MINUTES FOR MEETING OF
APRIL 27, 2000
San Diego State University
PRESENT: Gerber, Nelson, Turner, Taketa, Serpe, Hernandez, Macintosh, Ebeling, Barkan,
Chico, Ross, and Korey
1. Meeting convened at 10:05 AM. Minutes from Winter meeting were N/A and were not read or approved.
2. Agenda was shifted and Ebeling reported on the Summer Schedule for ICPSR and the two applicants, Randall Macintosh (Sac) and Judith Gonzalez Calvo (Fresno). Due to different lengths of time to be spent in Ann Arbor, Council approved $1250 for Macintosh and $1750 for Calvo.
3. Korey, who is now a member of the ICPSR Council, reported on recent developments, which included discussions of direct distribution of data to faculty and the effects on federation membership and dues. Fee structure is to be reviewed in June. Korey pointed out that technological changes are driving the reevaluations. In addition, in response to the fact that courses are being offered in Maryland and North Carolina and not just Ann Arbor, John again raised the issue of there being courses offered on the West Coast. He was told that we would need to handle all the logistics.
4. RE: STUDENT CONFERENCE IN 2001.It has been reported that since Nan Chico has gone over to the dark side—administration—it would not be feasible to hold the student conference at Hayward. Instead it will be held at Sac. Therefore:
a. Schedule changes and changes in days of meetings: the Council decided to try a Friday-Saturday schedule of meetings in order to draw better attendance by frequently absent council members. Therefore the following Friday-Saturday schedule was set for 2000-2001. Fall Meeting: Friday and Sat., CSU Hayward, Sept, 22-23, 2000; Winter Meeting: Friday-Sat, CSULA, Feb. 9-10, 2001; Spring Meeting and Student Conf, Sac State, April 27-28, 2001.
b. In line with issues surrounding the Conf, Ted Lascher’s check list for actions to be taken to promote more attendance by students was distributed. Gerber stressed the value of getting Deans to promote the conference and agree to fund one undergrad and grad to attend the conference.
It was also suggested that if joint faculty-stud papers are submitted, they should be placed in a separate session and evaluated separately. It was also suggested, depending on the number of entries, that sessions might be separated by graduate and undergrads and perhaps by quantitative and qualitative papers.
5. The issue of chronically absent members was discussed at length. Gerber agreed to contact such persons and ask that they commit to attending, or appoint an alternate to take their place when they are unable to attend, or allow us to contact other faculty members to determine their willingness to serve. Chronic absences have had an adverse impact on the student conferences and will have similar consequences for the future viability of the Council.
6. Hernandez distributed the third quarter report for the SSDBA and discussed the new server coming on line and the new SDA software (Survey Document Analysis) [which was demonstrated on Friday]. He also noted that Field Polls would henceforth no longer go the SDSU for processing but directly to LA.
7. Nelson discussed a proposal that he, Liz Nelson, Ross, Gerber, Emenhiser, Korey, and Chico were preparing for submission to NSF in June: Development of Computer Based Instructional Materials to Increase the Use of Quantitative Data in Social Science Classes. Along with this was a discussion of web-based instruction.
8. Following lunch Nelson reported on AIRC/ACCESS and the continued reshuffling going on in the CO. While Discipline Councils and Specialty Centers will continue, their relationship with the CO is uncertain in light of the current stress, as Serpe noted, on technology, technological enhancement toward greater uniformity and standardization among the campuses and greater centralized control, thus reversing the pattern under Munitz, and possibly affecting policy control and even centralized approval of software for each discipline. Tom West now represents “the good old days!” Besides compromising the extent of faculty input in such developments, one trend, it was suggested, is toward multi-campus web-based programs. Obviously, the ultimate outcome is still very uncertain.
9. Nelson noted that they (he, Ross, Chico, Gerber) were presenting workshops on June 14 at CSULA and June 19 at Hayward, focusing on web-based resources for instruction.
10. What followed was a lengthy discussion of the SSRIC’s mission in view of declining attendance and technological changes and the need to take a fresh look at our potential role and how we might best serve the changing needs of faculty and students. The need to consider qualitative as well as quantitative research and presentations and the need to look at what we have been doing best and how that might be improved/enhanced, and the value of focus groups to discern what might be best were explored, etc. We developed a list of issues pertaining to faculty and students as a means of determining what paths we might follow. Faculty Issues included:
- SSRIC attendance
- Database access
- Awareness of Databases
- Information Competence
- Incorporation of Research into Instruction
- Faculty’s increasing independence in access to databases
- Links to junior colleges
- Validation/recognition of innovations on RPT processes
- Possibly more analysis-type instruction in LD courses
- Access to teaching resource databases
- Establishing connections with ITL, inviting its head to SSRIC mtgs
Student Issues included:
- Participation in the Conference
- Skill levels
- Information Competence
- Critical thinking and numeracy as well as literacy
- Technical competence
- Commitment to Academics in light of family and employment pressures
11. The Council decided to follow Serpe’s suggestion that we develop focus groups as a means of refining the SSRIC’s mission and that the second day of the fall meeting be devoted to a Focus Group Workshop, for which Serpe would distribute information next month as part of developing the necessary script for such subsequent focus groups.
Adjourned 4:20 PM.