Register
If you haven’t already, register to start contributing news and events, and to search the Member Directory. Registration is free, but only open to current members of the American Studies Association.
Events
Jan. 9 | Call for papers: Identities and Technocultures
A 2-day conference about American culture and technologies that examines how new technologies dominate and define Americaness in the US and abroad. Co-sponsored by the University of Iowa Center for Ethnic Studies and the Arts (CESA) and the Mid-America American Studies Association (MAASA).
Publications: ASA Guide for Reviewing American Studies Programs
Following Up on the External Review
Although it may be a gratuitous reminder, the head of the local American Studies program will be exercising both good manners and good diplomacy by writing brief individual notes to both the on-campus and (where applicable) off-campus members of the review committee, thanking them for their efforts and volunteering to send them any further information that will aid them in completing their report (or, in some cases, individual reports). Such notes should not be used to reargue some point or play advocate for the program. An additional thank-you note should be sent to the reviewers after their report has been submitted and acted upon by the campus, whatever the outcome of the review. Short-term acts of courtesy are their own reward. They can also have longer-term payoffs.
The Program’s Response to the External Review Report
The program’s members should begin planning to act on the external reviewers’ formal report even before it is received. Shortly after the external review, the faculty (and, if the local culture makes it appropriate, staff and students) should get together to trade impressions of that review, try to identify possible or likely recommendations that will be contained in the report, and begin to consider elements of the program’s response to those recommendations and to other issues--whether or not to be addressed in the report--that have been highlighted for the program’s members by the review process. Seizing the initiative as soon as possible for any changes that the program’s members believe it desirable to make--or that they believe they will be required to make--as a result of the review makes good strategic sense.
When the external reviewers’ report is received--typically between one and three months after the review has taken place--the program will usually be (and should be) given a chance to offer a written response to the report. The drafter or drafters of this response should probably begin it even before the report is received, taking advantage of their fresh memories of the campus visit and their preliminary post-visit conversations with program members.
Like the narrative portion of the self-study, the response to the external reviewers’ report is an important tactical document. The program’s members need to use the document to show the campus officials to whom the report and their response is sent that they are (as much as possible) in “control” of the situation. It is perfectly appropriate--and in fact important--for the response to indicate clearly those issues on which the program’s members disagree with the report, and to indicate why. It is equally important for the response to highlight points of agreement. Most critical is for the program to use its response to state what changes in the program it intends to make (and not make) as a result of the review--changes that may well in some respects differ from or be in addition to those recommended by the report--, to outline its strategies and timetable for making those changes, and to indicate the resource implications of those changes (e.g., the program’s plans to make more efficient use of existing--or fewer--resources, the program’s need for more faculty or staff or student aid or space).
A modest word of advice on tone: the response is likely to be most effective if it avoids on one hand an overly defensive tone and on the other hand an overly belligerent tone. There is little point (even perhaps in extreme cases) in attacking the reviewers’ motives or intelligence. Rather, the response should strive for as upbeat a tone as possible. It should use the response to reiterate its pride in the program’s achievements, to show why the campus should share that pride, and to describe (as in its self-study) in plausible terms its vision of an even better future for the program. The display of self-confidence, even if somewhat on the optimistic side, generally makes good sense. This is not always an easy assignment, especially if the program is objectively on the defensive because of, say, a hostile dean, faculty losses, or dropping enrollments. But whining or truculence rarely wins battles with deans or faculty committees. Rather, the program’s response is likely to be most effective when, like the self-study, it works to persuade those in positions of campus power that they will benefit from supporting the program.
The Campus’ Conclusion of the Review; Living with the Consequences
The program’s members need not sit back passively while the various campus administrators and committees are completing their own discussions of all the review materials and reaching some conclusions as to appropriate actions to take as a result of the review. A little diplomatic lobbying rarely hurts. Informally sounding out relevant administrators’ preliminary responses to the review can be helpful and offer potential opportunities for program members to affect those responses before they become set in concrete.
The campus’ official “sign-off” response to the review is of course, even at its most favorable, never going to give the program everything it needs or wants. Even if the results yield no more than damage control, that can be counted a victory of sorts. And even modest gains in status or resources should be considered a cause for celebration, especially in very tight budgetary times. The program should be sure to indicate to relevant administrators and faculty groups its appreciation for whatever resources and powers it does acquire as a result of the review and pledge to make good use of them.
And then comes the sobering reminder: the end of one review is the beginning of another. To repeat a point made earlier in the guide: a program’s members should constantly be aware (even if in some corner of their minds) that their actions in the years immediately following the review will directly affect the program’s ability to make the next program review yield even better results for the program.
Copyright © ASA 1997-8. All Rights Reserved.
Quick Links
American Quarterly [official journal site]
American Quarterly [editorial site]