices and flyers distributed to WSP Faculty help publicize the Program’s
opportunities. Below are some further possible actions the Program can take to engage
student recruits to the minor.
While the website and flyers can help inform and draw students to the Program,
additional steps need to be taken.
1) Since WS is an interdisciplinary Program with departmentally based courses and
faculty, in both Arts and Humanities and COTS, in addition to WS Prefix courses, links
should be set up from both schools to the WS homepage. (Currently, this is the case only
with COTS, in which the Program is formally housed.)
2) Each syllabus for a course serving as a requirement or elective for the WS minor could
include the following statement: “This course serves as a requirement or elective for the
WS minor. For more information on the minor contact the Director of WS (phone
number and/or email).”
3) Brochures/flyers could be developed to be handed out to students expressing interest in
minoring. The brochure would list requirements for the minor including courses that
fulfill the minor, and WSP, Advisory and Affiliated faculty. Photos of current minors,
faculty, and/or WSP activities could adorn the three-fold brochure as well as relevant
quotes or list of vocations or occupations of WS graduates.
3) One of the current difficulties is ongoing knowledge of and communication among
WS students and faculty, including the Director. Development of a
discussion/information forum for the “WS community” could be facilitated by creation of
a listserv. The listserv could promote information about and responses to the feminist
student club, WSP and other university events on women and gender issues, provide a
space for discussion of current topics, and even include alums. The listserv could be
monitored by the Faculty Advisor for the feminist student group or another WSP Faculty
member.
WS Curriculum
As noted above, the academic structure of the WS Curriculum is one of its strengths.
Minors are required to engage in a rigorously interdisciplinary program of study. The
global component, taught mostly by the Director in her area of expertise, is especially
noteworthy. Most WS programs in the Western United States include multicultural and
globally focused courses but with the exception of one “gender, race, and class” course
do not include these in the core. This is not the case at CWU.
However, as the WS Self-Study notes, the Program could develop more new courses in
fields not yet represented (see above). As significantly, the availability of courses
appears to be a problem since not all classes are offered frequently enough to support
minors’ individual plans for study. Here is where the Deans can provide support: the
Program, in concert with the Deans and department Chairs could create and promote to
the departments Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to encourage consistency in
course offerings. While these MOUs cannot be ironclad, they can enable the Director
and WSP Faculty to advise students in their minor plans. While flexibility would have to
be built into such “understandings” they would provide some assurance.
Feminist research of community organizations seems to be a significant aspect of the
introductory course, WS 201. A follow up course that promotes feminist “community
based learning (CBL)” would involve students in community organizations and activities
focused on women and gender issues. According to former faculty chair of CBL at
Southern Oregon University, community based learning generally includes civic
engagement, service learning, experiential learning, practica and internships. CBL
initiatives in the county have even included student grant writing in concert with
community based organizations. A course that promotes student involvement outside the
classroom and examines relation of experiential learning to feminist theory and analysis
could be part of a second-tier general education initiative in Women’s Studies. Such a
course fulfills Goal IV of the University, providing “partnerships with industry,
professional groups, institutions an community surrounding …campus locations.” Were
Women’s Studies to develop a series of CBL/Feminist Service Learning courses in the
summer these might be the basis for a Spheres of Distinction grant and provide an arena
for student presentations and involvement in the Washington Campus Compact.
Library and Information Literacy
As enthusiastically noted by the Director in the Self-Study, the librarian responsible for
working with WS in acquisitions and information literacy workshops, Anna Creech, has
proved to be an excellent resource. However, even the dedication of a supportive
librarian cannot make up for lack of resources relevant to scholarship and teaching. As
the Director notes, the CWU library is missing key journals in the field (such as Signs,
Feminist Studies, International Women’s Studies, Gender and Society, etc.) and while
interlibrary loan and electronic databases can help they cannot substitute for important
holdings especially for faculty research. Equally important are films and cds for
classroom instruction, something students respond to well. I would argue that instead of
one-time allocation of funding, however helpful this may be, all departments and
programs at CWU be provided a budget through the university library and that
departmental and program personnel work with dedicated librarians to increase holdings
judiciously. If such funding is not available, then the Library might “rotate” requests on
a limited funding basis, ensuring that each department and program get its turn.
Accreditation and Student Assessment
The National Women’s Studies Association does not provide accreditation guidelines for
WS programs. The CWU WSP is in line with minor programs based on research by
scholars of women’s studies. Should CWU undergo campus wide accreditation,
programs with minors as well as departments with majors will be asked to undergo
evaluation, although in a more limited fashion than that required of departments. This is
where the Self-Study will become very useful, defining Program goals and activities.
In terms of student assessment, it is not unusual for WS Programs that offer minors (and
not majors) to provide only informal entry assessment. Students often show interest in
becoming minors after having taken a required or elective WS course. The introductory
course often functions as the “gateway” class for many minors; faculty who teach such
courses have familiarity with these students’ work and goals. These can be further
documented by providing “Declaration of Minor” forms which can become the basis of
future visits with WS advisors to establish progress and provide an arena for discussion
of any change.
Exit assessment can involve the following:
1) exit interviews with graduating minors;
2) evaluation of minors of their fulfillment of learning and disposition goals established
by the Program. These evaluations would be done by faculty whose classes specific
minors have taken. The faculty could, for example, assess whether students have reached
a level of proficiency (high, proficient, not yet proficient, n/a) for goals established by the
WSP Faculty that are significant to the Program’s goals. These ratings can be sent to the
WS Director and collated;
3) any ambiguity about students’ performance can be further assessed either in
combination with the students WS Advisor and combined with assessment of student
final work.
We are beginning such assessment at Southern Oregon University. One of the outcomes
we hope to obtain is assessment of the relationship between our Program goals and the
proficiencies of our minors. If there is a large gap, such assessment can help alert us to
this.
WS Faculty
As I have noted above, one of the strengths of the Program is its faculty, including the
departmentally based WSP faculty and instructors who teach WS 201. Looking at the
Faculty Profile Table in the Self-Study shows the WSP Faculty fulfill all the measures
required of tenure-track/tenured faculty in terms of scholarship, ability to get internal
funding an well as external grants, service to the university and involvement in faculty
mentored projects, which increased in 2005 and 2006 through SOURCE. Student
evaluation of instruction also shows an increasingly steady and effective record with WS
faculty showing a 4.5 compared to a 4.3 for CWU overall. The WSP Faculty and
instructors are clearly among the most effective at the university.
My concern is with providing avenues for connection within the Program. In some ways
this is especially so with the lecturers who teach the introductory course. This course has
been highlighted by the Director (in the Self-Study) as especially important to student
recruitment and campus visibility of the Program through its function as a course in
General Education and a ‘W’ course. Lecturers who are not tenure-track faculty are not
eligible for participation in the WSP Faculty, although they can, apparently participate as
non-voting members through Affiliate Faculty status. However, I maintain that part-time
lecturers need some form of ongoing connection to the Program - to facilitate student
recruitment as well as engagement. Office space, that the Director has asked for, should
not be placed far from the Program offices if at all possible, since this would further
marginalize these key, if non-tenure-track faculty.
I was impressed with the WSP Faculty’s commitment to keeping WS a thriving
enterprise on the CWU campus. The newer faculty, in particular, showed energy and
flexibility that bode well for the future of the Program. I hope that faculty (including the
Director) who have been involved for a longer period of time will take into consideration
the new perspectives these relatively recent faculty bring to the Program.
Director - WS Program Faculty Relations
One area of concern that emerged from discussions with WSP Faculty was the general
feeling that the director was not facilitating closer relations with Program Faculty. WSP
Faculty respect the Director as a scholar and recognizes her extensive history and
commitment to the Program. However, there was widespread concern that she was not
including faculty in discussion of program priorities and decisions as well as might be
done.
Some of this gap in communication may be the result of and contribute to the Director’s
perception of her lack of time to accomplish all the activities required of her; the Director
repeatedly communicated the difficulties with successfully accomplishing all that needed
to be done. This may be because of lack of resources or burnout from being in the
position for thirteen years.
Below are my suggestions to 1) develop better lines of communication between Director
and Program faculty, 2) create a mechanism for evaluating the Director, 3) distribute
some aspects of the program workload and 4) limit number of director terms.
1) First, annual “retreats” can enlist faculty involvement and repair any difference in
process and understanding that have occurred.
2) The Director should be evaluated by Program Faculty every two years, if this is not
already done so. This evaluation can make visible any difficulties or disagreements
before they become a major problem. An evaluation at the two year mark can provide
room for any needed changes and would be done before the three year term is up. Such
evaluations should be written and sent to both the Director and Dean; the Director should
have the opportunity to respond to evaluations. (The Director has recently finished the
first year of a fifth three year term.)
3) Some program tasks now done exclusively by the Director could be transferred,
partially or in whole, to WS Program Faculty Committees. There is already precedent for
this kind of sharing of administrative responsibility: the Director shares being faculty
advisor of the WS student organization with a member of the Program Faculty. I
recognize that WS Program Faculty are already engaged in departmental responsibilities
besides teaching. Such committee work in WS, however, can ensure faculty input into
the vision and direction of the Program. Such work should be recognized as part of
faculty service by the University and no faculty member should be asked to do more than
is feasible during any given term.
Some of the areas mentioned in the WSP Charter include: recruitment of WSP students
(minors), planning and curricular development, recruitment of faculty, organization of
speakers and other university/public events. WSP Faculty might consider working on a
specific event, do preliminary planning or engage in recruiting particular faculty in their
departments. Should the Program pursue outside grants, the work of grant-writing (and
recognition of expertise) could be shared by the Director, WSP Faculty and even students
(see below). These activities could first be “vetted” by the WSP Faculty as a whole,
including the Program Director.
4) Lastly, the WS Program Charter should be amended to limit the number of terms held
by any faculty member as Director, to prevent burnout and bring in different perspectives
to the position. The current Director has been in the position for over 4 three year terms;
this is a responsibility that is not asked of departmental chairs.
I feel that it is of the utmost importance that this fracture between WSP faculty and the
Director be resolved as quickly as possible if the Program is to go forward.
Colloquia and Programming
This clearly has been one successful way the WSP has contributed to the life of the
university. However, establishing outreach with other departments and programs,
including those that share goals, as well as Student Affairs, can bring even further
publicity and attendance to these activities.
Planning
Some of the suggestions made for planning for WS in the Self-Study in Future Directions
represent both appropriate aspirations and need for resources to make those aspirations
operable. (Please see my comments on course development above.) However, my sense,
after discussions with members of the administration is that a tenure-track specifically in
WS is counter to the university as currently configured. I discussed such a tenure-track in
connection with a faculty member directly in WS, who might teach specifically WS
courses, to increase the number and variety of courses that under the curricular control of
the Program, as well as possibly direct, with appropriate release time. Available
documentation shows that this configuration accounts for most WS programs in the
Western United States. As the National Women’s Studies Association completes its
program survey the prevalence of particular program structures will be an important
resource.
While I understand the need for an individual (or more than one) to work on external
grants, both locating and doing the time-consuming work of completing, submitting and
re-writing them, I think the WS Program at CWU needs first to plan together (Director
and faculty) grant areas and topics that would build on current strengths, help it stand out
both within Women’s Studies and at CWU, and develop and reinforce its reputation. I
believe that once the Program is able to deal with internal communication issues and
begin to more assiduously recruit minors, it will further flourish and continue to play an
important role in the life of the university.