PREFACE
This Self-Study for the University of Rhode Island represents almost two years of planning, review and evaluation. The goal from the outset was to conduct this process in an open and inclusive manner and to allow many opportunities for all interested members of the university community to participate. As will be clear to the reader of this document, the University has undergone sustained self-examination and significant change over the past decade; however, preparation of this Self-Study provided an opportunity to consider our achievements, continuing challenges and future goals in an organized, systematic and comprehensive fashion. A representative steering committee, co-chaired by a faculty member and an associate dean, oversaw the preparation of theSelf-Study . Individual members of the steering committee chaired the task forces which conducted the evaluations of each of the standards of accreditation. While each task force undertook activities appropriate to its particular standard, extensive involvement of members of the university community occurred and the formal involvement in the review and development of the document by all colleges, departments, committees and university offices was ensured.
Preparations for the Self-Study began in the fall of 1995 with the appointment of the co- chairs of the steering committee, Dr. Sandra Ketrow, Associate Professor of Communication Studies, and Dr. Leo O'Donnell, Associate Dean of the College of Human Sciences and Services. They, along with Dr. Blair Lord, Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Services, began their orientation to the self-study process with attendance at the NEASC Self Study Workshop on October 18-19, 1995. The design chosen for the organization of the steering committee was to have it composed of the chairpersons of the eleven task forces each of which would assess one of the standards of accreditation. On November 30, 1995, President Carothers sent a memorandum to the entire university community announcing the anticipated formation of the eleven task forces and inviting those interested in serving on a task force to make their interest known. Subsequently, the steering committee co-chairs, the Vice Provost, and Dr. M. Beverly Swan, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, identified additional individuals to serve on the task forces and an appropriate chairperson for each. Finally, the task force chairpersons made suggestions for additions to their task forces.
By March 1996, the members of the eleven task forces had been appointed, and information regarding the self-study process and previous self-study documents were distributed. On April 4, 1996, the steering committee held its first meeting with Dr. Swan and Dr. Lord. General information about accreditation and the self-study process was presented, a timeline for preparation of the Self-Study was determined, and preliminary discussions of the strategies which the task forces might use to ensure that the objective of an open, inclusive and thorough process would be achieved were held. All task forces were able to meet at least once during what remained of the Spring 1996 Semester to develop plans to assess adequately their standards. The entire steering committee met once more during this same period. In June, the steering committee sent a memorandum to all members of the university community announcing the membership of the task forces and outlining the plan for the reflection, assessment and ultimate preparation of the Self-Study . Several task forces also agreed that the magnitude of their task was sufficiently large that they should meet regularly during the summer months and proceeded to do so.
With start of the Fall 1996 Semester, the steering committee commenced monthly meetings which continued throughout the entire academic year. Substantial discussiontime was devoted to discussing the strategies which the various task forces proposed to pursue to ensure adequate participation by the appropriate university constituencies. Different methods were chosen by the different task forces including direct contact with individuals and/or groups, mailed requests for information and input, and open forums. The steering committee also discussed strategies to keep all members of the university community informed and engaged in the ongoing self-examination process. This included stories in the campus newspaper, The Good 5¢ Cigar , and the Pacer , and regular ongoing announcements to all standing groups and committees on campus. Finally, the committee chose a method for ensuring that drafts of the section for each standard, and ultimately drafts of the entire self-study document were available and accessible to all members of the university community.
The first complete draft of the Self-Study was assembled during March 1997. Hard copies were widely distributed throughout all four divisions of the University and an electronic copy was made available through the University's gopher system. Comments on any aspect of the document were invited and those received were shared with the appropriate task forces. In late April 1997, a series of open forums were announced and held to which all interested members of the university community were invited and encouraged to offer comments, reactions and suggestions. In July 1997, a second complete draft was assembled and distributed to select individuals in each division. In addition, each task force chair was requested to read the document in its entirety. This draft also was reviewed by Dr. Peggy Maki of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. All comments were evaluated and changes made, where appropriate, prior to final approval for publication by the President and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
As this description indicates, the opportunity that preparation of this Self-Study provided for structured review, reflection and evaluation was undertaken in an open and inclusive fashion and care was taken to ensure that all suggestions were carefully considered and, where appropriate, included. We are confident that this Self-Study accurately presents how the University of Rhode Island currently sees itself and how it views its effectiveness in meeting the standards of accreditation.
|
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
|
| ||||||