The Sanford Institute of Public Policy should reconsider the number of its professors of the practice, its organization of teaching and research, and its areas of concentration, according to a February 2002 external review that was obtained by The Chronicle.
Administrators responded that neither of the review's first two critiques were well thought out or likely to be implemented, but that the review's most relevant point was reexamining the areas of concentration.
"The important thing to identify is where they have a point and where do we think they're wrong," said Bruce Jentleson, the institute's director. "The overall message was positive, showing we are on the right track."
The institute, like most of the University's academic divisions, undergoes a peer review about every five years.
Faculty
The review's harshest criticism targeted the number of professors of the practice, which it recommended capping at 25 percent of the total faculty. Currently, those professors--who do not have tenure and are often chosen for their real-world experience--make up between one-fourth and one-half of the institute's faculty, Jentleson said.
"[Professors of the practice] are rarely recruited with the same kind of discussion of departmental need and systematic search process as academic faculty," the report read. "Most importantly, there is an inescapable danger that experienced practitioners may rely exclusively on anecdotal reports of their own experiences, rather than distilled lessons and insights from the research literatures that students can apply in their own professional lives."
Jentleson said the review committee's comments stemmed from a misunderstanding and that no such changes will be made.
"They really suggested a formula that didn't fit reality," Jentleson said. "They under-appreciated the contributions that professors of the practice and other non-tenured faculty make."
William Chafe, dean of the faculty of Arts and Sciences, said the committee misinterpreted the role of professors of the practice, believing they do more teaching and less research. Some of those professors primarily research, teaching only part-time.
Susan Tifft, a Patterson professor of the practice of public policy studies, said those professors connect students to the professional world through the classroom, professional contacts, career advice and real-world counsel.
"Pure academics is not the essence of a public policy institute," said Francis Lethem, a professor of the practice of public policy studies.
Kenneth Dodge, William McDougall professor of public policy studies, agreed there should be a mix of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty but said he did not know whether the current proportions were optimal.
Both the review and the institute's faculty cited a need for overall growth--the institute's strategic plan hopes to increase the faculty from 17 to 25.
Organization
The review found that the institute's organization exacerbates challenges to balance teaching, individual research and larger, multi-investigator research projects. It urged the consideration of two models--the "traditional model" and the "twin-silo model," both of which would separate large-scale research centers from routine teaching and research responsibilities.
Chafe and Jentleson agreed that the institute's current system enables superior integration of research and teaching than either of the recommended models, although the reviewers found that current integration is still "quite limited."
"The twin-silo model is a flat-out bad idea," Jentleson said. "It flies in the face of public policy as a field.... We're using the traditional model but with an even greater degree of integration."
Dodge added that spreading the faculty over multiple divisions would weaken the institute's ability to involve students in research.
The review also recommended considering transforming the institute into an independent school. "It would enhance the profile of the Institute/School beyond Duke, making recruitment of students, identification of employers, and even interaction with alumni, markedly easier," the committee wrote.
The review team said the change could be a semantic one with minimal financial costs, but Chafe said budgetary concerns made the suggestion nearly impossible in the foreseeable future.
"Undergraduates come to a university like Duke because a liberal arts education is an effective and comprehensive way of dealing with a whole set of issues," Chafe added. "[Separating Sanford from Arts and Sciences] undermines the holistic education and the ideals of a liberal arts education."
The report noted that several top public policy schools remain within larger arts and sciences departments.
In many senses, Sanford is already a school--just without the title, Jentleson said. "We don't have the form of a school but we have many of the functions of a school, which is in many ways just as important," he said.
Specialization
Chafe, Jentleson and Provost Peter Lange agreed that one of the review's most important suggestions was to refocus the institute's three strategic areas of specialization. While it affirmed the institute's focus on social and health policy, it questioned its other two specializations.
"[I]nternational policy and multi-sector governance seem to us more problematic as the basis for specialization," according to the report. "[T]hese influences are pervasive and do not provide a coherent basis for organizing the institute's education or research functions."
Since the report, the institute has further specified international policy into three subcategories--globalization, democratization and development. It also redesignated multi-sector governance from an area of focus to a more general research approach.
Degree Programs
The external review committee also considered the undergraduate academic experience, although not as fully as Jentleson said he hoped it would.
"Undergraduate instruction is clearly passing a market test--enrollments are large and have been rising.... But we are concerned that the reasons for the increases in enrollment and with student satisfaction may signal problems," the report read. "Many advanced courses in the institute are taught by professors of the practice; the students enjoyed these and learned from them but saw them as not very intellectually rigorous and definitely not following up systematically on what they had learned in the tools or analytic courses."
The report was optimistic about the masters in public policy and the mid-career international development policy programs.
It also acknowledged the financial obstacles of adding a doctorate program. Lange said he is not worried that the lack of a doctorate program will hinder competitive faculty hirings. "They have an excellent faculty now without it," he said.
The review recommended developing joint doctorate programs with other schools at Duke, such as the Fuqua School of Business and the School of Law. Such programs are currently under consideration and might become a reality in two to four years, Chafe said.
"Everything it said was consistent with the strategy we'd already embarked upon," said Frederick Mayer, director of the institute's graduate program. "[Joint programs are] the right way to go."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.