Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 4, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2019 | Page 20

Forging Consensus? Approaches to Assessment in Intelligence Studies Programs
Erik Gilbert, a professor of History, wrote a notable essay criticizing assessment
in higher education. He contended that the rise of learning outcomes assessment
coincides with the rise of cost-cutting measures such as the use of adjunct faculty
and online education. In that way, universities can justify the lack of investment in
traditional faculty since the assessment results demonstrate that the “customers”
are learning just as much as before (Gilbert 2015, 1).
Role of Faculty
Given that many assessment activities are often administered or implemented in
individual courses, faculty member support for the larger assessment program is
important. Yet, much of the assessment literature describes faculty attitudes toward
assessment as inherently negative (Cole and De Maio 2009, 294). As Gilbert
notes, “if you look at a typical assessment conference program, you will see that
there is an astounding amount of time devoted to dealing with reluctant faculty
and doubters” (Gilbert 2015, 1).
Faculty typically come to their disciplines because of their interest in and
passion for the field. As a result, assessment is often viewed as “an imposition that
is time consuming and may detract from teaching rather than contributing to it”
(Cohen 2008, 612). According to one study, 43 percent of faculty in business programs
had at least some resistance to assessment programs; over half of the faculty
in the same study reported being overwhelmed or over-loaded by assessment
work (Pringle and Michel 2007, 208).
There are also other reasons for faculty resistance. In his 2005 essay, Linkon
identifies several possible motivations for faculty resistance to assessment. First,
while assessment programs are largely focused on student learning, the role of faculty
in that learning process leads to concerns of heightened scrutiny. Related to
this, faculty may resist program assessment since it may represent an abridgement
of academic freedom. Lastly, given the additional time required to participate in
the assessment program, some wonder if it provides a sufficient return on investment.
This raises the point that, depending on the objective and context, some
forms of assessment may be more useful than others. An assessment tool that is
applied inappropriately is likely to further erode faculty support (Linkon 2005).
Another concern of faculty support for assessment flows from the support
of the institution. Historically, support for program assessment can often be episodic—being
driven by the timing of visits by the accrediting bodies. With academic
institutions requiring periodic reaccreditation by regional and national
organizations, the focus on assessment can wane in the off years. By extension, it
can also grow in the immediate run-up to an accreditation visit. As Mary Allen
confesses in the preface of her book, “in 1997, my campus was preparing for an
accreditation visit, and it became clear that we had to make rapid strides in assessment”
(Allen 2004, viii). Clearly, this runs counter to the recommendations from
9