Conclusion

Outcomes assessment, the measurement of faculty productivity and other new administrative practices are becoming more widespread. There is good reason to suppose that these trends will continue. There is little evidence that faculty have either embraced these practices enthusiastically or opposed them vigorously. Rather, it appears that some are enthusiastic about some practices (particularly outcomes assessment), while many grumble about an increase in externally imposed bureaucratic reporting requirements. Many also appear to know very little about the new practices which may be affecting them or will affect them in the future.

Many of these practices raise issues, both philosophical (should we actually measure faculty productivity?) and practical (how should we measure? what should be done with the information we gather?). The Task Force hopes that its final report has outlined for sociologists what the issues involved are, has identified both concerns and “best practices” that will help Sociology departments in their own discussions, and will encourage more involvement by sociologists in on-campus and national discussions of these practices.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL

We make the following recommendations to the ASA Council to ensure that the issues raised in this report are discussed widely within the profession.

1. This report in its entirety should be distributed to member of the ASA Council, to ASA staff, to department affiliates, and to the individuals who agreed to be interviewed by task force members. A link to the report should be available on the ASA's web site. Further, we suggest that the ASA sponsor a session on this report at the annual meetings of 2004 and that the report be summarized in an article in Footnotes.

2. This report suggests that efforts to measure faculty productivity and to engage in outcomes assessment have not led to the dire consequences some have predicted. Nonetheless, it is critical that the ASA maintain vigilance in these areas. The opportunity for the misuse of productivity and assessment data remains, and there is no sense that pressures on departments and institutions to engage in these activities will lessen. Therefore, we recommend that the ASA use Footnotes and the Chairs Workshop associated with the annual ASA meetings to solicit feedback on a biannual basis from faculty about whether these kinds of data gathering activities are creating academic freedom and other problems for faculty and departments.

3. We encourage ASA staff to meet periodically with their counterparts in other learned societies to monitor the ways in which these data gathering activities are impacting faculty and their professions. Further, we encourage staff to work with their colleagues in other professional associations to share resources and to host joint workshops when time and place allow (e.g., another workshop of assessment in sociology in conjunction with the annual assessment conference sponsored by the AAHE).

4. The ASA should continue to provide resources to departments to assist especially with assessment efforts. The “teaching and academic resources” published by the ASA should continue to give emphasis to assessment. Similarly, the ASA should continue to host academic workplace workshops and sessions on assessment during the annual meetings. The Department Resources Group (DRG) should be expanded to include experts on assessment who are willing to consult with departments facing assessment issues (or, alternatively, a new group with a focus on assessment could be developed to serve as a resource to departments nationally).

5. The ASA should encourage the regional and state associations to hold workshops and sessions on assessment issues.

While recognizing the need for editors to maintain control of their publications, the ASA should encourage Teaching Sociology, Sociology of Education, and VUES (the newsletter of the section on Teaching and Learning in Sociology) to give attention to assessment issues.