Review of the Department of Sociology

Review of the Department of Sociology

Academic Program Review Subcommittee

George Pullman (Chair), Julie Dangel, Valerie Miller

Period of Review: FY 2002 – 2004

Report Submitted to APRC: Fall 2004

Approved by APRC: 5-05-05

Approved by CAP: June 7, 2005

I. Department Profile

The Department of Sociology, located in the College of Arts and Sciences, has developed significantly since its last APR, and has laudable and lofty aspirations for the future. The current review period covers fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Faculty and Staff. In 2004 the Department reports its faculty consisted of 10 tenured faculty (4 full professors – 4m, 0f; 6 Associates – 2m, 4f, 1 minority), 9 assistant professors (5m, 4f, 3 minority), 2 Lecturers (2f, 1 minority), 1 Visiting Lecturer (f), 1 Visiting Instructor (m), 11 part time (3m, 8f, 3 minority), and 16 GTAs (4m,12f, 3 minority). The Department reports three staff members including: a Business Manager (f, minority); an Administrative Specialist-Academic (f, minority); and an Administrative Coordinator (f, minority).

Credit hour Generation by Rank

During the current review period, total credit hour generation rose from 20,570 credit hours to 25,389 credit hours--a 23% increase in credit hours generated. During the review period, the average annual credit hour production by faculty type was:

Annual Average Credit Hour Production by Faculty Type

Faculty Type / Undergrad
Core / Undergrad
Lower
Division / Undergrad Upper
Division / Graduate
Tenure-Track / 1717 (25%) / 7342 (50.1%) / 1662 (97.6%)
Non Tenure-Track / 1414 (20.6%) / 2868 (19.5%) / 41 (2.4%)
PTI / 1504 (21.9%) / 1651 (11.2%)
GTA / 2232 (32.5%) / 61 (100%) / 2818 (19.2%)
TOTAL / 6867 / 61 / 14679 / 1703

Scholarly and Creative Productivity

During the review period the department faculty published 5 books, 58 articles, 17 chapters, 14 book reviews, 10 encyclopedia entries, 6 essays, 15 reprints, 2 others.

Average per faculty for 3 years

Books / 0.2
Articles / 2.6
Chapters / 0.74
Other / 2.03

It should be noted that one senior faculty member published 10 articles in 2003.

During the review period, the annual average of external funding was $745,816.00, while the internal average was $61,171.00. It should be noted that a large portion (2 thirds) of the funding was generated by one senior faculty member. Three others were largely responsible for the rest.

Faculty Service at College/University/Professional Levels

Almost all full-time members of the department serve or have served on a number of department, college and university committees. The department also is extremely active professionally and in the community.

Degree Programs and Students

The departments offers degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate levels: the B.A., M.A., and Ph.D.

Average Annual Enrollment and Average Number of Degrees Awarded by Program

The annual average number of students enrolled and the annual average number of degrees awarded during the current review cycle are as follows:

Average Number of Major/Graduate Students Enrolled by Program

FY 02 / FY 03 / FY 04 / 3-Yr. Avg.
B.A. / 263 / 312 / 343 / 306
M.A. / 29 / 21 / 24 / 25
Ph.D. / 47 / 52 / 65 / 55

Number of Degrees Conferred

FY02 / FY03 / FY04 / 3-Yr. Avg.
B.A. / 82 / 121 / 137 / 113
M.A. / 11 / 10 / 11 / 10
Ph.D. / 4 / 5 / 2 / 4

Annual Average Number of Ph.D. Students by Concentration

Gender and Sexuality / 11
Family and Life Course / 13
Race and Urban Studies / 20
Others / 10

Quality of Graduate Students by Program

Annual Average GRE Score by Section and GPA of Enrolled Graduate Students by Degree Type

V / Q / A / GPA
M.A. / 524 / 581 / 613 / 3.21
Ph.D. / 487 / 553 / 553 / 3.44

Average acceptance rate for M.A. = 39%

Average acceptance rate for Ph.D. = 56%

II. Inventory and Evaluation of Program Review

The Academic Program Review Committee of APACE was provided with the following information:

·  Program Review Committee - Ralph LaRossa (Chair), James Ainsworth, Dawn Baunach, Charles Jaret, Lesley Reid, Wendy Simonds. The report clearly indicates that faculty were involved in the generation of the self study.

·  A listing of the self-study sections and appendices.

Historical Context
Disciplinary subfields
Current Context
Table B-1—Faculty by rank/status/gender/minority
Table B-2—faculty productivity
Table B-3—program types x majors/concentration/#
Table B-4a—CHG by level and faculty type yr 1
Table B-4b--CHG by level and faculty type yr 2
Table B-4c--CHG by level and faculty type yr 3
Indicators of program relevance
Needs served by program
Peer comparisons
Appendix A—rationale for peer choice
Appendix B—org. on unit govern and committee
Appendix C—unit bylaws
Appendix D—current faculty roster (name/hire/entry rank/ current rank/tenure status/full or pt status
Appendix E—center report
Description. of last review’s goals and objectives
Progress toward goals & objectives
How goals related to College and Univ. strategic plan
Appendix F—unit strategic plan from beginning of self-study cycle
Learning outcomes (and assessments) for
Majors
Grad Students
Quality of curriculum from survey data
Comparisons where appropriate
Appendix G—outcomes plan
Appendix H—WI syllabi
Appendix I—degree requirement
Appendix J—list of courses for past 3 yrs; frequency/# sections/ # stus/avg st per section
Appendix K—survey summaries
Appendix L—UG and grad advisement procedures
Grad admission reqs.
Minimum GPA for UGs
Average UG major SAT and FI
Table E-1—grad admission tests/GPA for apply/admit/enroll
Table E-2—grad selection ratio
Output quality indicators
Evaluation and discussion of faculty quality
Comparisons where appropriate
Appendix M--Grad faculty selection criteria
Appendix N—list of grad faculty
Appendix O—faculty CVs
Faculty resources w/ comps (ref. s/f ratio data and CHG)
Admin resources w/ comp
Tech resources w/ comp
Space resources w/ comp
Lab resources w/ comp
GSU Found. Resources
Lib. Resources
Appendix P – Summary S/F ratio & CHG data
Appendix Q—Library Rep.
Evaluation of strengths & weaknesses w/ comps for:
Faculty size and rank
Student numbers by level and program
Amt of ext. funding
Service & outreach
# research active faculty and productivity level
Nat’l ranking of program
Goals & Objectives
Instruction
Scholarship & creative
Service

·  The Dean's response.

·  The report of the external review committee. Dr. Margaret L. Andersen, University of Delaware, Review Team Chair, Dr. Gary Lee, Bowling Green State University, Dr. Gregory Squires, George Washington University.

The self-study consists of the required sections A - H, the 15 required appendices as well as other appendices and tables.

As the external reviewer’s report indicates, the three members of the review team met with faculty, staff, and students on January 18 and 19, 2005. The report reviews the historical context of the department and notes the three areas of its current strengths: family and life- course, gender/sexuality, and race and urban studies. It notes the accuracy of the choices for peer institutions. It discusses the department’s current aspirations and recent progress towards its stated goals and objectives, specifically its commitment to research productivity and excellence in teaching. It also observes several faculty concerns. The report goes on to describe the quality of instruction and the perceptions of graduate and undergraduate students, as well as their general preparedness as compared with peer institutions. It observes the quality of the faculty, the level of publication and leadership in various fields, noting concern for the continued ability to attract new faculty of equal caliber given budget constraints. The report then goes on to observe the adequacy of the resources available to faculty and administration, as well as the technological and laboratory resources, noting current space limitations and the apparent absence of student computer facilities. It expresses ignorance about GSU Foundation resources, and observes that the department is satisfied that GSU’s current library resources are adequate for its needs. The report then goes on to describe the department’s strengths and weakness before concluding with a discussion of goals and objectives for teaching, research, and service. It ends with a summary of its findings and a reflection on the review process itself.

Additional Documents submitted

An Excel spreadsheet containing mean standardized GRE score and selection ratio of applicants to accepted graduate students, program types by majors and number of major students, and graduates, appendices and tables.

III. Key Observations/Issues

As the external reviewers assert, “Our overall evaluation of the department is very positive“ (External Report, 1). The department has done a great deal to achieve its previous goals and is poised to develop a nationally ranked graduate program. To bring the graduate program to the next level, however, a number of issues need resolution.

·  The department is teaching an increasing and comparatively high number of majors and graduate students with fewer tenure-track faculty than their peers. While they have increased their faculty from 16 to 19 since the last self-study, their peer institutions have from 22 (Northeastern) to 34 (Rutgers). “Despite our smaller size,” the chair observes, “we exceed three out of four of our peer departments in number of sociology majors” (Chair’s Response). The external reviewers also note that, “the numbers of both undergraduate and graduate students are excessive for a faculty of this size.”

·  The Ph.D. student to faculty ratio in the sociology department at GSU is 4.7, while it ranges at the peer institutions from 2.1 to 2.7. The faculty to student ratio is such that “many seminars are too large and the thesis- and dissertation-direction burden on the faculty is perhaps excessive”, according to the external reviewers.

·  Faculty salaries are below national and peer averages and there is considerable compression. This will make it very difficult to continue attracting top scholars and increasingly difficult to keep those they already have.

·  The self-study observes a lack of ethnic diversity among its faculty, a fact exacerbated by the recent loss of an African American scholar, who, given the department’s current salaries, will be very hard to replace.

·  The self-study observes a lack of women at the rank of full professor.

·  Although the department’s stated goal is establishing itself among the top 50 ranked graduate programs in the nation, the external reviewers “caution against measuring the success of the graduate programs solely by moving into ‘the top 50’. 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.”

·  To improve its national ranking, the graduate program must attract more and better qualified students; however, the graduate stipends are inadequate as they now stand. While the Chair has successfully garnered more money for GTAs in the past, nearly doubling what has been offered to each student since 1995, he observes that the department’s “stipends are not as high as those offered to graduate students at either Florida State or North Carolina State (the only two peer departments that provided data on graduate stipends). Many MA students are admitted without any funding at all.”

·  GRE scores and graduation rates are consistent with the peer institutions.

·  Ph.D. students write two candidacy examinations, one in an area of concentration that they choose and one in theory and methods regardless of concentration, with the result that their education is insufficiently specialized.

·  Lack of office space will impede growth. Currently the graduate students are five to an office. And there are no offices available for new faculty hires.

·  According to the self study, “The ratio of majors (undergraduate and graduate) to computers is 70 to 1. In addition, the computers in the PTI/GTA offices are outdated and prone to problems.” It also seems that a lack of software licenses among the faculty has led to “sharing.”

IV. Recommendations

·  Increase the number of tenure track faculty to bring the Sociology department in line with its peer. Particular attention should be paid to the need for another senior faculty member, the absence of women at the rank of full professor, and the lack of ethnic diversity.

·  Increase faculty pay to be more inline with institutions where work of comparable quality and quantity is taking place.

·  Focus on current strengths, Family and Life-course, Gender and Sexuality, and Race and Urban Studies, to create a niche for the graduate program that will provide national recognition.

·  Find ways to enhance the depth and visibility of scholarly productivity, perhaps by housing one of the discipline’s journals, as the external report suggests.

·  Increase requirements for admission to the graduate program and reduce the number of students admitted.

·  Require of Ph.D. students a second area of specialization instead of requiring one area of specialization and an examination in theory and methods.

·  Increase Graduate Assistantship financial support.

·  Provide more office space for faculty and graduate students.

·  Ensure that faculty have licenses for the software they need and increase the number of computers in the GTA and PTI offices.