PREFACE

Self-study is a process and a set of products, central among which is the self-study report. We believe the report provides a faithful and comprehensive portrait of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and serves as a reliable foundation for the group assessment that will emerge from the NEASC-appointed visiting team. It also provides a benchmark for the university* and contains the specific projections and plans for assessment which can be the targeted objectives for the immediate future.

This report attests to the inclusiveness of the process which brought it into being, as well as the painstaking work of individuals from every part of the campus. From the initial data- gathering and reporting stage involving hundreds of individuals, to the writing of the foundational reports by members of the Steering Committee with their supporting committees, to the final review of the working draft, everyone on campus has had the opportunity to be directly involved in the process, or at least to offer observations and criticism, all of which were considered in the final revision of the document in its present, finished form.

The self-study was collaborative in the fullest sense. It faithfully reflects the reality and self-perceptions of UMass Dartmouth in the 1990's, and the institution's direction, goals, and expectations for the near future. The contributors to this overview have not avoided talking about shortcomings or areas for improvement, but this in no way obscures the fundamentally positive and hopeful tone reflective of an institution on the rise.

THE PRODUCTS

1. The self-study report. The "self-study" is the essential distillation of the self-study process. It is the public document of the process and its findings. This report provides information on UMass Dartmouth during the 1990s, and a statistical snapshot of the institution in academic year 1998-99. The document describes the major offices and functions of the university, analyses them, and projects their activities and goals into the first years of the new millennium.

2. Supporting documents. Most of these documents directly informed the writing of the self-study and can provide depth for those--especially the visiting team--wishing to delve into source and background material. During the team visit, these are available in the team workroom. These foundational documents include:

a. Standard Documentation, a booklet of supporting documents, most of which are mentioned in the text of the report, arranged by Standard.

b. Academic Reports received from the departments and colleges in response to questions regarding programs of instruction. These reports contributed generally to the self-study but are mainly distilled in Standard Four of the report.

c. Background documents include reports and statistics not produced specifically for the self-study but which were used as source materials. Arranged by Standard in the workroom.

*For clarity, the noun "university," when used alone in this report, is not capitalized when referring to UMass Dartmouth (UMD), but is when referring to the UMass System.

THE PROCESS

The self-study was a full two-year process, from the appointment of a Steering Committee in April, 1998, to the visit of the evaluation team in April, 2000. The process unfolded in seven fairly distinct phases:

1. Organization of functions and Task Groups to form a Steering Committee (April 1998).

2. Principal solicitation of reports and data from academic departments and administrative offices (May 1998 to March 1999).

3. Writing of drafts of the Standard reports with revision and refinement through Steering Committee discussion, review by subcommittees and "stakeholders," and through individual meetings between the Editor and the chairpersons of Task Groups (January to June 1999).

4. Writing of the first complete draft of the self-study and review of key chapters by P. Maki of the Commission (June to September 1999).

5. General distribution of the self-study document, in print and over the Web, after review and approval by key administrators and the Steering Committee (October to Nov. 1999).

6. Preparation of the final version of the self-study and supporting documents after consideration and inclusion of comments from the campus community and others. Copies of final document sent to NEASC (December 1999 to March 2000).

7. Visit of NEASC evaluation team (April 2-5, 2000).

Up to August 1999, most of the involvement of those not linked directly to the Steering Committee and its subcommittees was in providing data or responding to questions about the functioning of individual departments and programs. In the fall of 1999, everyone on campus was given the opportunity to contribute to the full report in three ways:

1. Individually through reactions and comments sent directly to members of the Steering Committee, either by e-mail or through the Web-page response function;

2. As part of a group evaluating and responding to the portrayal of their department or other interests in the self-study; and

3. In three open forums, in November, with members of the Steering Committee

Through all of these formats each member of the university community has had the opportunity to contribute to making the self-study as accurate, thoughtful, and inclusive as possible.

Self-study for re-accreditation is a requirement, and therefore something of a task, but it has also provided a healthy impetus for a genuine process of self-reflection and change in many parts of the campus. As the process unfolded, certain areas of concern arose, especially involving financial resources, planning, and assessment. But, more often, the self-study was an affirmation of directions taken, decisions made, the overall quality of the enterprise, and lessons for the future. These general observations are developed in the various Standard reports.

Finally, in the process of self-study, this institution exemplified the virtues of open discussion, inquiry, and collegiality. It also demonstrated a strong commitment to its mission to provide a quality education while serving as a key research, cultural, and economic resource for its region and the state.

Steering Committee for the University self-study for reaccreditation by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, 1998-2000

* Because this is the largest Standard the other members of the Task Group are also members of the Steering Committee (Magali Carrera, Tom Daigle, Fred Gifun).

An adjunct group, given the title and task of providing guidance on Outcome Assessment, was chaired by Judy Schaaf and Omar Khalil who are also members of the Steering Committee.

	Top of Page

Home Page | Institutional Characteristics| | Preface | Overview | Mission and Purpose | Planning and Evaluation | Organization and Governance | Programs and Instruction | Faculty | Student Services | Library and Information Resources | Physical Resources | Financial Resources | Public Disclosure | Integrity