Report of the International Program Review Committee to the Provost
August 25, 2011
In January, Provost Koch gave the committee our charge. Since that time we have met with the heads of the Centers and Institutes, as well as relevant department chairs and directors. We have reviewed the self-studies for each of these units, and considered the recommendations of the external reviewers. Here are our recommendations, which are grouped under the five points in the provost’s charge. We have also included two items in the appendix, a summary of a faculty survey and a report on classes with international content.
1) The need for a clear understanding and articulation of the mission of international centers/institutes and, in particular, how these organizations can support faculty research, community engagement and other aspects of the University’s Internationalization Strategy.
· Centers and Institutes should be reviewed internally, and a key question should be the clarity and utility of their mission statements, and their alignment with university priorities, including the university’s internationalization strategy. The review should also evaluate how well the Centers and Institutes are fulfilling the goals expressed in their mission statements.
· The directors need to be accountable for the expectations outlined in their mission statements. Resources need to be tied to results.
· The university should establish a clear policy for the nomenclature of Centers and Institutes.
· University Development should determine the potential for a development officer in OIA, to expand support for the Centers and Institutes, as well as international academic programs
The need for a more well-defined governance structure for centers/institutes that clearly articulates the shared roles of role of faculty and the administration in their activities.
· Most Centers and Institutes have revised their bylaws over the last year, which has created greater clarity in their organization and leadership.
· The governance structure for the MESC and the IAS is currently based on shared governance, in which the faculty selects the directors, subject to approval and confirmation by the Vice Provost for International Affairs. The nomination of candidates for election should be a product of consultation and collaboration between the faculty and the Vice Provost for International Affairs. Appointments should be for multi-year contracts, but the VP for International Affairs should conduct an annual performance evaluation, and have the authority to remove directors who are not performing adequately.
· All international Centers and Institutes should be housed in the Office of International Affairs, and report directly to the Vice Provost of OIA, in order to create clear reporting lines.
· The new job description for the Vice Provost should reflect the strategic responsibility of this post for developing the Centers and Institutes. The Vice Provost will establish benchmarks and metrics for the success of the Centers and Institutes, in collaboration with their directors, which will recognize opportunities for collaboration and synergy, as well as create a clear plan for development.
3) The strength and coherence of the various area studies curricula in the International Studies Program and how the International Studies Program complements with other academic departments.
· The INTL program should create a strategic plan for its future.
· There is a strong consensus that for now the INTL program should focus on undergraduate education, rather than creating a new MA, which should be a longer-term goal.
· The program should also emphasize thematic tracks in the future, which should be created based on areas of strength across campus.
· The program should also retain its existing regional tracks.
· The number of credits for the major needs to be reduced.
· Curricular reform within INTL should seek feedback and suggestions from faculty across campus.
· The INTL program should prioritize national searches in new hires and appointments according to a strategic plan, rather than relocating existing faculty from within other units at PSU.
· The committee supports the recommendation of the external reviewers that PSU hire a senior faculty member to be the director of INTL.
· The program should consider a name change to “Global Studies” as part of an effort to signal a new direction, and its openness to working with other interdisciplinary programs.
· Currently, a great deal of attention is being given to the relationship between INTL and the Centers and Institutes. The crucial role of other programs, such as World Languages and Literature, also needs to be considered with regard to both INTL and the Centers and Institutes.
· Since the interdisciplinary expertise and research interests of some faculty in Black Studies. Chicano and Latino Studies and Judaic Studies is explicitly international, participation of these faculty in INTL should be solicited and encouraged to promote awareness of shared interests between ethnic studies and international studies.
4) The relationship of the faculty and the Centers and Institutes to the area studies programs.
· INTL and the Centers and Institutes should jointly explore the possibility of creating certificate programs in appropriate regional areas, with oversight from the CI’s (advising, course lists), while final responsibility will still remain with the academic unit of INTL (or CLAS).
· There should be an annual retreat with the faculty from INTL and the faculty in the Centers and Institutes in order to foster communication and collaboration.
· The job description for the new Vice-Provost for International Affairs should speak to the need to foster collaboration between Centers and Institutes and academic programs, including not only INTL but also other programs such as WLL.
5) The organizational structure resulting in the International Studies Program and its academic offerings in a separate unit from some of the Centers and Institutes.
· The external reviewers and this committee agree that a move to a School of International Studies is premature, and would entail greater resources than the university has in this climate.
· The senior administration should create a strategic plan for how to lay the groundwork for a School of International Studies over time, so as to raise the visibility of international affairs and create greater coherence.
· There should be a clear review process to decide whether sufficient progress is being made to justify moving towards the creation of a school on a predetermined time-line. If the benchmarks are not met, the process should not move forward.
Please see the two attached documents:
1. The Summary of the Faculty Survey Results
2. The Report on Courses with International Content.
1