Publications: ASA Guide for Reviewing American Studies Programs

The Self-Study

A program review, whether or not involving external as well as internal reviewers, will nearly always include a self-study. That self-study will typically consist of two parts: 1) some descriptive and statistical oriented series of sections or appendices and 2) an evaluative and argumentatively oriented narrative. Getting these two parts “right” is one of the most critical steps in a successful review.

The Appendices

Some schools have greater desire and capacity than do others to generate a considerable amount of descriptive and statistical information about a program. Some schools keep rather informal or spotty records on such matters as course enrollments over a period of time, numbers of declared majors, alumni achievements, etc. On the other hand, in some institutions--particularly ones with elaborate computer data bases--such information can be generated to the point of overkill: much more data than is necessary for the purposes of the review, and even a considerable amount of irrelevant data that can bury the most important data and get in the way of an attempt to look at the major features of the program. At any event, such data sends a lot of messages to reviewers.

Members of an American Studies program being reviewed will therefore want to consider very carefully the data that will be going into these appendices. They may well want to negotiate with administrators, for example, over what is to be included and excluded. The goal of the program members should not be to hide data that reflects weaknesses or problems in the program but to make certain that such data is presented in the context of whatever data is available that reflects the program’s strengths. If necessary, in order to achieve this balanced presentation, the program’s member may want to add to the appendices certain data that the administrators or others who oversee the appendix’s production have not identified as relevant. For this end, the program itself should have been systematically collecting (over a period of years if possible) certain kind of information not likely to have been generated by central campus agencies--special awards earned by its students, staff, and faculty, undergraduates’ and graduate students’ publications, the achievements of its alumni, the contributions of its core faculty to other sectors of campus life, written testimony about the program’s impact on their lives from its alumni and present majors, etc.

Appendices A and B to this guide should be treated as suggestive check-lists of the kinds of information that may be usefully included in the narrative portion of the self-study or in the appendices to the self-study (see below). However, not all such data will be relevant or useful to a particular review. The check-lists therefore are best seen as a detailed reminder of program elements that can be drawn upon as appropriate for the particular self-study, as well as program elements that will be of interest to the national American Studies community. For example, the self-study will generate a great deal of information on which the program can draw in helping the American Studies Association compile its biennial Guide to American Studies Resources.

The Evaluative Narrative

A thoughtful, well-written self-study narrative is highly important to the success of the review. It is the primary occasion for the program’s central members to show their own thorough understanding of the goals and dynamics of program, including continuities and changes in its campus history; to demonstrate their own capacity to plausibly evaluate the program’s strengths and weaknesses; and to make a persuasive case for specific actions (changes in requirements and curriculum, changes in administrative structure, new activities, augmentations in resources) that will preserve and enhance the program.

Although the core faculty are likely (and appropriately so) to take chief responsibility for drafting this narrative, those faculty will find it substantively and strategically useful to circulate the narrative for comments to all faculty affiliated with the program, as well as to program staff and even students. Comments from such individuals can spot misstatements, enrich the narrative’s perspectives, and help sharpen its rhetoric. Such involvement will also better prepare the affiliated faculty, staff, and students to participate constructively in meetings and interviews undertaken in conjunction with the external review.

The narrative should be to the point. It should avoid getting distracted by elaborate discussions of minor issues and problems and instead concisely make clear what it considers most at stake in the review. It should be efficiently organized and easy to follow. And it should be as short as possible, consistent with covering the major points it wants to make. External reviewers (from both inside and outside the campus) can quickly tire of narratives that drone on and on and fail to distinguish major from minor issues. The narrative’s drafters should aim for a document (excluding appendices and other attachments) of no more than 15-20 single-space pages, and exceed that only if there are the most compelling reasons for doing so.

The narrative should also give the distinct impression of judiciousness. Its writers should certainly use the occasion to highlight what they consider the program’s strengths and distinctive qualities, including the nature and value of the contributions it makes both to the campus and, where relevant, to the larger American Studies community. But the narrative should also take the initiative to highlight any problems the program is having. Better to highlight those problems oneself, and in one’s own terms, than to give administrators or external reviewers full control over defining those problems. Accompanying the discussion of these problems should be a discussion of steps the program is taking, or plans to take, or wants (e.g. contingent on additional resources) to take to mitigate or remedy them. This discussion also provides a good occasion for the drafters to invite the external reviewers to offer constructive recommendations for solving the problems.

The narrative should draw on and efficiently refer to the data contained in the self-study’s descriptive and quantitative appendices, as supporting evidence for the narrative’s arguments, but should not encumber itself with such data. Rather, the narrative should focus on the implications of that data for the review. For example, the narrative should not restate the requirements (which should be included in an appendix) for the program’s undergraduate or graduate degrees. Rather, it should discuss what it has hoped to achieve by those requirements, the degree to whether they have worked as hoped, and any plans the program has to revise them. It should not simply describe the fields and extent of participation of faculty involved with the program--much of which can be made apparent in an appendix--but should focus rather on whether that range of fields seems sufficient for the program’s goals, whether the extent of participation is sufficient, and what steps the program plans to take to increase participation.

Ideally, the narrative will clearly show a faculty (and student body) that is united behind an explicit set of goals and strategies for the program. However, if significant disagreements remain among the participants when the narrative is being written, those disagreements should be stated explicitly in the narrative, the sense of what is at stake in such disagreements identified, and a plan outlined that will enable the program to deal constructively with those disagreements. Unresolved arguments have the potential, if approached in a cooperative and creative spirit, to yield new and useful programmatic directions and to demonstrate a diverse faculty’s ability to work respectfully with each other on behalf of important goals even when not all marching to the same drummer.

Appendix C to this guide suggests a possible set of topics that the narrative may wish to address. The specific topics, and their specific ordering, will of course depend on the concerns and situation of the local program. Some campus administrators, for example, will insist that the narrative cover certain topics. However, the narrative’s drafters are likely to have considerable say as to the order and narrative context in which they address those topics.

One final word about the self-study. Although it must be prepared with several audiences, both on-campus and off-campus, in mind, its primary audience must be those on the campus who have power over its existence and over its resources. Among that audience may well be faculty who sit on campus program review, educational policy, or budget committees. As peers, they will certainly be sensitive to such questions as curricular quality, student quality, faculty quality and the number and range of faculty involved, impact of the program on campus life, the program’s standing in the field, and whether the program is an effective investment of resources (resources that otherwise might well go to programs in which these faculty are involved). In both its appendices and narrative, the self-study must strive self-consciously to satisfy these faculty about such matters. But an even more important audience may well be the administrator or administrator who holds the purse strings. A typical administrator is most concerned with two things: making his or her dollars go as far as possible, and being able to brag that his programs are among the best of their kind in the region or country or in the schools of whatever circle of administrators she hangs out with. So the self-study must work self-consciously to give her something to brag about, something that will make him look good if he supports the program. And the self-study must try to show him that it can make him look good without costing him an undue amount of resources. Administrative disclaimers and program wishes notwithstanding, numbers count in administrators’ eyes: enrollments and numbers of majors per faculty or per dollar spent on the program, students’ performances on standardized tests, numbers of B.A.s, M.A.s, or Ph.D.s with good jobs, amount of external funding for the program, etc. A good self-study will help convince administrators that they’re getting their money’s worth.

Go to next page

Quick Links

American Quarterly [official journal site]

American Quarterly [editorial site]

Encyclopedia of American Studies

H-Amstdy discussion list

Crossroads

Login

Register

Events

Publications: ASA Guide for Reviewing American Studies Programs

The Self-Study

The Appendices

The Evaluative Narrative

Quick Links