Program Review (2)

In keeping with feminist practice, outside evaluators in Women’s Studies tend to perceive their function as formative rather than summative. According to Beardsley and Miller, external reviewers should “facilitate the feminist evaluation approach, rather than be an expert in that approach” (68). Feminist reviewers may perceive themselves not as gate-keepers, but as participants in an on-going process of reflection. Their responsibilities include “assist[ing] in developing interdependence of relationships and coordinating information flow in nonhierarchical patterns,” thus “provid[ing] a safe environment for stakeholders to collaboratively explore the evolving strengths and weaknesses of the program and of the evaluation recommendations” (68). Evaluator and evaluated alike are engaged in assessing an educational program with the goal of continually improving students’ experiences.

In Students at the Center, Carolyne Arnold extends Joan Poliner Shapiro’s concept of illuminative evaluation to describe what happens in reviews of Women’s Studies:

Illuminative evaluation is so broad-based that it utilizes not only the techniques of participant observation, interviews, and analysis of documents in the form of a case study but also, where appropriate, incorporates questionnaires and other quantifiable instruments. The advantage of illuminative evaluation is that both qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined . . . . Illuminative evaluation, as a strategy, makes no claim to perfect objectivity. The evaluation is not supposed to be value-free. (53)

The model of illuminative evaluation is worthwhile for external evaluators to adopt because it draws on central features of feminist research, especially the use of multiple methods and the rejection of a single objective perspective. Moreover, in taking its subjects as participants, it eliminates the fear of judgment that may suppress open discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the program. It also reduces the risk that the external evaluator will make recommendations that are inappropriate or impossible to implement in the institution; the faculty, students, and administration at the program being evaluated contribute their knowledge when conversations about the final report take place. Based on this model, an external evaluator might deviate from standard procedure and offer the programs being reviewed opportunities to comment (but not make decisions) on a draft of the final report, too.

Institutions frequently ask evaluators to rate programs in relation to an average. This creates particular difficulties in the case of Women’s Studies programs. Often, there is no comparable unit within the institution if the question is aimed internally. If the reports cited in this document are accurate, most Women’s Studies programs do an excellent job of promoting the learning skills that they aim to teach, so “average” in terms of Women’s Studies might in fact be above average for another unit. I therefore recommend that, in answering such questions, evaluators define the terms of the comparison, and, when possible, compare the Women’s Studies program not only to other Women’s Studies programs, but also to other interdisciplinary programs. The same should be true when evaluating resources, an area in which Women’s Studies programs may be found lacking.

One last recommendation: just as Women’s Studies practitioners assert the contextual nature of knowledge, external reviewers should comment on the campus climate in which the programs they are evaluating function. This is anomalous in higher education evaluation—no one considers the environment in which a mathematics or history department operates (thought it might be illuminating if they did). Yet Women’s Studies undergraduates continue to report being teased or harassed about their decisions to take courses, major, or minor in the interdiscipline; accounts of academic advisors who turn students away from the field remain frequent as well. Intimidation and negativity do not create an optimal environment for learning, and it is therefore essential that their presence be recorded in evaluating learning in Women’s Studies. Moreover, when faculty members face similar barriers and their scholarship or academic rigor is challenged unfairly, they are unable to contribute to student learning as effectively as they might. Thus, while evaluators are not expected to conduct full-scale studies of campus climate, they should ask pertinent questions of students and faculty, perhaps review campus media, and scan recent Clery Campus Security Act statistics.* In their meetings with upper level administrators, external evaluators can play a key role in explaining the criteria used in assessing Women’s Studies as well as norms for the field.

*The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Crime Statistics Act requires campuses to publish an annual report of their policies pertaining to crime prevention and reporting; statistics on the frequency of certain crimes on campus; and availability of services and education focusing on crime prevention, increased reporting of crimes, and availability of support services for victims of crimes. Since students’ access to federal financial aid is contingent upon a university’s compliance with the act, most campuses make crime statistics widely available.