Academic Program Review
Department of Sociology
January 18-19, 2005
Reviewers:
Dr. Margaret L. Andersen, University of Delaware , Review Team Chair
Dr. Gary Lee, Bowling Green State University
Dr. Gregory Squires, George Washington University
The review team visited the campus for two days, holding meetings with the University administration, the department chair, groups of departmental faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students. We also observed the departmental facilities. Our overall evaluation of the department is very positive, and we make our comments to guide planning for the future. We thank the staff, faculty, and administration at the University for organizing our visit and hosting us while we were in Atlanta.
We think that the Sociology Department at Georgia State is well-positioned to become an even stronger program. It has an excellent faculty, many of whom have national reputations in their field. Moreover, there is strength in the faculty at every rank and the department has been making very good new hires. The Department wants to build the national reputation of the graduate program, consistent with the University’s goal of becoming a stronger research university. We think this is attainable, presuming that the conditions needed to build a research institution are met—particularly, having more competitive salaries and a workload consistent with those of other doctoral degree-granting programs in Sociology.
With regard to the University mission, the Department is clearly contributing to the College and University strategic plans. The teaching and research activities in the department are consistent with and firmly support the goals indicated in those plans. Faculty members in Sociology are publishing in respected outlets, they are actively involved with research centers on campus, and they are conducting applied research that contributes valuable service to the Atlanta metropolitan area
We found the peer institutions the department has chosen as its comparators are appropriate and conclude that the GeorgiaStatedepartment compares quite favorably with them.
1. Historical and Current Context
The Department of Sociology at Georgia State University has expressed a goal of positioning itself as one of the top 50 graduate programs in the nation. While we think strengthening the graduate programs is an important and attainable goal, we encourage the Department and the University to think in terms of becoming one of the strong “second tier” programs in the nation, focusing less on a numerical ranking and more on positioning themselves to recruit strong students, promotinge the visibility of the Ph.D. program, and continuing to ing to enhance e the scholarly productivity of the faculty—all goals on which the Department has made excellent progress since the last review.
However, we caution against measuring the success of the graduate programs solely in terms solely by moving into “the top 50” for several reasons. First, It it is very difficult to dislodge the rankings of existing programs, given the tendency for these ratings to be based on historical perceptions of prestige. Also, the Second, the department’s goal is to be defined as “in the top 50” within their specific areas of specialty, but rankings of Ph. D. tend to be based on more comprehensive measures, and it would be unreasonable for Georgia State to try to complete with much larger and long-established comprehensive Ph.D. programs.
We do think that the department is correct to focus primarily on their three areas of strength—family and the life course, gender/sexuality, and race and urban studies, thereby defining their unique niche in the field. Its Their reputation in these areas can be enhanced by the continued productivity of the faculty, their recruitment of strong students, of students, placement of their doctoral graduates, and continued and enhanced visibility in the professional associations (especially the American Sociological Association and the Southern Sociological Society). Many, if not most of the faculty and graduate students in the Department are active in these associations and we encourage them to continue doing so. do more. For the faculty, being Being on editorial boards, serving as reviewers for major journals, and active actively participating on in the sections and activities of these associations can further enhance not just the reputation of individuals in the department, but the department as a whole. We make some specific suggestions for enhancing the departmental reputation later in this report.
Graduate programs like the one at Georgia State are increasingly focused on a smaller range of specialty areas, just as the Department of Sociology at Georgia State is doingh. We find their areas to be appropriate in number and focus, given the size and interests of the faculty. as done. We discourage any further narrowing, because as it is typical for Ph.D. students to concentrate in at least two areas of research, but also to have a broad focus, in addition to a strong background in sociological y theory and research methods. Were the Department to narrow their areas of focus any further, they would be out of step with the national trends in the discipline. Moreover, it would likely weaken its their pool of applicants to the graduate program and would make their graduate students less competitive on the job market. The current areas grow from the faculty’s areas of strength and also from connections to other programs on campus (such as the Gerontology Institute, the Women’s Studies Institute, and African American Studies). We encourage the Department to continue these focal points, while ensuring that their students—both graduate and undergraduate—also acquire some breadth in sociology as a whole. get a comprehensive ; need to give area exams in two specialties
At the request of the administration, we considered the question of whether they should eliminate the terminal M.A. We think this is probably not wise, though we do think the department could consider eliminating the joint M.A./Ph.D. program, thus reducing the number of programs they describe themselves as having from three to two. In an institution like GeorgiaState, the M.A. program can be an excellent recruiting tool for attracting the best Ph.D. students. Many students enter M.A. programs in Sociology not intending to pursue Ph.D., but decide, once in the program, to continue on. Eliminating the terminal M.A. program would likely reduce the quality of the applicant pool for this department. The terminal M.A. program can also provide a way to discourage weaker students from continuing in the PhD. ProgramThe requirements for the joint MA/PhD. program are simply those of the M.A. program plus those of the Ph.D. program; it is not a truly different entity. Its function is to allow the department to differentiate entering students according to their educational goals, and thereby to allocate funding only to those aspiring to the Ph.D. It is somewhat deceptive to advertise this as a third “program,” and there are better ways of making funding decisions. We realize there will be some challenges in figuring out how to fund the best Ph.D. students while not funding those pursuing only a terminal Master’s degree, so we suggest that the department make its funding offers to the highest quality students, except in cases where it is clear that the student has no intent of pursuing a doctoral degree. A stronger annual review system for funded graduate students will assist in this regard.
We did find that the peer institutions the department has chosen as its comparators are appropriate and conclude that the GSU department is close in stature to them, perhaps even stronger than some.
Terminal MA?
Comment on undergraduate major, concentrations, interns, etc. Consistent with ASA focus. (see Footnotes article
Faculty size (needs to grow). Compitions: comment on diversity of faculty. Lost one AfricanAmerican’ given composition of the city of Atlanta and the unique role of GSI as an urban institution, critically important tohave a stronger presence of African American faculty
Research productivity: go for better journals.
Comment on how meets Univrsity and college mission. Mention satisfaction measures in appendices.
Peer institutions highly appropriate (FSU, Rutgers, NC State, and ?)
2. 2. Progress Toward Goals and Objectives : GS
The department has made good progress toward its goals. Developing the graduate program around the three areas of family, sex and gender, and race and urban was a wise strategic move. It gives the department an appropriate focus, which it can build on in efforts to increase its visibility. An already productive faculty has been aided by collaborative research nurtured, at least in part, by the explicit focus on these three areas. One particularly important accomplishment has been the fostering of a culture that values diversity. This was clearly revealed in discussions with faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students.
The progress has been more than satisfactory since the last review. But, as the self-study and our discussions indicate, the department is aware that more needs to be done. For example, graduate student stipends are higher but they are still not on a par with those institutions that GSUGeorgiaStatecompetes with for students. This gap still needs to be addressed.
The commitment, research productivity, and teaching excellence by the faculty, coupled with the enthusiasm of the students are the main factors that have contributed to this progress. The major barriers towards further progress identified by the faculty are faculty salaries and the new workload policy. At all ranks, salaries are relatively low. With new faculty coming in at salaries that are several thousand dollars higher than some productive faculty who have been in the department for several years, some morale problems may be emerging. This situation is not unique to GSUGeorgiaState, of course. But it remains a problem to be addressed. Recruitment of new faculty, and the real possibility of losing current faculty (and one person has recently left) are also problems that may well surface.
The new workload policy was a point of particular contention. The general understanding of the policy that was presented to us was that faculty could “buy down” from a five-course load primarily by supervising a given number of dissertations or theses. Everyone understood, of course, that they could reduce their teaching through grants, but . But they expressed frustration that the direction of graduate students now weighs so heavily. Their understanding is that even people with continuous high levels of research productivity and publication would still teach five courses if they ddo id not work with a sufficient number of graduate students. They indicated a number of potentially perverse incentives this could create. Faculty might compete inappropriately for students. Students might shy away from more demanding faculty (as may be the case in many departments) but now the better faculty would be punished more directly.
A question arose, however, as to whether this was an accurate understanding of the policy. Our reading of the policy indicates there may be more flexibility than several faculty members believe. If this is a communication problem, it can and should be resolved soon. As with salaries, a concern is with recruitment and retention of good faculty. At most research universities it is understood that the standard teaching load is four courses per year and faculty can buy down from that. With grants and various administrative appointments, faculty at GSUGeorgiaState can do so as well. But if the perception is that faculty start with a five-course load, it can send a negative signal to the kind of scholars the department wants to recruit as it continues its efforts to solidify its position among major sociology programs.
With regard to the University mission, the Department is clearly contributing to the College and University strategic plans. The teaching and research activities in the department are consistent with and firmly support the goals indicated in those plans. Faculty members in Sociology are publishing in respected outlets, they are actively involved with research centers on campus, and they are conducting applied research that contributes valuable service to the Atlanta metropolitan area
· Taking a disciplinary perspective, evaluate the ways in which the unit has succeeded in meeting its goals and objectives since its last academic program review (Section C).
· Is its progress toward meeting its goals and objectives satisfactory?
· What are the factors that have helped or hindered the unit in its effort to meet its goals and objectives?
· Evaluate the ways in which these goals have contributed to the College and University Strategic Plans.
3. Quality of the Curriculum : GS
Course offerings are appropriate for each of the programs that are offered. The quality of instruction and accessibility of the faculty were praised by undergraduate and graduate students. Students praised the efforts of the faculty, noting an open-door policy that makes them feel they have good advising when they need it. The undergraduate students were particularly praiseworthy about the efforts of the faculty to create a strong learning environment in classes marked by great diversity. The students commented that, more than other GeorgiaState faculty, the department’s faculty made diversity an asanasset in classroom instruction, encouraging students to learn from each other and benefit from the different experiences of those in the class. As one student put it, “they know how to use us to teach each other.”
One concern is the relatively large number of courses required for Ph.D. students. The current program requires four or five more courses than most doctoral programs in sociology.
With regard to the undergraduate program, the department is teaching a very large number of majors, particularly relative to other departments across the nation of comparable faculty size. The While their curriculum is consistent with the standards of the American Sociological Association and while the department has done a good job of providing students with internship opportunities in specific areas of focus. But, they are unable to do other things that would enrich the undergraduate experience (such as honors degrees, more internship opportunities, and undergraduateresearch experiences), given the size of the full-time tenure-track faculty. For example, the internship program could be expanded and could include a seminar with all student interns were there more faculty resources. Additional faculty to serve this large group of majors would be a real asset in the undergraduate experience.