Format for Campus Participation

Format for Campus Consultation

Format for Campus Comments

In addition to collection of documents and other data, the Steering Committee carried out basic ethnographic research in the process of self-study. This consisted of frequent attendance at regular and occasional meetings of the most prominent committees and other structures of the university’s students, staff, faculty, and administration. We regarded ourselves as participant observers of campus life, collecting all sorts of first- and second-hand data to supplement our document collection. We arranged a variety of meetings, conferences, and interviews to help us organize and increase our data base.

We also conducted two other formal research efforts: (1) focus groups, and (2) the campus climate survey. Fourteen focus groups were held for staff, faculty, students and administrators (though few students attended), and over thirty student-only focus groups. The focus groups were directed to the discussion of key topics identified in preliminary conversations: campus climate/morale, leadership and shared governance, diversity/multiculturalism, assessment, technology in education, budget and resources, general education, and excellence or quality education. The student focus groups brought up questions from the gamut of these issues. We had a certain amount of difficulty scheduling the focus groups so that large numbers of people could attend. However, we derived a great deal of rich and colorful experience from the conversations that occurred. This qualitative data we have not attempted to quantify, although we have drawn copiously from it. Average attendance at the focus groups was about eight, but a few people attended more than one of them, so their points of view may dominate the proceedings. The student focus groups filled out a questionnaire in addition to engaging in focused discussion. The working definitions of the staff/faculty/administrator/student focus groups that were topically focused were developed in the course of the meetings and articulated by the Coordinator and facilitators. These are summarized in Annex A4, as are the specific questions posed for each (Annex A3). The greatest significance of the focus groups was in specifying the range of subject matter that eventually became the Campus Climate Surveys, and in a few cases beginning to formulate language for precise questions.

The Campus Climate Survey Project was the single most sweeping and profound piece of research conducted in connection with the self-study. The university will be probing its meaning and formulating actions in response for months to come. Some preliminary results are offered in Theme One (Chapter V), along with an overview of the development and administration process. The survey instruments and overview documents are to be found in Appendix B1. The process of developing and administering the four surveys of students, staff, faculty, and administrators generated an essay by one of the committee members, contained in Annex A7.

<top of page

The Self-Study Steering Committee held regular meetings with a number of campus groups, and occasional meetings with as many as could be arranged, for the purpose of information gathering, requesting documentation, and answering questions. The list of groups and individuals consulted is contained in Annex A5. We also made presentations ourselves, at three assessment workshops, eight Brown Bag Presentations of the Faculty Center for Professional Development, three Campus Forums, several sessions of the Fall Conferences of 1998, 1999, and 2000, the International Research Forum, and other venues. One of the functions of these presentations was solicitation of input from the campus population. We feel we did a creditable job of consulting with all the formal committees, task forces, advisory groups, councils, and official structures of the university’s constituent students, staff, faculty, and administration.

We also interviewed a large number of individuals and consulted with others whom we requested to act as consultants when we had questions pertaining to their fields of expertise. A sample interview is offered in the Note. We interviewed the Vice Presidents, AVPs, Deans, and other officers. Questions directed to the President during our three interviews with him, and other interview materials are easily accessible. Individual respondents were told that their comments would remain confidential, except in the case of officials of the university, who knew they were going on record. Research instruments such as interview questions are in a file in the Team Room and listed in Annex A10.

Six external consultants from the United States assisted us with the preparation of our themes (Bennett, Rendón, Johnston, Eisler, Rose, Cortes) and they also helped us get feedback from campus participants in their meetings. Two consultants from our partner institution in Zimbabwe also assisted us in the formulation of issues and response to questions connected with "New Directions" (Chimhundu, Pikirayi).

The Self-Study Steering Committee also produced a video, "WASC and You", for publicity purposes, which was aired on campus for the first time during Fall Conference, 1999. Student film-makers actually did all the technical work; we merely wrote and "acted" in it. The primary audience for the video was students and staff, whom we thought we might not reach in the ordinary course of information gathering, focus groups, and consultation. We hoped to stimulate interest and participation, as well as impart basic information. (The video is available for viewing on request.) We were interviewed by the student newspaper, "The Poly Post" on two occasions, and provided news of our progress and self-study events to the Bulletin, the weekly campus newsletter published by Public Affairs.

Format for Campus Comments

<top of page

The Coordinator conducted an informal survey of campus knowledge and attitudes concerning accreditation at the beginning of the self-study (Spring, 1998) (see the self-study web page). http://www.csupomona.edu/~wasc.

We published two Newsletters during the life of the project, "Interesting Times 1" and "Interesting Times 2" (both annexed in A8). The first came out in Winter, 1999, the second in Winter, 2000. They were well received by the campus, particularly the second. We had published the first primarily on the web, where most people did not appear to bother with it. The second was printed and widely distributed, which resulted in a greater readership. It was, of course, also a lot closer to bearing the full range of features of the final self-study. We set up a web page within the Academic Affairs home page very early in the self-study, which began by containing useful documents such as the 1992 and 1994 reports, the proposal for this self-study, and the questionnaire mentioned above. Eventually, a portfolio site was developed, into which methodological statements and explanations of the thematic approach, the concordance relating the themes to the Standards and Goals, and other documents were placed, with contact information. We referred hundreds of people to the web site in the course of meetings, presentations, and interviews.

The first draft of the self-study was disseminated among the leadership groups of the university in April 2000, and the next, revised draft was published on a restricted web site for campus-eyes-only in the first week of June. Comments in the first instance came to the Coordinator and Writers’ Group in the form of direct, verbal exchange, telephone calls, email, and a few written notes. The meetings focusing on revision were extremely productive, instigating the furnishing of several new pieces of documentation and offers of assistance.

We have proposed follow-up focus groups on various aspects of self-study and the findings of this particular self-study for the six-month period immediately following the visit next Fall. The planning issues, in particular, could benefit from a good deal more free-form public discussion.

Integration of Self-Study Process in Review Cycle

We look forward to the new WASC accreditation cycle, as proposed in Dialogue II and related publications. Heretofore, self-study has not been part of the routine of university academic life. Program review, institutional assessment (such as has been done), audits, and accreditation self-study have ordinarily been precipitated by approaching evaluation visits or other deadlines and have been experienced by those involved as a crisis whose consequence was a toothless report. Our vision of continuous self-study, to be organized as a standing cross-divisional committee of revolving membership empowered to schedule such activities as university-wide town meetings, topical workshops, or speaker series and to monitor progress of all sorts, would firmly entrench a more consequential, relevant, and less stressful form of self-study in campus life. The establishment of a center for information open to all members of the university community would go far toward the goal of continuous self-study and assertive internal accountability. Our tendencies toward disputatiousness, factionalism, and distrust might be lessened if we had reliable access to "the facts".

Theme Three discusses the alignment of processes now more or less separate that ideally should be inter-related and reflexive. A conflation of the complex stratigraphy of evaluations and reportage that take place on our campus into one or two mutually supportive layers would be welcomed by all. The institution doesn’t require a High Panjandrum of Self-Study to accomplish this, merely a conscious coordinating and consulting process that utilizes existing structures and knowledge (and a lot of good will). The objectives of such a process would be the relief from reduplicative review work, the consequent improvement of performance (since personnel evaluation, budgeting and resource allocation, planning, program review, annual report, and learning outcomes and other assessment would all be seen to be functions of each other, driven by community visions and goals), and increased understanding of what everybody does and how it contributes to students’ learning.