Departmental Questionnaires—Fall 2002—Summary

In the fall of 2002, we sent a questionnaire to all chairs of departments or programs with a potential stake in IHUM, whether they had faculty currently teaching in IHUM or not. Despite repeated (kindly) reminders, only 14 questionnaires were returned, of which only 8 represented departments and programs actually participating at some level in IHUM. The departments and programs returning questionnaires were:

 

Departments and programs teaching winter/spring IHUM sequences:

 

Asian Languages

Classics

Cultural and Social Anthropology

German Studies

History

Interdisciplinary Study in Humanities

Spanish and Portuguese

 

Departments with faculty members participating in fall IHUM courses:

 

Asian Languages

Classics

Music

 

This response rate is disappointing. Note the other departments sponsoring winter/spring IHUM sequences and not reporting:

 

Drama

English

French and Italian

Philosophy

Slavic

 

Those departments and programs with faculty participating in fall classes, but not responding, were:

 

Art (which mistakenly said that it did not participate in the program)

Comparative Literature

Drama

English

French and Italian

Philosophy

Religious Studies

 

Thus only 7 out of 12 departments with winter/spring participation, and 3 out of 10 with fall participation, returned the departmental questionnaire. However, we may at least partially capture the views of three non-responding departments (Comparative Literature, English, and Slavic) from faculty questionnaires returned from individuals playing a major curricular role in those departments.

______________________

 

The questionnaire asked eleven questions. Many of the questions were not relevant to departments not offering a winter/spring sequence. Most of the questions were not relevant to departments not involved in IHUM or CIV at all—a set which includes African and African American Studies, American Studies, Anthropological Sciences, Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, and Linguistics. It should be noted that IHUM’s directors have had discussions with almost all of these programs, and will continue to pursue their possible participation in IHUM.

 

Science, Technology and Society is a special case. It had participated (as VTSS) in CIV, and would clearly like to do so again, but simply doesn’t have the personnel. The director of the program does note that the flexibility of IHUM over CIV might make it more possible for STS to participate.

 

Turning to the eight departments participating in IHUM that did return the questionnaire, we find the following answers to the questions indicated.

 

1. Did your department/program participate in the Area One program preceding IHUM, namely Cultures, Ideas, and Values (CIV)?

 

Six participated in CIV to some extent before IHUM. Of the two which did not, Asian Languages has not really had an IHUM track (though it would like to field one), but one professor from the department has participated in winter/spring as well as fall IHUM courses. Music has had two professors participate in fall IHUMs. (Of the nonresponding departments currently offering winter/spring IHUMs, three (Drama, French and Italian, and Slavic) have done IHUM, but didn’t do CIV. English and Philosophy have offered both CIV and IHUM courses.

 

 

2. If you answered yes to question #1, how has the creation of the IHUM Program changed the nature of your department's/program's participation? What things, if any, have become better; what things, if any, have become worse?

 

There was a range of answers to this question. Asian had no response. Classics felt that the flexibility of IHUM has gotten many more professors involved in teaching the courses (Classics now has two winter/spring tracks). CASA noted (without approval or disapproval) that students come to their course from quite different fall IHUM experiences, and regretted a change from CIV to IHUM in the compensation structure for course coordinators. German Studies noted that the two quarters of IHUM were easier to manage than the three of CIV, but regretted the loss of advanced graduate students as section leaders. History unequivocally regretted the loss of a three-quarter sequence (though individual History professors answering the faculty questionnaire were less adamant). Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities noted many advantages of IHUM over CIV (increased section time, student choice, the Freshman Book program, a supportive central staff, and the contribution of teaching fellows), but on the other hand missed the teaching opportunities for its graduate students and the loss of a fall course. Spanish and Portuguese, like Classics, emphasized IHUM’s flexibility. Music noted the loss of a course to the department, balanced by an increased connection between freshmen and the department.

 

 

3. If your departmental/program faculty did not participate in CIV and do participate in IHUM, why are they participating now? Does their participation have anything to do with the structure of IHUM?

 

Most of these departments, as noted above, already participated in CIV, so many didn’t answer. Asian Languages implies that IHUM’s structure encouraged its one professor to participate. Classics makes a point of saying that even more professors get involved in the new system. History says the structure of IHUM actually discourages their participation, but they do it anyway (see History’s answer to question #2). Music credits the central administration of IHUM for the recruitment of Music professors to fall courses. It seems likely that Drama, French and Italian and Slavic Languages can now offer winter/spring courses because these represent only a two-quarter, two-course commitment (as opposed to three-quarter, three-course in CIV), a notion borne out by the faculty questionnaires from Slavic.

 

 

4. Does your department/program grant credit toward the major from your IHUM course sequence (if you offer one)? Whether you do or do not grant credit, please explain why.

 

Many departments responding, such as Asian Languages, don’t offer a sequence and therefore can’t give credit. Classics thinks it offers credit, but plans to investigate and, if wrong, will formally pursue offering credit. CASA, German Studies, History, and Spanish and Portuguese do; Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities doesn’t.

 

 

5. Does your department/program regularly derive majors from its IHUM students? in what numbers?

 

Asian Languages doesn’t have a sequence. Classics isn’t sure, though it gets a number of majors who took one of the Classics IHUM sequences. CASA, German Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities are certain they do, and History seems to think so. Spanish and Portuguese feel it’s too early to say. Music thinks it may get some majors out of the fall IHUM in which it participates.

 

 

6. Do you feel that students coming from their fall-quarter IHUMs are better prepared for the course sequence in your department/program than they would have been straight out of high school? If so, why?

 

Five respondents answered this question positively: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities feels that students are on the whole better prepared by fall classes; Spanish emphasizes students’ greater range of cultural reference and writing/debating skills; Classics thinks fall classes destabilize students in a positive way; Music emphatically feels that fall classes teach perspectives not taught in high school; German is extremely positive about students’ acquisition of critical skills from fall quarter IHUM courses.

Two respondents were neutral: Asian Languages sees no obvious benefit to their program of fall IHUM instruction; CASA finds their effect hard to call.

One respondent answered negatively: History feels students would be better prepared by a fall class in their own department.

 

 

7. Do you think that IHUM as a whole gives students skills or perspectives which are useful for further study in your field?

 

Four respondents answered positively: Classics feels that most IHUMs, including its own, prepares students, at least critically and analytically, for further study in its field; German, Spanish and Portuguese and Music answer in the same vein. The remaining responses were more mixed or neutral: Asian Languages feels that students may be prepared intellectually, but not culturally, for discussions of non-Western issues; CASA and History say it’s impossible to determine; Humanities says it depends.

 

 

8. Has your department/program been required to make any real sacrifices to participate in IHUM? How do these sacrifices weigh against any possible advantages?

 

Classics worries about losing freshman-seminar billets because of its IHUM commitment. CASA finds that staffing IHUM reduces curricular flexibility elsewhere. German recognizes this, but feels it is part of its teaching mission. History says IHUM is usually a teaching overload, making recruitment difficult. (We don’t know whether this situation is different from their CIV classes; it’s certainly not the policy or province of the IHUM Program to influence the way departments count their courses.) Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities reiterates its loss of teaching opportunities for graduate students. Spanish and Portuguese sees no sacrifice. Music notes the loss of a possible course elsewhere.

 

 

9. To what extent have postdoctoral fellows teaching IHUM course(s) been integrated into the intellectual fabric of your department/program? Could this integration be improved, and if so, how?

 

In general, the responses here tend to be negative. CASA finds integration more difficult than with CIV because fellows often don’t show up at the department till winter quarter, and they have a heavy teaching load. German finds the integration cordial but insubstantial. History says that CIV section leaders were voting members of the department, and housed in the History building, while IHUM section leaders are not, leading to less integration. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities is unaware of any formal integration into the program, but muses about more. Spanish and Portuguese says much the same.

More positively, Classics responds that this integration has happened informally, and is now being formalized. Music appears also to paint a more positive situation for fellows in their courses.

 

 

10. Overall, have you been satisfied with your department's/program's relationship to IHUM?

 

Most of the responses here are quite positive. German and Spanish and Portuguese are very happy. Classics is generally happy with its relationship. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities says the working relationship is good. A couple of respondents expressed reservations: Music is happy, but wishes lecturers had more contact with the students; CASA has been happy enough, but feels the three-year limit on fellow terms is unreasonable and inflexible.

History is unhappy, both about the structure of IHUM, and about what it perceives as unreasonable impositions on its course decisions (though these may arise as part of the Senate mandate to the IHUM Governance Board and IHUM’s directors).

Asian Languages wants to develop a relationship with IHUM.

 

 

11. Do you have any other comments that you think would be useful to the IHUM self-study?

 

Asian Languages relates its difficulties (due to current department staffing) in mounting an IHUM sequence. Classics suggests our self-study discuss how and how easily courses are recruited. (We have included this discussion.) [link to relevant section of top document] CASA suggests comparing IHUM course evaluations with evaluations from CIV. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities has several suggestions for fellows’ orientation. Spanish and Portuguese urges IHUM to stick to the principles behind the present program. Music suggests polling fellows about their role in IHUM (which we have done: see Fellows Survey Summary). [link to Fellows Survey Summary.doc]