Next Steps: Where Do We Go From Here?

Summarized by Mona Holmlund

The session opened with introductory remarks by President Peter MacKinnon and Vice-Presidents Tony Whitworth (Finance), Michael Atkinson (Academic) and Michael Corcoran (Research).

President MacKinnon expressed his thanks and sense of privilege to have participated in this "profoundly educational experience." Outlining the current state of research on campus, he emphasized the consensus that research intensiveness is critical and the commitment to the research-scholar model "are matters of record." The necessary attitude of mind is present: "We are very interested in facilitating research."

The administration is committed to making available, as needed, money, mentorship, and administrative support for the preparation of applications, he said. The University will do what must be done to implement policies and to align budgets with those policies. He noted the Research Committee of Council has been very active, adding that research intensiveness can only be achieved if all members of the university community are committed to it. A particular issue is the need to continue to discuss promotion and tenure. The President called for goals to be set high and pursued in solidarity.

Vice-President Michael Corcoran drew participants' attention to the fact that many ideas emerging from the workshop sessions are anticipated by his Office's discussion paper, Increasing Research Intensiveness at the University of Saskatchewan (approved by University Council June 15, 2000).

Vice-President Tony Whitworth added that traditionally "a fixed pot of resources" has been allocated on a conventional basis over the years. It may now be time for the U of S, through policy and mandates reached by consensus, to make decisions regarding allocation with the clear awareness that "for every plan to enhance an area, there has to be one to withdraw support." He added that even if the University were to receive unanticipated financial relief, "the fundamental questions of what we should be doing, or not doing, are still there."

Vice-President Michael Atkinson concluded the administration's address to the participants by stressing his optimism: "All the ideas presented here will move us ahead .we are already in a renaissance of research." He noted, however, in response to some of the issues presented in the reporters' summaries, that breaking out of disciplinary boundaries and being more co-operative requires risk-taking, trust and sacrifice. In observing "the enthusiasm at this conference .my main message is, we are doing very well. We want to do what you want us to do."

In his address, Atkinson had suggested that merit pay, as motivator and reward, should be considered in tenure and promotion. This solicited the main themes of the ensuing discussion — equity, excellence, standards and purpose. Following are the various concerns presented by the attendees:

• It was suggested that the University take seriously its extant and well-documented promotion, tenure and merit criteria with a re-examination "of what we mean by 'excellence' and 'research.'"
   
• The U of S, in claiming to be "the University of the People", should consider whether the faculty and their research interests are reflective of the community at large. Is the University in fact committed to its mandate? To truly benefit the community, it was suggested that both discursive and ideological shifts are needed.
   
• Community-oriented research is problematic under the traditional criteria for promotion: "This is a minefield, people could spend years and find that partnerships break down.and then they are assessed for tenure." It was questioned whether publication citations still represent the only way one can be seen to achieve scholarly excellence. If so, does this not send the clear message that serious scholars ought to "stay in the Ivory Tower?"
   
• In acknowledging the need to assess gaps and deficiencies, it was questioned whether "we want to broaden our standards or deepen them." By way of rebuttal, it was further suggested that there need be no fundamental opposition between equity and excellence, and that scholarship must be protected: "I have not known a university famous for talking to high schools, I have only known universities famous for academic excellence."
   
• In response to the claim that "academic excellence is academic excellence," the query was raised "for whom?" It was suggested that "a constructive critique to define our community" is needed. For example, "'research' is a dirty word for Aboriginal peoples." The valuing of the indigenous, "will put us over the top and on the road to truly being The People's University for all people of the province."
   
• The admonition "not to stay within ourselves" was reinforced: "We must take our collective abilities to the public." Liaison with the school system and literacy were stressed — "If we stand here and say academic excellence is all we have to do, we aren't doing enough."
   
• It was suggested that remaining "in the Ivory Tower" was not the issue: "We don't have enough research at this University. We don't even have crappy research let alone excellent research."
   
• It was also noted that for those who "work in the traditional western paradigm", the single author monograph "is how it is still done." The pursuit of traditional scholarship requires pacing, isolation and determination — "How can the University help us write books? As we consider new directions, we should maintain a balancing act with the old."
   
• It was acknowledged that there are a multiplicity of publics and opinions. While the U of S may struggle with these issues, funding agencies do have very clear standards for assessing excellence. "If we stray too far, building research success at the U of S will have to be done without external funding."
   
• In asking "What business are we in?" it was suggested that becoming research intensive will mark a fundamental change for the University. It was suggested that this re-orientation could benefit from a business-model team approach to avoid departmental defensiveness. This process should foster "total quality management" so that "if sacrifices are going to be made, so be it; it is for a good reason."
   
• It was noted that while the U of S is not currently research intensive, there is certainly the will to become so. To achieve this, it was suggested that four factors are needed: "faculty, technical support, graduate students and money."
   
• Between units there is a wide range in teaching "loads" and a diversity of what constitutes research. There is a need to balance the sciences "where big money is required," with the humanities and the fine arts where the SSHRC success rate is 5%. These are, as was pointed out, "different worlds."
   
• It was noted that in the United States research-intensive universities are encouraged to promote research in the K to 12 system — "At the U of S, I haven't heard a lot about bringing research-based learning even into the undergraduate classroom." Tenure and promotion standards could include the extent to which research-based teaching is presented in the classroom.
   
• It was suggested that the existing standards are not the issue if one department has a reputation for excellence, while another is considered poor. The contributing factor is instead unit behavior, of which budgeting is a part. Here the importance of a budgeting regime linked to research output was put forth with the implication that "standards will change in relation to a change in behavior."
   
• As the session concluded, additional concerns included under-funding of the library, the loss of travel grants and the suggestion that new appointees be hired at the full-professor level. In noting the history of the University of Saskatchewan, administration was advised to adopt a "bottom-up approach" to any consultative planning and policy making.
   
• This was credited as "wise counsel on any topic" and, in closing, it was acknowledged that the University must "build on consensus" at every level.