Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation
Sign In
First Person

Avoiding the Potholes of Program Review

By Jane S. Halonen and Dana S. Dunn February 27, 2017
And Then What Happened? 1
Julie Delton for The Chronicle Review

Academic program reviews — or APRs, as they are known in administrative-speak — are both a blessing and a curse.

A well-executed internal review can be a blessing when it leads to a helpful external review that allows your department to shine and be appreciated for its strengths. The curse, of course, is that someone (often the department chair) has to convene a committee (not another committee!) of faculty members (already feeling overburdened) to write a self-study before any external reviewer can be brought to campus for a “tweed on the ground” evaluation of your program.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Academic program reviews — or APRs, as they are known in administrative-speak — are both a blessing and a curse.

A well-executed internal review can be a blessing when it leads to a helpful external review that allows your department to shine and be appreciated for its strengths. The curse, of course, is that someone (often the department chair) has to convene a committee (not another committee!) of faculty members (already feeling overburdened) to write a self-study before any external reviewer can be brought to campus for a “tweed on the ground” evaluation of your program.

For many years, the two of us have served as external reviewers for APRs in psychology. Between us, we have done more than 70. Although we have yet to do an APR together, we often discuss the problems we’ve encountered on our visits around the country.

To be sure, most APRs go well — often very well — and lead to a healthy and productive exchange of ideas for improvement. APRs are standard practice in higher education. Whether the state mandates the review as an accountability measure or the institution conducts one voluntarily as a good practice, most academic programs face a periodic demand to verify their claims about the quality of their teaching and research. At minimum, an APR offers an opportunity for self-reflection and self-correction. Ideally, a favorable review can be used to leverage additional resources, such as those increasingly precious faculty lines.

Most faculty members who have been through a successful APR recognize that the true value of the process is in those intangible results — and not in the paperwork that gets filed at the end of the journey.

But some reviews don’t go so well, and are mostly memorable because of problems — we call them program-review “potholes” — that could have been avoided with some planning and forethought. In the worst-case scenario, an external reviewer persuasively argues for drastic changes in your program strategies and personnel. And yes, we have even advised administrators of clearly ineffective programs that they needed to “start over.”

We’ve come up with a list of common APR potholes, along with some advice on how to steer clear of them. We offer that list here in the hope of helping any programs facing imminent review.

The unexamined-life challenge. Both of us have visited programs that didn’t bother to do a detailed self-study before we arrived. Conducting a self-study ahead of time should be standard procedure in any program review. In fact, most reviewers would say the self-study is the whole point of the process, affording people in the department a chance to identify where they are succeeding and failing. A thorough self-study is also a means for a department to alert the administration that the review will be a serious exercise, rather than a self-congratulatory one.

The “You’ve got a friend in me” trap. Choosing the right APR visitor is essential if the department is going to receive recommendations that are actually useful. However, some departments hedge their bets by inviting allies (i.e., friends, often friends of the chair) to conduct the review, which poses a conflict of interest. In such cases, the APR loses traction from the outset because the reviewer can be criticized as biased or, at the very least, uncritical, thereby wasting the rare but important opportunity for program development.

Choose an external reviewer who is familiar with the context of your program (e.g., liberal-arts college, regional comprehensive, HBCU) or who has special expertise on problems identified in your self-study (e.g., curriculum design, faculty recruitment, assessment) — and not because that person can do you the favor of painting a rosier portrait than your program might deserve. Experienced reviewers should bring a variety of suggestions to the table rather than serving as an echo chamber.

ADVERTISEMENT

The past-should-be-prologue matter. Some departments, looking to make a fresh start, resist giving the external visitor a copy of the previous APR report (there’s usually a window of five to seven years between reviews). That’s a mistake. Not only should you hand over the previous report, you should also provide a list of the responses and changes that resulted. Expect the new reviewer to ask why some recommendations were followed while others were ignored. Having that background information bolsters the confidence of the new reviewer in determining what next to recommend.

The solo-tour-guide setback. In some departments, preparing the self-study becomes an assignment sometimes passed off to a junior faculty member since the senior professors are “busy doing more important things.” To compound matters, the assignment often comes with little or no compensation or release time.

Despite those challenges, the single-author approach can produce a fine document. Trouble is: It’s unlikely to have the galvanizing effect of a shared process. Colleagues who have no stake in the self-study are unlikely to support many of its conclusions. Things fall apart when the external reviewer discovers the lack of involvement or interest. Whenever possible, a representative sample of department members should prepare the self-study, sharing section drafts with the rest of their colleagues and encouraging feedback so that the final version surprises no one.

The Luddite scenario. Is the department website hopelessly out of date or difficult to navigate? Was it last updated when Obama began his first term? An external reviewer will go to your program’s website to evaluate its public face. One of us did a site visit recently during a major campus web updating, in which the host department had virtually no digital presence. The inconvenience of that for the APR visitor is relatively minor, but it represents a lot of lost opportunities to interact online with prospective students and their families.

ADVERTISEMENT

The missing loyal opposition. Even the most functional departments tend to have at least one outlier colleague who can be counted on to offer a dissenting perspective. External reviewers need to talk to every department member, happy or not. Experienced reviewers are sufficiently seasoned to recognize when crabby complaints come from the legitimately disenfranchised versus career curmudgeons or contrarians. As reviewers, we find it helpful for the chair to identify the likelihood of turmoil in the program without necessarily identifying the misbehaving.

However, if a faculty member is well known for truculence, we recommend a different course of action. Each of us has endured rude comments or inappropriate behavior from such faculty on several occasions. In the best of situations, the department chair or other host has taken us aside and warned us in advance about prickly colleagues. The wise course is to be honest about faculty members who may make a potentially embarrassing show.

The stacked-deck sleight of hand. An important feature of any program review is interviewing current students. It is less than helpful, however, when departments interview only their best and brightest students. Those students would probably fare well in any program on any campus and will always paint the rosiest of pictures about their educational experiences.

More telling can be how the department manages to deliver the program to students with more significant challenges or backgrounds (e.g., first-generation college students, adult learners, online degree earners). We think it is especially important to evaluate how the faculty relate to students who are not headed to graduate school.

ADVERTISEMENT

The lofty-expectation problem. Many departments participate in APR with visions of (finally) getting an official channel to lobby for badly needed resources, such as additional office or research space, as well as the golden ticket, new faculty lines.

External reviewers can make the case for the redistribution of resources to resolve real needs. But it’s unrealistic to assume that these rewards will be forthcoming when the review is over. External reviewers do take into account the fiscal challenges facing the institution, just as administrators are on guard for the typical “they need more lines” speech from an APR report. One of us once did a review where we were explicitly told up front: Do not recommend any new faculty hires. Program reviews are more helpful when all parties are realistic about what can be done.

The care-and-feeding requirement. Because they want to take advantage of every available moment, departments sometimes overschedule the external reviewer. The irony here: If the visit is planned with no opportunity for taking notes and reflection, the reviewer may be sensitized to examine whether the work environment itself provides a reasonable context in which to get the job done and a reasonable quality of life.

The external reviewer needs a place to work (an office or vacant classroom will do), access to the internet, water and snacks for the ongoing conversations, and some “down time” to translate a lot of information into a meaningful final report.

ADVERTISEMENT

The dusty-shelf destiny. Many departments remain skeptical of the APR process, fueled by the refrain that “nobody in the administration is going to read the report, anyway.” One of us worked with a psychology department that actually incorporated a graph of tractor production in its self-study as a means of proving this point.

Instead of assuming the higher-ups will or won’t read the report, ask for a formal response from the dean or provost who commissioned the review. That way, departmental needs will be acknowledged and any unrealistic expectations about prospective gains can be placed in check.

The end result. Sometimes chairing a department can feel like a hopeless enterprise because there are too many drivers all trying to go in different directions. We call that the “caravan dilemma.” The APR process can actually subvert it by steering department members through some shared decision-making. If you and your colleagues rarely meet because such gatherings are viewed as intrusive, time-wasting, or simply an opportunity for collective complaining, the cost is creating a department that doesn’t really feel like a department. Program review can (re)establish a sense of shared mission and direction.

An effective review can affirm the department’s identity and hard work, instill appropriate pride for its accomplishments, and generate a new commitment to dealing with emerging opportunities or inevitable weaknesses.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most faculty members who have been through a successful APR recognize that the true value of the process is in those intangible results — and not in the paperwork that gets filed at the end of the journey.

Jane S. Halonen is a professor of psychology and former dean of arts and science at the University of West Florida. Dana S. Dunn is a professor and former chair of psychology at Moravian College.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Jane S. Halonen
Jane S. Halonen is a professor of psychology and former dean of arts and sciences at the University of West Florida.
About the Author
Dana S. Dunn
Dana S. Dunn is a professor of psychology and director of academic assessment at Moravian University.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Illustration showing the logos of Instragram, X, and TikTok being watch by a large digital eyeball
Race against the clock
Could New Social-Media Screening Create a Student-Visa Bottleneck?
Mangan-Censorship-0610.jpg
Academic Freedom
‘A Banner Year for Censorship’: More States Are Restricting Classroom Discussions on Race and Gender
On the day of his retirement party, Bob Morse poses for a portrait in the Washington, D.C., offices of U.S. News and World Report in June 2025. Morse led the magazine's influential and controversial college rankings efforts since its inception in 1988. Michael Theis, The Chronicle.
List Legacy
‘U.S. News’ Rankings Guru, Soon to Retire, Reflects on the Role He’s Played in Higher Ed
Black and white photo of the Morrill Hall building on the University of Minnesota campus with red covering one side.
Finance & operations
U. of Minnesota Tries to Soften the Blow of Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts With Faculty Benefits

From The Review

A stack of coins falling over. Motion blur. Falling economy concept. Isolated on white.
The Review | Opinion
Will We Get a More Moderate Endowment Tax?
By Phillip Levine
Photo illustration of a classical column built of paper, with colored wires overtaking it like vines of ivy
The Review | Essay
The Latest Awful Ed-Tech Buzzword: “Learnings”
By Kit Nicholls
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Review | Interview
William F. Buckley Jr. and the Origins of the Battle Against ‘Woke’
By Evan Goldstein

Upcoming Events

07-16-Advising-InsideTrack - forum assets v1_Plain.png
The Evolving Work of College Advising
Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin