Register
Register here for the annual meeting and to begin or renew an ASA membership
Register here to submit a proposal through the ASA's 2012 submission site.
Register here for JHU Press and ASA membership services, including online access to American Quarterly and the Encyclopedia of American Studies Online.Register here to join an ASA community. Only current ASA members may contribute to the community blogs. Registration is not required to submit display or text ads or news and events or to view many pages. We will refuse posts that are not of professional interest to ASA members.
Click here for membership FAQ's
Events
Mar. 1 | 2012 Franklin Prize
Nominations for 2012 John Hope Franklin Publication Prize for the best-published book in American Studies due
Mar. 1 | 2012 Romero Prize
Nominations for 2012 Lora Romero Publication Prize for the best-published first book in American Studies due
Mar. 1 | Community Partnership Grants
Applications for the 2012 Community Partnership Grants Program to assist American Studies collaborative, interdisciplinary community projects due
Publications: ASA Guide for Reviewing American Studies Programs
The Decision to Conduct the Review
Many colleges and universities now have regular calendars for the review of all degree-granting programs on their campuses. If so, the local American Studies program will be able to anticipate the review, often by several years, and can begin making orderly preparations. Other campuses still proceed with reviews on an ad hoc basis. Such ad hoc reviews can be triggered by several circumstances, of which the most typical are budgetary concerns (either a desire of the administration to cut costs or shift funds or a request by the American Studies program for additional funds), a petition by the program for a change in status (e.g., to move from offering a minor to offering a major, to begin a graduate program, to restructure itself from an inter-departmental committee to a faculty-holding unit), or a belief (held by a key administrator or campus faculty body, or both) that the program is weak or in crisis and needs to be “straightened out” or eliminated.
The campus’ full array of reasons for conducting the review are generally but not always made explicit, and such lack of explicitness can add to the anxiety that a program will normally feel in any case about a review. It is therefore in the interest of the program for its faculty to make certain that they fully understand what is at stake for those administering the review and for those who will be making decisions based on the outcome of the review. The program faculty will want to negotiate as vigorously and creatively as possible with the review administrators over such matters as what topics the review will cover, who the external reviewers will be (see below), what materials will be provided those reviewers, what the actual logistics of the external review process will look like (who will be interviewed and under what circumstances, what kinds of on-site observation will be facilitated, whether program leadership will be able to participate in an exit interview), what opportunities the program will have to respond to the external review report(s), etc. To have any chance of conducting these negotiations successfully, the program’s faculty must itself have reached some agreement on what results they would like from the review. Such agreement may well require a series of searching conversations. The program’s leadership should arrange for those conversations at the earliest possible moment.
Copyright © ASA 1997-8. All Rights Reserved.
Quick Links
American Quarterly [official journal site]
American Quarterly [editorial site]
Encyclopedia of American Studies
Encyclopedia of American Studies [editorial site]