REPORT ON AN EVALUATION OF THE ... - University of Chicago



report on an evaluation of the south asia LANGUAGE AND AREA Center, University of chicago

June 2002

Frank F. Conlon, Professor Emeritus of History & International Studies

University of Washington, Seattle

introduction:

Interdisciplinary centers and programs organize and integrate faculty and students across traditional disciplinary and administrative divides of a university with a goal of promoting and sustaining teaching and research within the institution and, usually, to sustain and enhance knowledge among a wider public audience. The South Asia Language and Area Center (SALAC) of the University of Chicago has been recognized for many years as a highly successful recipient of Title VI National Resource Center (NRC) and Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowship funding awarded competitively by the U. S. Department of Education. Since the inauguration of the Committee on Southern Asia Studies (COSAS) in the 1950s, the University of Chicago has developed a well-deserved reputation for groundbreaking scholarship on South Asia in the humanities, social sciences and professions. The international reputation of its distinguished faculty has attracted many graduate students who have gone on to occupy important posts in higher education, government service and the not-for-profit sphere. The South Asia Center has been established as applicant for, and manager of, Title VI funding. My report concentrates upon the Center and not upon the Committee on Southern Asia or the Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization, although reference may be made to some of the activities of those organizations.

The Center for South Asia Language and Area Studies at the University of Chicago exists as a program affiliated to the Center for International Studies and as an adjunct of the Committee on Southern Asia Studies (COSAS). While COSAS is primarily a faculty committee which may appoint faculty, the Center has a more ambiguous administrative status, with a primary role as applicant for, and manager of Title VI funding for South Asian studies at Chicago, and for organization of broader intellectual, educational and cultural activities both within the university and in public educational outreach in the Chicago region. Its mission is primarily to function in coordination with the Committee on the Study of Southern Asia (COSAS) faculty and students who are engaged in the study of South Asia. SALAC also serves as a medium for application for other external grants in support of research, teaching and outreach. The SALAC also receives annual funding from an endowment managed by the university for COSAS, with which it supplements graduate student fellowships and other costs relevant to its mission.

The Chicago South Asia Center underwent a form of ‘review’ in 1999-2000 when its application for renewal of the Title VI funding was approved. However, the previous formal external review was conducted in the autumn of 1996. Since that time new faculty have joined the university while others have retired, died or moved to other institutions. Since such change is, in one sense, a constant in a university, any external review necessarily must be one of a ‘snapshot’ photo that only hints at the dynamics of institutional growth and change over time.

This report is the result of a site visit to the Center for South Asia Studies, May 14-17, 2002. The visit incorporated conversations with administrators, faculty, staff and students of the University and the Center. Among those with whom I met were Provost Richard Saller, Dean John Boyer (The College), Dean Janel Mueller (Humanities), Acting Dean John Lucy, (Social Sciences), Professor Susanne Rudolph, Acting Director of the Center for International Studies, Martin Runkle and Sem Sutter of the Regenstein Library, James Nye, South Asia Bibliographer and SAC Director, Dr. Sally Noble, Assistant Director of SALAC and COSAS, Professor Kathleen Morrison, Chair of COSAS, Professor Dipesh Chakrabarty, Chair of South Asian Languages and Civilization, Ms. Emily Bloch, SALAC Outreach Coordinator, a broad sample of faculty and graduate students, and, in the case of one faculty member on leave, an extended telephone interview. No meetings were scheduled with undergraduate students. My visit to the University of Chicago coincided with that of three other external evaluators visiting other area studies centers. In addition to our center-specific meetings, we were provided with information on the Center for International Studies and on International House. Although these latter subjects fall substantially beyond the scope of this report, I shall incorporate some observations where germane to the evaluation of SALAC. Because a number of the meetings were either group sessions in which four evaluators met one or two persons, or where I met with a group of faculty, I felt somewhat limited in the extent to which I could encourage extended discussion.

Prior to my visit, I had been provided with background materials including the proposal for the present NRC grant, the data of the past year’s annual report, newsletters, event announcements and program brochures. I also was able to read the 1996 external review of the SALAC written by Professors Joseph Elder of the University of Wisconsin and Anthony Yu of the University of Chicago. In addition, I consulted the relevant University of Chicago center, program and library web pages.

I have utilized the information gained thereby to evaluate the extent to which the SALAC s fulfilling its stated plan for the 2000-2003 period and to offer recommendations for its future development. I have followed the evaluation criteria employed by the U. S. Department of Education in the 2000-2003 application process. My perspectives are rooted both in the site visit and in my own previous experience as a participant, and thrice Chair of the South Asian Studies program and Director of the National Resource Center at the University of Washington, Seattle. I wish to acknowledge in particular the help offered me by James Nye, Sally Noble and Evalyn Tennant of the Center for International Studies.

Purpose and focus of this report:

The process of self-evaluation and review of the operations and activities of each Title VI National Resource center is conducted by its administrative personnel. Since August 2000 the federal Department of Education has required every center to use a new system for entering and submitting reportage on the center’s activities. This new system known as EELIAS (Evaluation for Exchange, Language, International, and Area Studies System.) requires that data be entered directly onto an on-line program based in Washington, D.C. EELIAS operates with somewhat complicated guidelines that were developed presumably to provide the appearance of comparability of all Title VI centers. This very labor-intensive activity provides quite detailed information regarding each National Resource Center. The SALAC office staff provided a printed copy of the information submitted for their first two EELIAS reports of 2001 and 2002. I have referred to that report, but have refrained from extensively reproducing the data contained therein.

The goal of this external evaluation is to understand the SALAC’s activities in relationship to its mission and the various constituencies that it serves and to evaluate these matters through interviews and analysis during a site visit. My inquiries were prepared on a fairly abstract level, and I sought to encourage each person with whom I spoke, to articulate her or his own vision of the SALAC, its mission and the degree to which SALAC was fulfilling that mission.

My overall impression after my visit was highly favorable, although many of the persons to whom I spoke emphasized the current critical challenges faced by the Center in regard to issues of funding and of faculty replacement. As I shall note below it is obvious that two generations of senior scholars have departed, primarily through retirement or, regrettably, death. Some uncertainties that were expressed to me by faculty and students reflected, perhaps, the recent announcement of the departure three senior scholars for other universities and the very recent death of Professor Norman Cutler, Chair of the Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization who was also Associate Director of SALAC. I found that some of my interviewees were overly pessimistic about the future of SALAC and the Chicago program. On the other hand, I had a few encounters where effortless optimism was expressed. As I shall explain below, in my view both attitudes seemed misplaced.

The Center’s passage through a period of transition in terms of faculty replacement may have caused concern on the part of faculty and graduate students, but it has also focused attention on the ‘re-invention’ process. I found each of my interviewees to have strong and cogent views regarding the Center’s accomplishments. I took as a measure of the overall health of SALAC the extent to which each individual with whom I spoke valued the accomplishment and potentials the Center. Clearly the Center matters – it has played an important role in the past and may do so into the future. In the course of my conversations, I sought opinion as well as fact. Some information was anecdotal in character and could not be verified as accurate. On occasion I also was offered views on issues within other academic units. I have omitted discussion of such matters insofar as they are not germane to an evaluation of the SALAC.

QUALITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM – NON-LANGUAGE

The University of Chicago’s South Asia program has long been recognized as one of the strongest in the United States. Its active/full faculty members number twenty-four, with six affiliates and eight emeriti (as of autumn quarter 2002). The university’s traditions of degree-granting interdisciplinary programs, such as the Committee on Social Thought (and the Committee on Southern Asian Studies) enables faculty to work with a broader range of graduate students in both disciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches. The Chicago faculty have been notable in their opening up of new approaches in cultural studies and in the transnational analysis of globalization. Both through faculty appointments and student initiative, South Asia graduate studies may be pursued in conjunction with professional schools at the university. Over the past decade or so, while many of the faculty whose reputations had established Chicago’s eminence retired or died, the institution recruited a number of internationally recognized scholars to rebuild (or re-invent) the program. At the time of my visit to the campus, negotiations were under way to recruit an eminent historian to join the faculty.

The strength of faculty has an impact upon the interest of potential students who choose to come for graduate studies. During the course of an interview with twelve graduate students, it became clear that this had been an important factor in their decisions to attend. Yet they expressed concerns about faculty stability and continuity, reflecting actual or rumored departures of a number of senior scholars. Here is a dilemma for the SALAC and COSAS faculty members. Concentration on ‘cutting edge’ scholars of international reputation ensures visibility and enhances recruitment of students who are thought to be desirable. On the other hand, some senior scholars appear to have been not readily accessible, or on leave for extended periods, leading to problems for the graduate students and, perhaps, quite skewed teaching responsibilities for other faculty members.

The opportunities for an innovative new ‘take’ on South Asia and its neighboring world regions clearly exist at Chicago in the growing interest in what might be termed the ‘early modern’ period of pre-colonial history and culture. A new conversation in South Asian studies may be opening up as a result of the synergies that are being realized at Chicago. This may have implications for language instruction as well.

Replacement of valued colleagues who retire, go elsewhere, or die, is a critical problem. Chicago is not alone in facing this, and given its resources and legacies of recognized success, it seems imprudent to contemplate the future of the program with the pessimism that was shared with me by some students and faculty.

An excellent new tenure track appointment at the junior level has been made for the coming year in Hindi language and literature. It appears that the departure by Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph in Political Science may be followed by at least appointment of one scholar at early mid-career level. Historically, many of Chicago’s most distinguished faculty ‘grew’ at Chicago. If the university is prepared to encourage and nurture a mix of newer and somewhat established scholars, SALAC should retain its recognized place. If, however, departments or divisions do not replace departed colleagues, a competitive advantage will be substantially reduced.

QUALITY OF LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM:

The tragedy of Professor Norman Cutler’s death of several months earlier cast a pall upon my investigation of language instruction. Cutler had been an MA student at Washington in my first year of teaching and I found his absence as unsettling as clearly it had been for his colleagues and students.

In discussing language instructional issues with faculty and graduate students, I found that Chicago’s resources are stretched thin. While the language faculty are well trained in pedagogy and employ recognized performance and proficiency testing approaches. Professor Mishra is preparing digitized Hindi language materials for performance-oriented testing. Graduate students were uniform in their praise of the language faculty for their flexibility in designing special reading courses germane to specific interests. They praised Cutler, Seely, and Bashir for attention and concern that their language training advance appropriately. The satisfaction expressed was gratifying until one considers the amounts of time required of the language faculty to carry out these studies. It seems clear that in a time when specialists in language and literature may be called upon to contribute ‘content’ courses either within the ‘civilization’ sequence or in other offerings that are in the catalogue, there are limits within which the instructional program must operate.

The tradition of offering four levels of instruction in Bengali, Hindi, Pali, Persian, Sanskrit, Tamil, Tibetan and Urdu ought to be sustained. During my visit to the campus, I was informed that the College was preparing to eliminate teaching assistantships for languages with low enrollments. Not only would this innovation seriously undermine the quality of SALAC’s language offerings, it would remove from the graduate students of the Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization virtually their only opportunity to develop a record of successful course development and teaching. It is strongly recommended that the teaching assistantship support be continued.

The external reviewers of four Chicago centers met with Stephanie Latkovski, Associate Dean for International and Second Language Education. Her report and responses to our questions suggested that the university has made a strong and useful commitment to sustaining and innovating in language instruction. In particular I was struck by the new initiative of the FLAG (Foreign Language Acquisition Grant) program for summer study of languages.

Undergraduate language study may be also significant given the College’s commitment to overseas experience for most students. Overseas study in South Asia is, at the moment, rendered problematic by global military and political issues. In the long run opportunities for student study in India should serve as another inducement for undergraduate language instruction and may contribute further to Chicago’s reputation as a nursery for students who go on in professional and graduate study elsewhere relating to South Asia.

As noted in reference to non-language instruction, there is a body of scholarship at Chicago that is opening new perspectives on language and thought over time. While the trans-national globalization projects have raised important questions on traditions of geographical delineations, work by Professor Pollock and others will require rethinking the approaches to the study of language and literature beyond the conventional ‘modern – premodern’ divisions.

I would also recommend that SALAC turn toward exploring further cooperation with the Centers for Middle Eastern Studies Center, East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies and East Asian Studies in pursuit of language and civilization instruction in areas such as Islamic, Tibetan and/or Buddhist civilizations. Cooperation among National Resource Centers is encouraged by the Department of Education and should be furthered at Chicago through Center initiatives and the Center for International Studies.

QUALITY OF CURRICULUM DESIGN

The traditions of the undergraduate South Asian Civilizations courses at Chicago do not require much comment. I had no opportunity to meet undergraduate students and could not solicit their views.

As John Boyer, Dean of the College noted, historically the Title VI Centers’ missions have been oriented to graduate study. The College now appoints jointly with the relevant department so that undergraduate instruction will be part of the teaching expectation. Boyer has also strongly encouraged the development of overseas study options for students. The College has a post-doctoral program for four year appointments –representing an opportunity for SALAC and other centers to infuse additional instructional strength.

One aspect of curriculum design which may come to be seen as problematic rests in the reduction in the number of South Asia faculty in the social sciences, and the departure of Professor Bhabha from English. To remain fully functional, it would appear that SALAC must work with its constituencies to assure adequate instructional coverage at undergraduate and graduate levels of contemporary South Asia. Similarly, apart from coverage of Islamic history, Islam in South Asia is underrepresented in the curriculum. Interests in Bangladesh or membership on a board of trustees of the American Institute of Pakistan Studies does not constitute the basis for claiming instructional coverage. Some thought should be given to enhancing instructional coverage of contemporary South Asia and of modern South Asian Islam.

One aspect of curriculum design which arose in a number of conversations would be the inauguration of a South Asia Master of Arts program. Several faculty members argued against such a program since it would require too much additional time. One graduate student observed that if MA students were in graduate courses, that doctoral students would prefer independent studies. Some of this may have to do with status consciousness, but presumably an MA program would be more general in scope, providing advanced knowledge about South Asia for a wider potential adult audience. Several informants were confident that the university would like to see an MA program since such activities were ‘money-makers’. Chicago’s faculty may be correct in arguing that there is ‘too much on the plate’ already. However, from the point of view of outreach and development of relations with the region of the university, it would appear that the exploration of an MA program should proceed, with the understanding that it would be undertaken only with additional staffing.

Advising at the graduate level was reported to be available in departments, the South Asia Center and with individual instructors. Graduate students expressed concern regarding advising and their interactions with the faculty. It is in the nature of things for graduate students to be insecure and a bit unhappy. But these students had been assured that they were among the best in the land, and that they were surrounded by great faculty. The students complained of being unable to consult with faculty, of having difficulty getting faculty to read student work and give written comment. Advising was erratic and wrong advise or assumptions sometimes resulted. At least two students complained that the faculty taught only required courses and that other offerings in the catalogue were never available. One suggestion that was offered was the faculty bibliographies be posted on the department web sites and that more information on requirements be made available through that medium as well. Center and departmental web sites vary in content and scope.

Overseas study programs have been given fresh emphasis in the undergraduate curriculum within a College initiative. A new program launched in Mumbai last year is being transferred to Pune and Bangalore for the coming season. If formal overseas programs of study prove difficult to establish in some South Asian venues, it is possible that cooperative overseas study in other parts of the world at recognized centers of South Asian studies could provide an alternative path in order that SALAC and its constituencies obtain the greatest advantages from the new emphasis on overseas undergraduate instruction.

For graduate students, Chicago enjoys a remarkable record of success in funding under Fulbright and American Institute of Indian Studies fellowship programs for research abroad.

QUALITY OF STAFF RESOURCES:

Nothing that I encountered during my interviews suggested that Chicago’s instructional staff have declined from the accustomed standard of high quality. It appears that the faculty are winning recognition through publications, research fellowships and peer-reviewed grants. While there are notable gaps in faculty coverage, including the aforementioned Pakistan and Islamic South Asia, there have been long-standing needs for coverage in Art History and, if possible, Economics or Sociology. There is now a need for a tenure-track appointment in Tamil, and Tibetan instruction cannot be sustained entirely on temporary and partial Title VI support. The retirement of Professor Frank Reynolds has also weakened coverage in Buddhist Studies.

I was very favorably impressed by the administrative staff of SALAC in particular the Assistant Director Dr. Sally Noble, who also serves half-time in a similar capacity for COSAS. She and Ms. Emily Bloch, an able part-time outreach coordinator appear to be doing a great deal of work for the center without adequate clerical or secretarial support. Some student assistance on ‘work study’ are available, but only during the academic year. It is obvious that the university’s approach to administrative support is best described as ‘lean.’ SALAC and COSAS appear to have to pay higher fees for certain administrative services including accounting, than other centers, but I was unable to pursue this question.

Interdisciplinary academic centers, whether thematic or area-studies oriented, face special problems of creating their own ‘space’ in the work and studies of their participants. Faculty are not appointed to a center, and thus have their principal commitments to their home departments. Furthermore, much of the day-to-day administration required for the healthy operation of a center appears to be of little or no interest or significance to most faculty members. Thus, there is always a possibility that faculty willingly will cede all authority for setting and implementing policies within the center to its Director or center staff. The University of Chicago’s tradition of strong faculty governance has meant that faculty undertake more administrative responsibilities than might be the case at a public institution.

In the case of SALAC, I found general satisfaction with the work of James Nye, a view underscored by his being appointed to a second three-year term. Nye’s hard work in grant-writing and overall fund-raising was given particular praise. Nye works in coordination with Dr. Noble and with his executive committee as well as in close conjunction with Professor Morrison, chair of the Committee on Southern Asian Studies.

Center management was generally found by faculty members to be satisfactory. It also appeared that to some degree each individual felt enthusiasm and sense of common purpose. Concerns were expressed about the future prospects of SALAC due to faculty departures and ability to recruit and support graduate students. I remain of the view that these anxieties are misplaced, produced by a particular nexus of changes which were unexpected. SALAC’s structure is unique among the National Resource Centers at Chicago. While it is affiliated to the Center for International Studies, it is nested with the Committee on Southern Asian Studies, and cooperates closely with the Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization. Collegial relations tend to cut across these units and the various disciplinary departments of the university. SALAC is not, nor probably could it be, the single nexis of teaching or research interests of Chicago faculty with South Asia interests. As a unit that does not generate tuition, its claims for administrative staffing are likely to be unsuccessful.

.A number of individuals with whom I spoke raised questions as to whether SALAC had any special role to play in promoting intellectual interests beyond that of in obtaining funds and organizing programs. Graduate students appeared not quite clear as to the relationship of SALAC and COSAS. Several saw COSAS as “a faculty thing” and had interest in SALAC primarily as a source of Title VI FLAS fellowships or other support. Some faculty and students talked about a need for ‘intellectual cohesion’ and expressed concerns about both intellectual and material support from senior faculty. Nevertheless, it seemed apparent that each had chosen to enter the university with a view to working under the guidance of one or more of the well-known members of the faculty. Changes in the faculty by retirement and death were understood, but anxiety was articulated concerning faculty changing their own interests or departing for other institutions.

Intellectual interests are not static, and Chicago has frequently been in the vanguard of shifting paradigms. Its history in South Asian area studies reflected that fact in its very creation in the 1950s. Recent faculty initiatives in ‘trans-national’ or cross-regional thematic studies as related to ‘globalization’ and cultural studies ultimately may produce impacts as significant as those followed from the work of Milton Singer and Robert Redfield a half-century ago. But at this time SALAC does face the same dilemmas being confronted by other centers of modern “area studies” scholarship in North America. Born out of recognition of the absence of expertise on most of the world beyond the United States at the time of the Second World War, the development of “area studies” posited given world regions as subjects for research and teaching. Studies of language and culture were to be joined together in a broader social science and humanities-oriented body of knowledge. A fair number of scholars of the generation who entered academia during the 1950s and 1960s received training on lines of the area studies model, and actively participated in the building of area studies programs in a wide range of institutions. While the growth of area studies was enhanced by such official initiatives as the National Defense Education Act and, for South Asia, the dedication of U. S. government-controlled currencies of countries such as India and Pakistan for support of fellowships and library acquisitions, certain domestic factors also provided a space for growth—notably the public policy of expansion of higher education.

Intellectual critiques of the area studies paradigm have been valuable in forcing a reexamination of the enterprise. Here SALAC and its faculty and students enjoy the advantages of being already actively exploring and sifting approaches to knowledge of the world and its people. Last autumn one could not but notice that many of the critics of the area studies paradigm had little to bring to the public conversation on the post 9-11 world.

Libraries and information services; relations, support

One of the notable strengths of SALAC, identified by virtually every faculty member with whom I spoke, is the dedicated services and support of the South Asia collection of the Joseph Regenstein Library. James Nye and his staff, including Bronwin Bledsoe, preside over what I believe to be the most comprehensive university library collection of South Asia materials in North America. The Library supports the Center. Students in South Asian studies courses need and receive bibliographic assistance from library staff. Library acquisitions are supported by Title VI funds by SALAC, and James Nye’s role as Center Director provides a very close integration in terms of planning and in application for external grant support. The existence of dedicated space in the Regenstein library including reading room area offers a significant advantage to SALAC and its constituencies. While I believe that the faculty and staff and students appreciate the contributions to their work made by the library, I must underscore how vital the continued existence of the South Asia library resources and space will be. James Nye further has played an exemplary international and national role in professional library resource development and management for South Asian studies, including co-operative cataloging and preservation projects, the Digital Dictionaries of South Asia, the Digital South Asia Library and promotion of the new Center for South Asian Libraries – an overseas research center incorporated by the Center for Research Libraries.

The University of Chicago library has joined with a consortium of Midwestern Big-10 universities akin to the SAC-West consortium organized among western U. S. universities. This represents a form of inter-institutional cooperative arrangement that is included in the expectations of a priority stated by the U. S. Department of Education. Chicago also enjoys the advantage of proximity to the Center for Research Libraries.

The long-term pattern of strengthening of library resources, underscored in meetings with the Director of Libraries Martin Runkle, under James Nye and his predecessor Maureen Patterson, has created a vital foundation for the continued success of SALAC. Nye has signed on to do a second threeyear term as center director. Following that period, however, SALAC and COSAS must be careful that liaison to the library is regularly maintained, possibly through a permanent ‘ex-officio’ representation on their respective executive committees.

Outreach ACTIVITIES

Outreach and public education programming are one of the major means by which a center may be measured. Several individuals observed that outreach had not received sustained attention in the Chicago center with the position of outreach coordinator being held by a series of graduate students. No one questioned their competence or enthusiasm, but noted the absence of continuity and limited development of enduring relationships to teachers and others in the world beyond the university. Outreach Coordinator Emily Bloch observed that each new occupant ‘reinvented’ the position to some degree. Ms. Bloch’s interest in Indian literature for children has provided a unique opportunity for outreach activities.

The Outreach Coordinator’s position is funded at 50% supported in part by SALAC and COSAS and the Humanities Division. It really was a full time job. Activities include a newsletter with a circulation of approximately 3000, K-12 teacher workshops, seminars such as one on South Asian Literature in English, and, recently, cooperative programs with other Centers at Chicago. However, since the outreach coordinator’s ‘staff’ consists of work-study students who are not available after the end of the academic year, summer activities create considerable problems in getting work completed. Bloch also noted that there was no funding in support of the coordinator going out to schools.

Outreach teachers’ workshops and short courses such as ‘Asia in the Chicago Classroom’ enable K-12 instructors to develop suitable and sensitive curriculum. Cooperation with other centers on special projects should be encouraged, although the absence of student help during the period of summer projects needs to be addressed.

I failed to make sufficient enquiries regarding outreach to post-secondary institutions. Thus I am uncertain as to the degree to which SALAC works with other colleges and universities in the Midwest, and particularly the Chicago area. Given the fact that some eighteen ‘faculty associates’ are listed, most of whom are located nearby, there may be more than anyone thought to mention to me. However, Chicago’s potential and the possibility of strengthening institutional bonds appear, at least in the abstract, as worthy of some consideration in future outreach planning.

Located in a major city, the SALAC outreach function provides a wide range expertise for media and businesses. The development of forums held at the university’s downtown Gleacher Center represent a highly positive public outreach service and should be continued.

At the time of the external review, the reviewers met with Professor Susanne Rudolph, Acting Chair of the Center for International Studies, and members of her staff. It seemed clear that the CIS had encouraged cooperation among centers in terms of jointly writing portions of their proposals to the Department of Education, and coordinating certain costs. One further area for CIS cooperation would be to provide logistical/tactical support for the SALAC Outreach Coordinator (and those of other centers as well) to maximize the efficiencies of planning and execution of public events.

COMMITMENT TO SUBJECT AREA

While there are areas noted above in which the university might do well to increase its fiscal support to South Asia, there can be little doubt of the overall commitment to SALAC and its constituencies. To paraphrase one administrator, ‘South Asian Studies at Chicago is a recognized center of excellence.’ That did not appear to produce any innovative initiative to make the survival of SALAC any more secure. The academic culture of the University of Chicago has laid stress upon the autonomous power of departments. Each department has its own priorities and strategic plans. The best hope of gaining attention for potential new faculty appointments may come only when the SALAC director and COSAS chair can cooperate with divisional or professional school deans in the offer of a fully endowed position. Certainly the retirement of a professor with South Asian interests in a given department will not lead inevitably to a decision to search for another South Asianist. This dilemma is faced by every area studies program and center in every university. The essential model of relations between a center and a department is one of ‘grace and favor.’ SALAC enjoys an advantage that so many of its present and past faculty have been leaders in disciplinary fields and active in rethinking intellectual agendas. Leveraging of positions through commitment of Title VI and other funds may serve however to aid departments already interested in an appointment in which the chosen candidate has South Asian credentials and interests.

Given these factors, will the departures of Professors Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, Arjun Appadurai, Homi Bhabha and Frank Reynolds, for example, lead to a demonstration of commitment to the subject area? Will resources be available to recruit suitable faculty at varying levels of career development? As a former appointee of a public university where all salaries (at least) are a matter of public record, I appreciate the difficulty in judging fiscal commitments at the University of Chicago. (Although not directly germane to SALAC, I found it instructive that nobody appeared able or prepared to offer an approximate sum for the COSAS endowment.)

AWARding and administration of FLAS fellowships

Graduate students at the University of Chicago are eligible under the Title VI program to apply for Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships for study of Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil and Sanskrit. Materials provided to me by the SALAC office describe the process by which these fellowships are publicized and candidates selected. Applications represent a wide variety of disciplines and fields. The FLAS award committee is drawn from South Asia faculty in both the social sciences and the humanities. I noted with interest that students in professional schools were among the awardees. While graduate students expressed some concern in general about the level and tenure of fellowship support generally, the only comment raised in my interviews was that it appeared that no first year student ever received a FLAS. I was not in a position to pursue that matter further.

IMPACT AND EVALUATION

The various scholarly and outreach programs of the SALAC clearly underscore the academic impact of this center. The substantial number of college and university faculty in North America and, indeed, in South Asia itself, who completed graduate training at Chicago must stand as an enduring and substantial impact. The various quantitative and qualitative measures of student and faculty work noted in the SALAC application appear to be in place and working well. Some students complained that they did not receive sufficient ‘feed back’ evaluation on work projects, but that has been noted earlier.

This evaluation has been conducted in coordination with three other external reviewers of the Centers for Middle Eastern, East European and Russian/Eurasian and East Asian Studies, and with a separate review of the Center for Latin American Studies. The review was coordinated by the Center for International Studies and enabled the reviewers to meet with a number of university personnel who might not have been able to meet each evaluator separately. This reduced the opportunities for direct questioning, but did allow pooling of insights and information.

PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET

I have relatively few comments here. SALAC’s 2000-2003 application sought to make a virtue of the necessities engendered by the ‘leanness and efficiency in use of resources’ of the university. Frankly, I find this view to be unconvincing. The apparent inequalities of salary and conditions of work do not appear to an outsider to be signs of ‘efficiency.’ How this would be resolved lies beyond the information with which I was provided. Some of the initiatives proposed in the application await realization, but details of budgeting were not within the scope of my evaluation.

conclusions and recommendations

The South Asia Language and Area Center at the University of Chicago has long enjoyed an admirable record in scholarship and teaching. Its contributions to the preparation of graduate students in a variety of fields and disciplines has helped to shape the entire profile of professional scholarship on South Asia in North America. Beyond its long record as a successful recipient of Department of Education Title VI funding for its NRC and FLAS activities, It has enjoyed substantial additional funding from the endowment of COSAS in support of both faculty, students and outreach activities. The University of Chicago Libraries South Asia facilities and resources are outstanding.

SALAC has demonstrated resilience in sustaining its core faculty intellectual mission. The chance that this external review occurred at a moment marked more by departures than arrivals cast some pessimism upon the conversations I held with faculty and graduate students. Re-invention was the term employed to describe the events of the past decade, and one imagines that the coming ten years will offer a further illustration of that process. SALAC and its faculty and students retain the potential to continue to be one of the outstanding centers for dissemination of knowledge of South Asia. But none of this is guaranteed. “Successful centers must remain successful.” Skimping on support by the university, the loss of critical members, growth of indifference or a sense of entitlement on the part of the faculty -- any or all of these could weaken what is now a strong Center. Continued good health of SALAC must lie not in the hands of any one or two individuals, but in the positive proactive commitments of its entire distinguished faculty.

In the notes that follow, I have incorporated a series of recommendations which vary in focus, time-frame and cost. Some are more general exhortations, others are highly specific. In a few instances, they go beyond the scope of my comments above, simply for want of a suitable rubric.

Instruction:

• Do NOT follow through on the proposal to eliminate Humanities support for teaching assistants in languages with relatively low enrollments

• Strengthen course offerings and faculty expertise on Islam in modern South Asia

• Seek to assure faculty expertise in Political Science and another contemporary-oriented social science

• Appointments should range from entry level to mid-career to overcome repeat of substantial seniority gaps in faculty

• Continue to be conscious of gender balance in the program faculty

• Assure that faculty will be willing and able to guide graduate students

• Re-open exploration of a Master of Arts in South Asian Studies degree

• Develop strategies that will enable language faculty to have time to pursue research or pedagogical projects.

• Develop joint initiatives with other centers at Chicago to promote faculty appointments and instructional offerings across traditional ‘area’ boundaries.

• Seek to further develop overseas instructional programs in other South Asian countries or other regions of India; explore overseas exchanges to other major centers of South Asian studies in Asia, Europe or Australia

Graduate Students

• Focus fund-raising upon building further endowments to offer adequate multi-year aid packages to incoming graduate student applicants

• Enhance web-based materials to alert students to faculty interests, publications and plans; this may be linked to better overall advising of graduate students

• Continue the South Asia teas and other group activities to sustain student morale

• Actively encourage graduate students in all disciplines and professional schools to participate in some collective seminars or social events

• Organize lunch or tea for graduate students exclusively to meet visiting scholars

• Consider organizing presentations of current faculty research to graduate students and other faculty

Outreach, Libraries, Administration:

• Provide sustained year-round secretarial/clerical support for outreach and center activities. Do not squander the time of the Assistant Director when there is important work to be done.

• Encourage expansion of outreach activities directed toward post-secondary institutions, and business or public service institutions located in Chicago and vicinity.

• Outreach work may be coordinated through Center for International Studies, or CIS may provide staff support. Goal is NOT to eliminate authority in SALAC, but to find further means of realizing potential impacts

• Continue support for the outstanding library collection and the initiatives being undertaken linking North American and South Asian collections, electronic media, etc.

• Seek to reorganize the space allocations for SALAC and for activities now in Foster Hall. “Character” only goes so far when the available space is insufficient and ill-organized. There is a need for a lounge/meeting space that is not used for class instruction or restricted due to expensive media equipment. Is there any plan for allocation of space to centers when School of Business shifts quarters?

General:

• Always be careful what you wish for…

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download