Report of Appraisal Consultants

Report of External Review Committee

Department of Psychology, GeorgiaStateUniversity

Susan B. Campbell

University of Pittsburgh

W. Andrew Collins, Chair

University of Minnesota

Antonio Nuñez

MichiganStateUniversity

January 18, 2006

This report is based on the self-study documents prepared by the Department of Psychology and on the consultants’ visit to GeorgiaStateUniversityon January 9-10, 2006. The agendafor the visit included an initial meeting with the Provost and associate provosts, followed by a meeting with Dean Lauren Adamsonand Associate Dean Mary Ann Romski of the College of Arts and Sciences, and psychology department chair Mary Morris.Group interviews followed with the director of graduate studies and chairs of the six areas of the program (Clinical; Community; Developmental; Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neuroscience (NBN); and Social and Cognitive Processes) and with the undergraduate instruction committee. The consultants also met with the department’s instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors, with graduate students representing all five departmental programs and a range of time in the program, and with a small select group of advanced undergraduate students.

The report is divided into sixsections. The first section describes the historical and current context of the review. Particular attention is given tothe department’s progress toward the goals and objectives identified at the time of the previous review in 1994. The second section addresses the content and quality of the academic program, including the current disciplinary appropriateness of the program, its quality and intellectual cohesion, and its relevance to the needs of the community, students, and professional psychologists. Thefocus of the following two sections is the closely related topic of the quality of faculty (section three) and graduate and undergraduate students (section four). The fifth section addresses the adequacy of resources available to the program. In the final section, the committee comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the program and appraises the goals and objectives outlined by the department in preparation for the next academic program review.

Context of the Review

Historical Trends. The Psychology Department began in the 1950s and has been a doctoral-degree granting program for less than 40 years.The size of the department’s faculty has changed little in the past quarter century, remaining stable at 32-35. Within this stability, considerable transformation has occurred in the faculty and in the expertise and activities represented in the department. Nevertheless, the stable faculty size attests to excellent support from the University and the College in the face of considerable faculty turnover.

In most respects changes in faculty composition have brought the department into alignment with the current state of the discipline and with the needs of its stakeholders. Although the organization and emphases of the program also havechanged, the department consistently has included both applied psychology and basic psychological research. Despite early tensions these dual emphases today are well integrated and appear to function harmoniously. In part, this is due to an increasingly stronger emphasis on research and scholarshipat the higher administrative levels, commensurate with GeorgiaStateUniversity’s role as an urban research university.

Progress toward Goals and Objectives. The most recent academic program review in 1994 revealed a department that had benefitted greatly from past enhancements, but still faced significant challenges in realizing its potential. That review yielded nine specific recommendations. The department’s achievements in implementing these recommendations have been remarkable. The department occupies significantly more space today than in 1994, existing space has been extensively remodeled, and additional space will be allocated to the department in two new buildings. Faculty productivity in research and scholarship and success in attracting external funds now notably exceed 1994 levels. Modest funds for professional development for faculty members are now available, and support for graduate students has been enhancedconsiderably. Tenure-track faculty members routinely teach undergraduate courses whereas only a minority of faculty did so in 1994; and instruction has become one criterion for promotion and tenure. Some curriculum revision has occurred at the graduate level along with a major restructuring of graduate programs, and undergraduate curricular review and revision are planned for the near future. The committee found these accomplishments most impressive.

The primary areas in which the 1994 goals and objectives have not been realized are those calling for additional faculty positions and for a stronger complement of skilled non-faculty staff. Moreover, although numerically more minority faculty members have been appointed since 1994, the proportion remains relatively small (about 15 percent). The department rightly regards these three goals as continuing concerns in the years ahead, and the College of Arts and Sciences has indicated its support for their efforts to resolve them.

In short, despite its relative youth and declining national and state funding for higher education, the Department of Psychology has achieved its goals and objectives to a remarkable degree. The support of both the University and the College of Arts and Sciences has contributed significantly to the department’s ability to succeed so impressively in a relatively short period.

The Academic Program

Psychology as a discipline has changed considerably since the 1994 academic program review. Two salient examples are the greater centrality of biological processes inthe study of psychological onesand the more varied and complex conceptual and statistical models that guide research, which often necessitate collaborative research efforts. These changes have pressed foraccommodations in graduate training and have created opportunities for curricular innovations that were still emerging a decade ago. On the whole the academic program has succeeded admirably in staying abreast of these changes, while continuing to meet its obligations as part of an urban research university. Transformations in the program are on-going at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

Graduate Program

The department’s graduate training structure and curriculum were revised in the late 1990s, and the faculty continues to monitor the quality and currency of the graduate offerings and degree programs through the departmental Graduate Program Committee. Periodic accreditation reviews have supplemented this revision. For example, the clinical program, the largest in the department, recently underwent a successful accreditation review by the American Psychological Association in which curricular and programmatic changes were addressed.

Curricular challenges remain, however, in several program areas:

Clinical, Community, and Joint Programs. Both the Clinical and Community Psychology graduate training programs appear to be attracting strong students and the curricula, research directions, and practicum experiences appear to be consistent with program descriptions and goals. As is the case in many departments, the Clinical Program is the largest in terms of faculty and graduate students. The review team was impressed by the attempt to develop joint programs that go beyond generic clinical psychology to emphasize natural links between Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, and between Clinical Psychology and Community Psychology. As far as we could tell, the Joint Program in Clinical and Neuropsychology is working well.

Concerns were expressed, however, about the integration of Clinical and Community Psychology. Students and faculty in both the Clinical and Community programs noted that students must take many requirements in both programs. In reviewing the Graduate Student Handbook, it appeared that there was little opportunity for courses in one program to meet the requirements of the other. Some streamlining of requirements for students in the Joint Clinical-Community Program appears in order. The opportunity to attend a joint program that bridges clinical and community psychology would be expected to attract strong students with interests in prevention, ecological contexts of development and developmental psychopathology (e.g., neighborhoods, peer groups, schools, etc.), and social policy. Thus, some accommodations appear to be needed if this potentially exciting joint program is to remain viable. This seems to be especially the case given the new University initiative in urban health which might serve as an important source of support for graduate students in this area.

Social/Cognitive Program (SC): In contrast to the other graduate training programs, the SC group lacks a well-developed identity. As detailed in the self-study, the SC is currently what is left of a comprehensive “general experimental” group after Developmental and the NBN became independent training programs. Professor Washburn explained that the current mission of this training program is to produce generalists suited for teaching jobs in four-year colleges. He mentioned the success of the program placing recent trainees. No placement data were available, however, so that the review team was unable to evaluate the placement record.

The committee regarded the goal of preparing generalists for a particular type of institution as a limited and potentially limiting one. Moreover, most faculty members in the program identify primarily with comparative psychology, rather than with either social psychology and cognitive psychology. Although the department is deservedly well known for its distinction in comparative studies, human social and cognitive psychology are staples of Psychology programs in research institutions – and, indeed, in most four-year colleges. Their absence would be regarded by many as a gap in the department’s generally excellent representation of the discipline of Psychology.

At a minimum it is important that applicants to this program be informed of the current training goals. In the committee’s view, the current program appears ill-equipped to provide its graduates with the credentials to compete for jobs, or even good post-doctoral fellowships, in Social Psychology or Cognitive Science. Discussions with faculty and students also pointed to the need for planning discussions regarding the influence of the comparative perspective in the training of graduate students and the role of the LearningResearchCenter as this center’s administration returns to the department.

Our concerns about the apparent lack of coherence and substantive breadth in the SC program does not indicate a lack of admiration for the obvious strengths of faculty members in the area or the quality of their research programs. Additional, more diverse strength is needed, however, and a better articulation of the program’s mission should be undertaken to consider how best to allocate faculty lines to this program. We recommend that one focus of further departmental planning discussions, including those concerning curriculum revisions, be directed to shaping the future identity and coherence of this program.

Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neuroscience: An apparently imminent curricular change is the establishment of a graduate program in Neuroscience. Professor Albers outlined persuasive arguments for the importance of developing a cross-departmental, degree-granting neuroscience program. Such an initiative is consistent with national trends. Given the strengths of the department in the area, the review team endorses such a prospect. We believe, however, that it will be important to develop a model that continues to allocate student credit hours to the participating departments for the teaching, training and service contributions of their faculty members. Moreover, a primary goal in forming the separate major should be to minimize the administrative overhead of the program so as to avoid unnecessary diversion of resources away from efforts to improve support for graduate students and faculty. The NBN members are poised to make special contributions to an interdisciplinary neuroscience program, and interactions with neuroscientists from other departments via this joint training program should enrich the research and teaching of the NBN psychology faculty. The presence of the NSF-supportedCenter for Behavioral Neuroscience already adds significantly to the visibility of the NBN faculty; such visibility should be further enhanced by the establishment of a cross-departmental training program. The University’s support for the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience causes the site-visit team to be very optimistic about the future of the center beyond the period of NSF support. This again bodes well for the development and growth of a neuroscience program at GSU.

Other issues in graduate training. Students who met with the committee initiated discussions of several further curricular concerns:

First, many of the students recognize that teaching is likely to be a significant component of what they will do after degree completion. Theyvalue both the department’s efforts to prepare them for the demands of the classroom and also the advice and expert support from the staff of the institution’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Psychology departments at many other institutions, however, have formalized the training of Teaching Assistants and even grant certificates in college teaching that are reflected in the students’ official transcripts. The department, perhaps in collaboration with the Center for Teaching and Learning, is encouraged to considersimilarinitiatives to serve students who anticipate a career in college teaching.

Second, with respect to training in the responsible conduct of research, the department offers a course in ethics that is required for all graduate students. This class seems to serve an important function, but some students believe that the content of the class focuses too much on research with human subjects and that other issues related to research with vertebrate animals, and to intellectual property and conflict management do not get the necessary attention. One potentially useful model for courses on responsible conduct of research makes use of separate modules, each one dealing with different issues. Some modules may be germane to all students, but others could be specific to the needs of the different training programs. A minimum number of modules can be required for course credit while providing choices to accommodate particular needs.

Additional formal activities to support the professional development of students outside of, and in addition to, their disciplinary training vary across program areas. The NBN training program requires an NRSA grant proposal as a component of the comprehensive exam, and this approach could be adopted by other training programs to enhance the grant-writing skills of the trainees. Some students mentioned a course offered in the Biology Department as an excellent opportunity to learn useful skills including grant writing, poster preparation and professional networking. The department could use this course as a model for developing a similar course or series of workshops to serve psychology graduate students.

Finally, it was evident from our discussions that many graduate students are interested in careers and professional trajectories other than faculty positions at research universities. One way of exposing students to different career strategies and role models is to invite individuals with Ph.D.s in psychology who have jobs in industry, government, the private sector or four-year colleges to visit the department and discuss their career trajectories with graduate students.

At the onset of our visit, the team was surprised by the absence of a central GraduateSchool. In many peer institutions, the GraduateSchool provides professional development opportunities that serve to complement the disciplinary training of the individual graduate programs. Without that central agency, each program bears significantly responsibilities for providingopportunities to enhance the students’ professional skills and knowledge in the areas of teaching and pedagogy, grant-writing skills and the responsible conduct of research.

Undergraduate Program

Two major changes in the undergraduate program have marked the department’s recent history. One is an increased faculty investment in undergraduate instruction. Prior to 1994 responsibility for teaching undergraduates was unevenly distributed across faculty. A recommendation from the1994 academic program review has resulted in a departmental policy that all faculty members, with the exception of those with major administrative responsibilities, teach at least one undergraduate course each year. Furthermore, promotion and tenure guidelines require excellence in instruction. At the level of governance faculty investment is evident in a revitalized, activist Undergraduate ProgramCommittee, which includes representatives from all departmental programs and both tenure track and non-tenure track instructional faculty. Second, the number of psychology majors has increased dramatically from 680 in 1994 to 1,437 today.

Although broader faculty involvement in teaching has helped the department meet the demand of this larger group of majors, significant staff changes have been required, as well. The most important is the addition of a cadre of full-time and visiting lecturers who often teach large numbers of courses. Undergraduate students expressed enthusiasm about the work of some of these individuals. The benefits of a further staffing change, the appointment of a full time undergraduate advisor, has not yet been fully realized. Students and some faculty expressed considerable concern about the effectiveness of the mostrecent occupant of this position. The committee found it difficult to judge whether this reflected a poor fit between the position and the staff member or the undoubtedly heavy workload necessitated by so many majors. The recruitment of a replacement advisor should give serious consideration to additional ways of meeting the demand for advisement, in addition to the full-time staff person. One possible solution is hiring more part-time advisors. Another is a model, which has been used successfully by some institutions: recruiting peer advisors for helping students with such simple informational needs as course and program requirements. Professional staff advisors then could devote most of their attention to problem-solving that is more complex and requires more advanced knowledge. Psi Chi might well provide an organizational base for recruiting peer advisors. In addition, the department might consider a three-level system, with graduate students (who already provide some undergraduate advising) dealing with issues of intermediate difficulty. The advising staff should be able to devise a fairly straightforward method for the triage of advising needs into these three levels.