In accordance with the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP), this Final Assessment Report (FAR) provides a synthesis of the external evaluation, as well as the internal response and assessments of the undergraduate programs offered by the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities in BA History. This report identifies the significant strengths of the programs, together with opportunities for improvement and enhancement. It also sets out and prioritizes the recommendations that have been selected for implementation. This report includes an Implementation Plan that identifies who will be responsible for approving the recommendations set out in the Final Assessment Report; providing any resources entailed by those recommendations; any changes in organization, policy, or governance that will be necessary to meet the recommendations, and who will be responsible for acting on those recommendations; as well as establishing timelines for acting on and monitoring the implementation of those recommendations.
Overview of Program Review Process
The Program Self-Study Report was completed on 17 May 2022. For the programs under review (BA History (Honours and Major) plus other programs with a minor in history and BA with concentration in History through the RMC Online), it contained for these programs the degree level expectations, an analytical assessment, course outlines, related data, survey data from the Office of Quality Assurance, and appendices with sample examinations and CVs of faculty members. Two arm’s-length external reviewers (Talbot Imlay (Professeur titulaire, Département des sciences historiques, Université Laval), and Gregory Kennedy (Professeur agrégé, Département d’histoire et géographie, Université de Moncton) were selected from a list of possible reviewers and approved by the Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities. An internal reviewer, Major Jason Zwicker (Assistant professor, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Royal Military College), was also selected for participation on the ERC. They reviewed the self-study documentation, and conducted an on-site visit to RMC from 8 to 9 December 2022. During the site visit, the ERC met with the VP Academic, the Director of Quality Assurance, the Dean of Social Science and Humanities, the Head of the History department and program chair, faculty members, alumni, students registered in the programs, the librarian-in-chief, and the Associate VP Indigenous Knowledge and Learning.
The reviewers submitted their report on 21 Jan 2023. In their report, the ERC expresses the opinion that the History program is a good program with a unique mission and focus on military history that serves the discipline of history and the development of CAF leaders
Significant Strengths and Areas of Concern of the Program
The ERC identified a number of strengths of the BA History programs:
- The program is a National leader in the area of operational and strategic Canadian military history.
- Innovation in delivering content and assessing student work during the COVID pandemic.
- Small class sizes give it a notable advantage.
- High success rate in terms of graduation gives the impression that faculty are engaged teachers, and highly responsive to students.
The ERC identified a number of areas of concern for BA History programs:
- The program does not reflect the current state of the discipline of history more broadly in Canada. It is critically short of geographical breadth, and lacks scholars specializing in indigenous history and colonial warfare.
- There is a need for the program to diversify and modernize its curriculum, otherwise, there is a risk that the program has the unintended consequence of strengthening the existing military subculture of western, white, heteronormativity, which not only affects CAF culture, but also has an impact on operational effectiveness in other parts of the world.
- There is a lack of active research production and external funding. Research production is crucial to staying current in the field and to the credibility of the program with other scholars.
The Program Chair, after consultation with faculty and staff in the programs, submitted aresponse to the ERC Report in May 2023. The interim Dean of Social Science and Humanities prepared this Final Assessment Report on 3 June 2023. Specific recommendations are discussed, and follow-up actions and timelines provided.
Summary of the Reviewers’ Recommendations with Dean’s Responses
While the ERC identified many strengths of the program, they also identified several areas of concern or issues that require specific attention. These issues are discussed in the order that they appear in the ERC Report:
Recommendation 1
Reduce the normal course load for tenured faculty from six to five (3/2 or 2/3). Virtually all universities in Canada have a standard four or five course-teaching load. This reduction would create the capacity for additional research production and innovation. The teaching load is aggravated by the fact that professors at RMC cannot hire teaching/marking assistants or tutors.
Departmental Response
Over the past five years, the Department Head and the Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities have endeavored to reduce the teaching load to a maximum of 5 courses per faculty member per academic year, but this has been implemented on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, much of this “teaching relief” has been offset by increased service to the college workloads and larger class sizes. As a result, professors continue to triage their work between many demands. Therefore, research projects often end up at the bottom of the “to do” list. The most important resource available to historians, as well as other scholars in the Social Sciences and Humanities, is time to conduct their research and to write. High teaching and service/ administrative workloads have led to increasing rates of “burnout” and significantly reduce the ability of the faculty to devote sustained time to their research and knowledge production.
It is important to note that nominal teaching workload does not account for undergraduate and graduate supervisions undertaken by professors each year. Nor does it count the special topics courses that professors create and deliver to help students, particularly those who are short a credit in their final year, to graduate on time. Thus, the nominal teaching workload hides the amount of teaching that is actually being delivered.
Currently, the RMC Joint Committee on Workload is examining these issues, but has yet to report. However, the Department is encouraged by the ERC’s recognition that current workload among faculty members must be addressed BEFORE other quality enhancements can occur.
Dean’s Response:
This recommendation highlights the lingering issue of the number of courses the teaching staff must deliver per semester, and suggests that the College implement a standard teaching workload to 5 courses instead of 6, across all departments. The interim dean of SSH agrees that the teaching workload should be reduced to 5 courses. It is true that over the years, the Faculty of SSH has managed to reduce the teaching load to 5 by using “teaching relief.” This solution remains short-term, needs to be renegotiated every year, and remains a contentious point between all departments. The RMC Joint Committee on Workload has yet to produce their report, and it is difficult to foresee their answer on that particular issue. One thing is certain: this issue needs to be addressed sooner than later. At the moment – and contrary to what was mentioned in the ERC recommendation – teaching assistants are available (when the number of students is over 25) if the department asks for and requires them. TAs would still be available if the course load is reduced. Moreover, as the final report on workload is not finalized, the interim dean of SSH does not know if it addresses the extra work (ex: extra topics as mentioned in the departmental response) added to the nominal teaching workload. If not, it is recommended that departmental heads get together and look at the issue before presenting suggestions to the dean (and the dean to VPA). Moreover, the department heads should ask themselves if the current teaching workload has a negative impact on the quality of their programs.
The interim dean of SSH was surprised and concerned by the departmental comment regarding “burnout.” It is possible that “extra workload” could lead to fatigue and burnout. If this happens, it is strongly recommended that department heads report that to the dean. In order to help faculty members, the dean needs to evaluate if the cause of fatigue and burnout is directly related to the workload or something else. However, and independently of the cause, faculty members need to be looked after by department heads and the dean. Department heads and the dean are also aware that many faculty members are not using their vacation, or sick leave time. These two options are means teaching staff must use to prevent burnout. A closer monitor of these two options is highly recommended by the dean to prevent burnout.
VPA’s response
The VPA agrees that course loading in the Social Sciences and Humanities must be reduced to 5. After the Workload Distribution committee presents their findings, key stakeholders will meet to decide on how to best achieve this objective.
Recommendation 2
Hire Indigenous educational design specialist. Hiring a specialist to assist faculty with updating their course content to better reflect Indigenous perspectives will not only help the history program, but all RMC cadets served by the core curriculum. Learning outcomes would be improved and systemic bias/racism addressed. Would be clear evidence of RMC responding to calls for action by the TRC.
Departmental Response
The ERC noted that in many of the Department’s courses, the focus and approach to Indigenous history did not reflect current trends in the discipline, particularly the incorporation of Indigenous perspectives. While recognizing that much work needs to be done in this regard, the Department would like to qualify some of the remarks made in this area. First, the Department has made significant strides in introducing Indigenous perspectives to its courses. Introductory courses in Canadian history have, since 2018, incorporated Indigenous voices through such means as the KAIROS Blanket Exercise (delivered by Indigenous SMEs), the use of Indigenous guest lecturers, as well as making significant changes to terminology when discussing settler- Indigenous relations. In addition, History 301 Aboriginal History of Canada has recently been formally reconceptualised as Indigenous Settler Relations in Canada, although the faculty member responsible for the course has largely taught it from that perspective for much of the last decade. The course has significantly pivoted to incorporating Indigenous voices in the delivery of the curriculum wherever possible and feasible to do so with the resources available. Similarly, History 390 and 392 History of European Imperialism has been reconceptualised to focus equally upon Indigenous experiences with colonialism (in its various forms) and Indigenous understandings of those encounters. Many other courses are also addressing issues related to Indigenous peoples and reconceptualising how these issues are taught.
The Department is also participating in a faculty-wide initiative to enhance Indigenous content and pedagogy in the RMC curriculum through a “cluster hire” of Indigenous scholars across all departments. (In doing so, the Department put aside a hiring process that had progressed to the point that applications were being reviewed.) The History position is for a bilingual (CCC language profile) specialist in International History (exclusive of Europe and North America) with the capacity to teach in the core curriculum.1 Currently, the Indigenous hiring process for the position in History has been extended to April 15, 2023, due to a lack of applications. We are concerned about the shortage of interested or available Indigenous applicants. The demand for Indigenous scholars among Canadian universities has made hiring processes extremely competitive, and many other universities have been forced to declare failed searches. Despite that, the RMC History Department remains committed to finding an Indigenous scholar who can meet its current programmatic needs. Regardless of the results of that staffing process, the Department supports the ERC recommendation that the College employ an Indigenous instructional design specialist to help interested faculty integrate Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into their courses. The Department is clear that any such position should not come from existing UT resources. If the College is serious about the Indigenization of its curriculum, then the employment of an Indigenous instructional design specialist should be a college-wide position, and not associated with a single department.
(Note 1: The requirement for a bilingual specialist in areas outside of Europe and North America addresses concerns raised in the ERC’s Recommendations #3 and #7.)
Dean’s Response
The interim Dean of SSH recognizes the efforts made by the department to re-conceptualize its approach and adopt material that is in harmony with Indigenous experiences. While this is not contested, the ERC report invites the department to go beyond what has already been done. For example, various activities that are added to courses. By recommending an indigenous instructional designer, the ERC report acknowledges the requirement to revisit the History curriculum using different lenses. This is a tall order; however, it needs to be done in order to update what is already taught in the department. This recommendation (2) is related to the next one (3) as it suggests to “address gaps and redundancies in curriculum.” By tackling gaps and diminishing redundancies, the department will have opportunities to introduce new learning outcomes linked to systemic bias and racism. The interim Dean of SSH agrees that an Indigenous instructional design specialist would be an important asset not only to the department but the college as a whole. This person doesn’t have to be a full-time hire, but could be contracted out. The department, in consultation with other department heads, the dean and the VPA should look at the possibility of hiring of (contracted out) an Indigenous instructional design specialist. In the meantime, the department is invited to consult the Vice-Principal, Indigenous Knowledge and Learning, (and other available college resources) for advice in order to improve their curriculum.
VPA’s response
The Department is invited to work with the Associate VP Indigenous Knowledge and Learning to update the indigenous perspective and content in their courses. The AVPKIL is in the process of hiring an indigenous educational specialist at RMC.
Recommendation 3
Address gaps and redundancies in curriculum and research specialization. Improve Canadian military history and world history offerings. Key gaps detract from effectiveness of the program in preparing history majors and military leaders. Prioritize faculty hires in following areas: Indigenous/Colonial History before 1900, History of Russia and/or China, other non-western fields of study. Diminish redundancies in core curriculum (20th C Canada).
Departmental Response
The Department fully recognizes the narrow temporal and geographic concentration of its research and teaching fields. Again, this is a long-standing critique of the Department and its program, which it has tried to address through various hiring’s over the past five years. Part of this issue remains a legacy of Work Force Adjustments and various retirements, which were not replaced until after 2016. The result was not only the loss of research specialists in Russian, Asian, Eastern Europe, as well as colonial era history, but the removal of all courses in those areas of expertise. Since the Department regained the ability to hire in 2016, we have been committed to hiring faculty members who can broaden our curriculum. We are still committed to that process and to the wider goal of broadening our fields of research and teaching endeavours. Where possible, we have tried to supplement the core areas of our curriculum with sessional and term hires. However, College regulations do not permit us to create courses in fields of study where we do not have full-time tenured faculty available to teach them. At the same time, it is necessary to keep in mind that all history faculty must be capable of teaching core curriculum courses, which becomes an added constraint within the hiring process.
As the report notes, the College Core curriculum creates demand in certain areas of historical study, particularly Canadian and Canadian military history. We believe that the College’s special mission of educating young officers who will serve their nation need to understand the histories of the peoples and the organization they have chosen to serve and represent in Canada and abroad. Further, while our catalog of courses appears to have redundancies, these are largely due to the unique nature of RMC and the multiple demands placed on students’ time (physical fitness, bilingualism, military training). We cannot offer a single class of Canadian history to all RMC students because students in the Social Sciences, Science and Engineering have very different schedules that cannot easily be adjusted. Indeed, many of our course timings are established by other programs. However, where possible we have reduced redundancies in our program. This will enable us, for the first time, to offer a historical methodologies course – HI 206 - recommended by all previous external reviews.
The report also recommends that the Department take more of a War Studies approach that again might broaden the perspectives available to students. Aside from the already existent multi- disciplinary Military and Strategic Studies program, a review of our course catalog reveals that we are already doing this with courses such as HI 320 Social and Cultural History of the Cold War, HI 444 – War and Memory in the 20th Century, HI 451 – War and the Environment, or HI 456 - Issues in Women War and Society. The Department believes that it has sufficiently broadened its course offerings in these areas. More importantly, we need to remember the constituency we serve – young officers of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Dean’s Response
This recommendation highlights that “key gaps detract from effectiveness of the program in preparing history majors and military leaders.” In most program of study in SSH, the offering of multiple sections of the same course as part of the core curriculum is a reality that is difficult to ignore. While the interim dean of SSH agrees that it is difficult to teach one single Canadian History course to all N/OCdts, it seems that the focus of the ERC recommendation is not about the core curriculum courses. In fact, the ERC report speaks about the other courses that are focusing on the same theme – or close to the same theme. In following recommendation 2, the ERC report invites the department to expand their curriculum to include current topics. It is noted that the department has already expanded their curriculum by included courses such as Issues in Women War and Society. Therefore, the department is strongly encouraged to continue incorporating courses that address current issues such as China, Russia, etc…to the benefit of N/OCdts.
Recommendation 4
Create and integrate a compulsory historical methods course. Comparable history programs across Canada include a compulsory historical methods course in which history majors learn how the discipline has evolved over time and different research approaches, tools, and sources for the craft. Fundamental critical thinking and research skills.
Departmental Response
The Department is proud to announce that it has finally found a solution to this long-standing gap. Starting in the Fall of 2023, the Department will offer HI 206 – What is History: Methods of Historical Enquiry which will be open to all students, but required for those enrolled in a History or MSS major.
Dean’s Response
The interim dean of SSH is pleased that a compulsory historical methods course is finally offered. In fact, this overdue course will make a difference in the way N/OCdts see the study of history. It is recommended that this course be offered in both official languages (if it is not already done).
Recommendation 5
Establish common standards for course syllabi. Review and update course syllabi to include explanation of how courses achieve learning outcomes and degree expectations, and the specific methods of assessment to be employed. We observed a great range in the quality and content (some are very good). Would support student success and transparency and promote reflection on teaching methods and goals. Department level engagement, perhaps as an annual meeting to review course offerings and objectives, could contribute to a collaborative spirit and to reducing content overlap.
Departmental Response
Both the Department and College have been working on trying to standardize and bolster course descriptions and outlines. All courses that currently go before College Syllabus Committee now include broad statements of learning objectives (by the end of the course, students will be expected to …). Secondly, the College now requires or encourages syllabi to include statements about policies concerning the Academic Integrity, the use of Artificial Intelligence, and the use of Intellectual Property, and Student Accommodations. The Department also frequently discusses student learning expectations, and the various means of assessing those at different levels of the program. The Department thus commits to devising a common format for all course outlines/ syllabi that will make it easier for students to understand course requirements and learning expectations.
Dean’s Response
The interim Dean of SSH recognizes the department’s commitment to adopt a common format for all course outlines/syllabi. In order to help the department in this process, it is recommended to consult the Writing Center. They can help with new ideas on how to improve courses outlines/syllabi. The interim Dean recommends that the outline/syllabi go further than a broad statement of the learning objectives, as this non-granular approach will not completely eliminate duplications. Each course should possess an over-arching learning objective, as well as sub- objectives. It is at that level of precision that duplications will be noticed and can be eliminated.
Recommendation 6
Increase response rates on course evaluations. While remaining online, faculty need to dedicate in-class time to their completion. Data from the last several years is inconclusive and not statistically significant due to a poor response rate across the programs. This removes a key tool for teaching assessment and improvement.
Departmental Response
The management of student evaluations of RMC courses is the responsibility of the Office of Quality Assurance, which resides under the purview of the Vice-Principal Academic. QA is responsible for determining the kinds of data collected and the means of collecting it. The Department recognizes that the current system of collecting course evaluations has been less useful in providing data to enable professors to properly assess their classroom performance, or provide them with useful evidence of teaching proficiency when their files come up for tenure and promotion. The Department was not in favour of moving the collection of data online in the first place, since we predicted that response rates would decline. Further complicating the low response rates and insufficient data provided to the ERC were the network outage and COVID emergency teaching terms, which halted student reviews for nearly two full academic years. Giving students class time to complete their reviews would be one way to increase response rates, and hopefully provide professors with more feedback to assess the successfulness of their pedagogical approaches. Logistical questions, such as access to computers to complete the process will need to be addressed by College. Nonetheless, where possible, the Department will encourage its faculty to devote class time for this important process.
Dean’s Response
Course evaluations are an important tool to assess teaching and the meeting of course expectations. The ERC report mentioned that “class time” should be dedicated to that activity. While this could be possible, faculty members should (first) encourage N/OCdts to fill out the course evaluation survey, regardless of where they are: in or outside classroom. Contrary to the department’s response, the online format improved response rates (above 50% from 2017 to 2020) compared to the paper based surveys. The online tool is more accessible to N/OCdts as they can fill out the assessment via their personal phone. Therefore, they do not need to have access to computer per say. Faculty members – from all departments – have to encourage N/OCdts to fill out the assessment in order to help improving learning experience and provide constructive feedback to their professors. Moreover, the tool used by the college is not the only tool that a professor can use to assess their courses. Nothing stops a professor from doing their own assessment at mid-term (as an example) to see if there is a need to improve teaching pedagogy and learning experiences. As this is a point highlighted by the ERC report, we recommend that professors incite N/OCdts to fill out the course evaluation survey and find new ways to evaluate their courses besides (or in association with) the online one.
Recommendation 7
Promote real bilingualism in Faculty competency, Anglophone students taking French/bilingual courses, Dept. events & admin, and service workload. Disparities in course offerings and workload continue to plague the program. Introduce greater flexibility by requiring faculty to achieve basic second language competency, encouraging Anglophone students to register for courses in French (with support), designing bilingual team-taught courses, and ensuring regular department events in a bilingual or French setting. Annual faculty review to include consideration of service workload to ensure equity.
Departmental Response
The ERC’s recommendation to promote bilingualism both in letter and in spirit in the Department and its curriculum is laudable. RMC is after all a bilingual institution whose mandate is to produce future officers who can work comfortably in Canada’s two official languages. The Department has over the past five years attempted to increase its bilingual capacity by making bilingualism a priority in three of its last four hires and to commit to only hiring civilian professors with a linguistic profile of at least CCC so that they may teach in both official languages. The Department has also attempted to increase its French language offerings and to only create new courses that can be offered in both official languages. The Department has also sponsored faculty members to receive second language training so that they can improve their skills in that language. However, increased demands upon the Language Centre at the College has meant that those opportunities have diminished recently.
All communication from the department does go out in both official languages, and faculty and staff are encouraged to use their first language in all department meetings and events. That said, more needs to be done to ensure that minority language speakers, namely Francophones, feel comfortable in doing so.
One other area the Department needs to improve its bilingual capacities is the hiring of and/or training of Francophone or bilingual Military Faculty. For the better part of the last decade however, those perspectives have only been available in the classroom to cadets enrolled in Anglophone courses. We will continue to work the Career system, the CO Postgraduate and Military Faculty and the Dean of SSH to identify and recruit Francophone or bilingual capable Military Faculty.
As for the recommendation of joint classes, the idea is a good one, but not necessarily easy to implement due to federal language regulations and the way teaching loads are currently determined. The report notes that students should be encouraged to take classes in their second language to improve their skills and to even out class sizes and teaching loads. In doing so, the ERC recommends that students be permitted to submit their assignments in their first official language. That already occurs at RMC. Students for whom there is no equivalent class in their first official language may request translation of course documents and/or be permitted to submit their work in their first language. This happens regularly in the department, but largely with Francophone students. Nonetheless, we have had Anglophone students enrol in French language classes. More could be done to foster a more welcoming environment for students to take the leap of studying outside of their first language and the department will examine ways to do so. Again, greater institutional support and resources will be critical to improvements in this area.
Dean’s Response
Recommendation 7 highlights two major points: 1) course offerings that would encourage N/OCdts to take courses in their second language, and 2) professors able to teach in both languages.
- It could be challenging for students to study in their second language. However, they have 4 years to learn the second language. By their 3rd year, some have a very good grasp of their second language. Therefore, N/OCdts in 3rd year (and 4th year) should be invited to take senior courses in their second language. Usually, senior courses have a smaller number of learners and are more conducive to discussions. It would be the ideal environment to practice a second language and learn at the same time. It should be noted that students taking courses in their second language, have the opportunity to write their assignments and exams in the language of their choice, which further provides them with the opportunity to improve their level of bilingualism.
Moreover, the department should continue to offer new courses in both languages. The new compulsory historical methods course (recommendation 4) is a good example of a new offering. As this is a compulsory course for History and MSS, it should be translated and offered in both official languages (if it is not already done).
- Professors teaching in a bilingual institution should be able to teach in both official languages. It is laudable that the last three professors hired in the department are bilingual. This is a trend that the department is encouraged to continue. As for the second language training, it is an initiative supported by the interim dean of SSH. However, the department should not expect that the language center offer second language courses to professors (as was previously done). The need for a second language instructor for professors should be independent from the Second language center, as their mandate is to teach N/OCdts, not professors. It is therefore recommended that money (planned in advance by management) be allocated for a second language instructor (and lessons). As the question of bilingualism concerns all college departments, this initiative should be opened to all faculty members.
As for military members, it is recommended that those seeking to teach in the department should also be bilingual, not only civilian professors. Military members are role models and as such, they have to display what is expected of Canadian officers. If they are unilingual, N/Ocdts are receiving an incongruent message: learning a second language (one pillar) is not that important.The department has to pay attention when accepting military members as professors. It is recommended that the department begin discussing the next military members joining the department as soon as possible. Moreover, they have to start requesting that future military members planning to study history and to teach in the department be able to teach in both official languages.
Recommendation 8
Department Research Action Plan for Faculty seminar, and War Studies. We observed a need to enhance research culture. Some ideas include reinvigorating the military history seminar with partners beyond RMC (e.g., Queen’s, UNB, Laurier, Canadian War Museum) with a view to positioning RMC as a Centre of Excellence for Canadian Military History. Work with War Studies Program. Greater recognition of faculty and student achievements through department newsletter, social media, press releases. Celebrate many great things already happening, such as the ATHENA network.
Departmental Response
We have grouped the last two recommendations together not only because they pertain to concerns the ERC has with the Department’s research production, but also because the solutions to the issues raised concern policies and resources outside the department’s control.To begin, while we believe that the Department should increase its research output, it is also worthwhile to note that Finding 6.40 of the 2017 Auditor General’s Report on the Canadian Military Colleges praised the History Department’s research record. Our analysis of scholarly publications showed that faculty at RMC published as much as faculty of comparable programs at other universities of a similar size. Publication in peer-reviewed and other journals is an indicator of research quality at Canadian universities. We found that, in particular, the civil engineering and history faculties had their work published and cited more often than the same faculties at similar universities used for comparison. (Emphasis added)
We agree that the Department should position itself as Centre of Excellence for Canadian Military History. Indeed, we have several active scholars in this field, including Prof. Doug Delaney, who holds a Tier 1 CRC Chair in Military History, and Dr Howard Coombs, who is the current Deputy Director of the Queen’s University Centre for International and Defence Policy. Nonetheless, we agree that the Department should do more to promote and foster a recognition of its research efforts and outputs. Currently, the Department sponsors lecture series based on faculty research. In addition, history professors have participated in similar forums sponsored by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. Many faculty members sit on journal editorial teams (i.e., Canadian Historical Review, Canadian Journal of African Studies, the International Journal, McGill-Queen’s University Press War and the British Empire series), and participate in inter-university research groups (i.e., Canadian Network for Humanitarian History, Partnership for Peace Consortium). Moreover, we regularly use our social media pages to celebrate and promote the new publications of faculty, students, and alumni. We are not shy in “tooting our own horn.”
The Department’s annual Military History Symposium has continued to operate, except during the COVID emergency. In addition, proceedings of three of the last four symposia have been published by peer reviewed outlets. The Department will be resuming the symposium series this November 2023 with the theme of “Canada and the Liberation of the Netherlands 1944-1946." All of this has occurred despite budget cuts that have eroded the Department’s ability to host such events. In addition, the ability to host conferences at the College is difficult and time consuming due to Treasury Board regulations around honoraria (forbidden), as well as travel and hospitality. Unlike other universities, there are no conference services to help with the coordination of such events; all that work must be borne by faculty members. In short, there is little concrete institutional support or incentive for hosting symposia and conferences at RMC. This brings us to Recommendation 9 – greater institutional support for research. As the ERC report highlights, institutional support to research at RMC is thin, especially in comparison toother Canadian universities of similar size. Most universities have at least one fully dedicated Research Grants Officer to support faculty applying for external grants. RMC currently employs a military faculty member who performs the job as a secondary duty. In an effort to increase faculty success in receiving support from the major funding agencies, the Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities has regularly conducted workshops to help faculty with their grant proposals. We hope these will continue under the future Dean. While helpful, such ad hoc, rather than institutional, measures are insufficient to help RMC faculty compete for grants against their colleagues from civilian universities. Department members were unanimous in their belief that the College needs to employ a full-time civilian Research Grants Officer familiar with the policies and practices of the major Canadian granting institutions. Department members also expressed significant dissatisfaction with the reductions in the Canadian Defence Academy Research Program (CDARP) that occurred after 2015. As the costs of research continue to climb (research assistants, travel, conference fees, etc.) internal funding for research has remained flat at the College for nearly a decade.
The key, however, to fostering a greater research culture in the Department and the College as the report notes is based on incentivizing it. Currently the culture at the College does not incentivize research like other universities. There is no program that rewards high preforming researchers with teaching relief. Nor is there any ability to “purchase” or “buy out” teaching using research funds. Demands to teach a six-course load (3-3) mean that less time is available for research. In addition, service to external research organizations or to journals and academic presses (in short service to one’s profession) is also not officially recognized as part of our required service provisions. Research is something that we are expected to do “during our summer holidays.” (At the same time, we are encouraged to take summer holidays to “burn” our leave balances). To repeat what was stated above, while funding is undoubtedly important to research output in the social sciences and humanities, time for research, reflection, and writing is more so. This is why the report’s call for a maximum five-course workload is so central to the rest of the report. Excellence in research informs excellence in teaching; one cannot have the latter without the former. Our students have the right to be taught by professors who are active and well-respected researchers in their fields of study.
Dean’s Response:
First, it is true that the Auditor General Report (2017) highlights the research conducted by the History department. The interim dean of SSH congratulates the department for that recognition. While the interim dean acknowledges this positive mention, we still need to recognize that the ERC report (in 2022-23) underlines that the research culture be enhanced in the department. This recommendation might not apply to all members of the department, however (and without focusing on particular individuals), it is a recommendation that needs to be taken seriously especially for those that are less prone to conducting research. In the same vein, the interim dean agrees with the ERC report and the departmental response that the department promotes and disseminates more their research efforts and outputs. Becoming a Center of Excellence for Canadian Military History is a good suggestion that should be contemplated by the department.
It is well known that symposiums and conferences require money and take time. However, there are various funding agencies available (ex: SSHRC) that could support such initiatives. These funds could easily be used to hire people (as an example) to help with the organisation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that department members explore other avenues available (besides CDARP) in order to fund symposiums and conferences.
A/VPR’s response
Although I fully agree that ways should be found to improve the support that the institution provides to the departments in terms of research, we can only do what is possible within the limits of our means. That said, I am pleased to announce that the position of Research grant officer, currently held by a military Faculty, will be replaced by a full-time UT professor, a civilian, during the summer of 2023. In addition, a second position of RGO was created for another military colleague (as a secondary duty), who incidentally comes from the history department, since May 2023. This means that someone from SSH will be able to support requests from related disciplines. All this to say that more resources are devoted to supporting professors in writing their grant applications. As for the CDARP program, it should be mentioned that the source of funding comes from the Canadian Defense Academy, which is an organization outside of the College. That said, representations have been made to increase the budget for this program. We hope to have some good news to share on this soon.
Recommendation 9
Increase Institutional Support for Research for Research Grants Officer, Mentorship Program, and Incentives for SSHRC grants. Most universities have at least one fully dedicated Research Grants Officer to support faculty applying for external grants. (RMC has a military faculty member who performs the job as a secondary duty). In addition introduce a mentorship program where more senior faculty who have had success can assist junior faculty with grant proposals, project management, and writing plans. Provide incentives for grant proposal writing and obtention. For example, most universities will support faculty obtaining a SSHRC grant with course relief. Finally, consider options for faculty to hire research assistants, potentially from beyond RMC (i.e., graduate students from other universities, virtual work, etc.).
Departmental Response
(See blended response to recommendation 8 above).
Dean’s Response
It was mentioned, in the dean’s response for recommendation 8, that there are various avenues possible to apply for funds. The ERC report suggests that more support be available to help with applying for research grants. Contrary to the departmental response (recommendation 8 sixth para), there is a Research Grant officer attached to the Vice-principal Research office that informs faculty members about grants available and provides help to those who needs to be “coached” on how to apply. As mentioned in the ERC report, Departmental senior members (if they had applied for grants before) could easily perform this coaching aspect. Another suggestion would be to find workshops on line. Independently to what is offered by the VPR office and the department, the dean of SSH should continue conducting workshops to help faculty with their grant proposals.
A/VPR’s response
(See blended response to recommendation 8 above).
Implementation Plan
| Ser | Recommendation | Proposed Follow-up | Responsibility for Leading Follow-up | Timeline for Addressing Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reduce normal course load for tenured faculty from six to five (3/2 or 2/3) | Awaiting Report from the RMC Workload Committee and any actions agreed to by management and the Faculty Association | Chair, Dean SSH, RMC Principal and Head of CMCFA | July, 2024 |
| 2 | Hire Indigenous educational design specialist | Will work with the current Associate Vice- Principal, Indigenous Knowledge and Learning to work with professors interested in incorporating Indigenous content and ways of knowing into their courses. | Department Head, Dean and Vice Principal Academic |
Update summer 2024 |
| 3 | Address gaps and redundancies in curriculum and research specialization | Will resume current hiring process to find a scholar whose teaching and research expertise lies outside the modern Western world. | Department Head History Hiring Committee | July, 2024 |
| 4 | Create and integrate compulsory historical methods course | HI 206 has been approved for the 2023-24 Academic Year (making sure that it is a bilingual offering) | Department Head | Done |
| 5 | Establish common standard for course syllabi | Will create repository of sample syllabi exhibiting best practices (these should contain explicit over-arching and specific learning objectives). Consult with the writing center for new ideas. | Department Head Writing Center CMCFA |
Summer 2024 |
| 6 | Increase response rates on course evaluations | Will work with professors, CMFCA and QA office to improve both the content and participation of students on teaching evaluations. |
Department Head and members, Director QA, VPA, |
June, 2024 |
| 7 | Promote real bilingualism
|
Will continue to hire fully bilingual CCC qualified professors (both civilian and Military Faculty where possible). Will promote students with BBB standing to take courses outside their language of choice. Will press for return of SLT for staff and faculty so that they can maintain/improve their functionality in their second language. |
Department Head VPA and Principal RMC |
September, 2023 |
| 8 | Department Research Action Plan
|
Annual RMC History Symposium returns in November 2023. Will continue to use Department website and social media presence to celebrate/recognize work of faculty and students | Department Head | November 2024 |
| 9 | Increase Institutional Support for Research
|
Department will continue to work with the VP Research and the Dean of SSH to make funding (and training) opportunities available to faculty and to promote grant application processes. Will sponsor grant writi ng workshops for faculty in the Fall 2023. | Department Head Dean of SSH Vice Principal Research |
October 2023 |
Conclusion:
The ERC Report provided positive feedback on the outcomes of the undergraduate programs in History and confirmed that the RMC is delivering good programs with emphasis on military history.
However, the ERC identified areas that had room for improvement. These areas are related to course load, gaps and redundancies in courses, new and bilingual courses focused on current issues, and research and publishing. While the History programs are part of the Faculty of SSH, the department is responsible (in consultation with other stakeholders) for addressing the issues raised. Moreover, the department should continue to work toward program enhancement and improve student success in the History programs.
The Head of the History department in consultation with the Dean of Social Science and Humanities is responsible for monitoring the Implementation Plan (making adjustments when required, and reporting on the results achieved, or those not attainable, with justification)