Graduate School Review
Status Report – May 5, 2010
The Graduate School will conduct its review of SILS in October 2010. A description of the review process
is available at http://gradschool.unc.edu/policies/program-review/ . This review occurs about every 10
years – our last Graduate Review was in December 1999 and was done in conjunction with a COA
review .
Although the review is conducted by the Graduate School, it is not confined to graduate programs but is
essentially a review of the School and, as such, it covers all programs in the school including the
undergraduate.
The steps in the review are as follows:





School completes a self-study
A review team visits the school (team has both external-to-UNC members and UNC members
external-to-SILS)
The team makes a report to the Graduate School with a copy to the School
The School deliberates the report over a 6-9 month period and prepares a written response with
recommendations to the Graduate School
A closure meeting Is held with the Grad School, Provost, Dean to discuss, update, and prepare
an action plan for future.
We are at the first step and are preparing the Self-Study which must be submitted at least one month
before the campus visit. We are aiming to turn in the Self-Study on September 1 although the visit is
scheduled for October 17-19, 2010. External reviewers include Harry Bruce, Dean Information School,
U. Washington; Liz Liddy, Dean, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. Peggy Leatt, Chair of
Health Policy and Management and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for the Gillings School of Global
Public Health, serves as the internal review for UNC-CH.
The self-study has 6 sections: Program Overview, Curriculum, Students, Faculty, Administrative
Perspective and the Future of SILS. It will be helpful to have broad input to the final document. After
discussing this with Gary and BW, we suggest that faculty members who have held certain committee
offices this past year will be the most knowledgeable about content areas relating to their committee
responsibilities. The attached list provides some recommendations for sections that faculty might
examine in more detail. At the end, it would be good if all sections and/or sub-sections will have been
reviewed by at least two people in addition to Barbara Wildemuth and Gary who will both read the
entire document.
I would appreciate your comments, corrections and/or suggestions by May 30. You may send me notes
via email about particular parts or attach comments and suggested via “track changes” to all or part of
the document or come and talk to me. The current format is rough and Ron Bergquist has graciously
agreed to provide a more cleanly formatted document. When I get it, I’ll replace the current version
with the new one.
Suggested Faculty Review Assignments
Section 1: Program Overview, pp. 7-17.
1.2 Need and Demand needs particular attention
Claudia Gollop and Wanda Monroe might give this a careful read
Would be good to have Jane Greenberg’s perspective on the mission, faculty statement
and themes
Section 2: Curriculum, pp. 18-45.
2.1 and 2.3 – Stephanie Haas’ perspective here would be useful.
Perhaps Arcot Rajasekar and Cal Lee would also read the first three subsections
Program descriptions:
2.4 Undergraduate and 2.5.5. Minor – Deb Barreau
2.5 Master’s Programs and 2.5.4 CAS and 2.5.5 Dual Degree – Brian Sturm
2.6 Doctoral program – Brad Hemminger
Section 3: Faculty, pp. 46-80
3.1 overall assessment – Joanne Marshall
All faculty should look at entries about themselves for faculty research and teaching and
update/correct as needed
Sub-section 3.2 on faculty research – Helen Tibbo and Diane Kelly
Section 4: Students, pp. 81-107
Useful to have Lara and Stephanie review this chapter
Phil Edwards might review the information about the undergraduates
Reagan Moore might review the information about the master’s students
Richard Marciano might review the information about the doctoral students
Sandra Hughes-Hassell and Javed Mostafa might examine from the perspective of
diversity
Section 5: Administrative Perspective, pp. 108-126
Gary and Susan and BW will look at 5.1 and 5.2
Scott and Aaron should revise the section on the facilities and equipment
Rebecca may want to update the section on the library
Bob Losee might review the section as a whole
Section 6: The Future of SILS, pp. 127-135
We all should probably look at this – perhaps Paul Jones would review