Per the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP), this Final Assessment Report (FAR) provides a synthesis of the external evaluation and internal response and assessments of the graduate programs offered by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities for MA in Defense Studies (MDS). This report identifies the significant strengths of the programs, along with opportunities for improvement and enhancement, and sets out and prioritizes the recommendations 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, who will be responsible for 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; and timelines for acting on and monitoring the implementation of those recommendations.
Overview of Program Review Process:
The Department completed the Program Self-Study Report on or about 19 July 2023. For the programs under review, the MA in Defense Studies contained the degree level expectations for these programs, an analytical assessment of the programs, course outlines, program-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 (Dr. Maureen S. Hiebert, PhD, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary and Dr. Robert James Orr III, PhD, Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs, National War College, United States National Defense University) were selected by the Dean of Graduate Studies from a list of possible reviewers. An internal reviewer, Dr. Yugang Liu from the Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, was selected for participation in the ERC. They reviewed the self-study documentation and conducted an on-site visit to RMC from 17 to 18 January 2024.
During the hybrid site visit, the External Review Committee (ERC) met with the Vice-Principal of Academics, the Director of Academics, the Chair of MDS, the Director of Quality Assurance, the Commandant of Canadian Forces College (CFC), the Dean of Graduate Studies, both the military and civil faculty members as groups, post-graduate students registered in the programs under study, and the Chief Librarian.
The reviewers submitted their report on or about 11 March 2024. In their report, the ERC stated that the MDS Program and the CFC generally provide excellent education and training for the next generation of senior command and staff officers to perform various tasks in a complex world.
Significant Strengths and Areas of Concern of the Program:
The ERC identified several strengths of the graduate programs in MDS:
- The ERC was impressed with the quality of education provided and dedication to student learning;
- A spirit of continual improvement is evident in the attitude of all faculty, staff and administration.
The ERC identified a number of areas of concern for the MDS:
- CFC should work to improve the new faculty training for all new hires and new military faculty assigned;
- Enhance earlier and ongoing communication, clarifying student expectations and workload;
- Review its Program Learning Objectives and Course Learning Objectives;
- Continue to advocate to higher authority for:
- Lack of a clear statement and policy guidance as to the CAF policy on its priorities for senior officers and
- Apply appropriate resources and support for recruiting and retaining the highest quality of military faculty.
The Program Chair consulted with the program's faculty and staff and submitted a response to the ERC Report on 10 June 2024. The Dean of Graduate Studies prepared this Final Assessment Report on 26 July 2024. Specific recommendations are discussed, followed-up actions and timelines are provided.
Summary of the Reviewers’ Recommendations with Dean’s Responses
The ERC identified several areas needing improvement or issues requiring attention. Discussions on the issues are in the order in which they appear in the ERC Report:
Recommendation 1
The CFC should work to improve the new faculty training for all new hires and new military faculty assigned.
Departmental Response:
The Department entirely agrees with the recommendation. A significant theme in the self-study report concerned the level of socialization for new faculty. Graduate Level PME requires a meeting of minds between the academic and military professions. Further, it rejects the position that either profession fully controls curriculum content design, development, or delivery in this environment. The nature of the complex strategic and operational contexts confronting military officers is "volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous" (VUCA), which defies the creation of trainable standard operating procedures for addressing emergent threats. New academic faculty may confuse the PME environment with a university context; new military faculty may confuse it with a training context. Both groups may assume control over the curriculum, which may not exist in standard practice. In this environment, both sides of this professional divide need to understand the complicated interdependencies between the academic and military milieus to balance them for effective professional pedagogy.
The Department of Defence Studies is committed to working with the CFC Director of Programmes to develop a robust onboarding programme for newly appointed military faculty, both Directing Staff and Course Development Officers, and all freshly appointed academic faculty, indeterminate and determinate. In addition, the Department of Defence Studies is collaboratively writing an onboarding guide based on feedback from junior and longstanding faculty members. The Department can complete these tasks internally within CFC.
Dean of Graduate Studies’ Response:
The Dean of Graduate Studies (DGS) is pleased that the Department of Defense Studies is committed to developing a robust onboarding program for newly appointed military and academic faculty. I am happy to hear about your proactive approach and the collaboration with the CFC Director of Programs.
Your initiative to include feedback from junior and longstanding faculty members in the onboarding guide is commendable and will undoubtedly result in a comprehensive and practical resource.
I fully support your efforts and would like to offer support from the Division of Graduate Studies. Feel free to reach out if there are specific ways that the Division of Graduate Studies can assist in this critical initiative.
Recommendation 2
Enhanced earlier, ongoing communication throughout the program to clarify the students' expectations and workload.
Departmental Response:
The Department entirely agrees with the recommendation. It is critical to address student expectations during the orientation portion. While some JCSP students will arrive at CFC with graduate-level credentials, most will not have pursued higher academic studies since their bachelor's degree. Further, many will need more clarification on professional education with training. As noted in the self-study, PME students have a significantly different motivation for engaging in academic work: they are motivated by the desire to solve the problems confronting their professional practice rather than the educational ideals of discovering knowledge for its own sake. Given VUCA noted above, many issues have yet to identify solutions.
In some cases, no solutions may even be possible (such challenges must be managed rather than solved). PME students at this level already possess well-developed world views, which many believe are sufficient to address these problems. The nature of the JCSP, however, is to take "tactical experts" and make them "operational masters," requiring an understanding of the joint environment in which many will never have directly worked.
Students need to understand the nature of the challenge confronting them to achieve the outcomes set by the curriculum.
Dean of Graduate Studies’ Response:
The Dean appreciates the thoughtful departmental response to the recommendation regarding addressing student expectations during the Joint Command and Staff Programme (JCSP) orientation portion. I fully agree with the critical importance of this initiative.
Understanding that many JCSP students come from diverse educational backgrounds and professional experiences is essential for tailoring our orientation and academic approach. As you noted, the distinction between professional education and training is a crucial element that needs to be communicated to our students.
Given that Professional Military Education (PME) students are motivated by a desire to solve real-world problems in their professional practice, it is vital to emphasize the different nature of academic work at the graduate level, which includes the complexity and often unsolvable nature of the challenges they will face, particularly in a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous (VUCA) environment. Transitioning from tactical expertise to operational mastery requires a comprehensive understanding of the joint environment, which may be unfamiliar territory for many students.
By addressing student expectations and providing the necessary support and resources, we can help JCSP students successfully transition from tactical experts to operational masters. I am committed to working with the Department and other stakeholders to implement these actions and ensure the success of our students.
Recommendation 3
Recommend CFC conduct an in-house review of its Program Learning Objectives, followed by a review of Course Learning Objectives, seeking informal input from elements of the different services within the Canadian Armed Forces and relevant academic or non-governmental organizations working in international or national security.
Departmental Response:
The Department entirely agrees with this recommendation. As the self-study report identified, the current Programme Outcomes remain "necessary" but "insufficient" to capture all the educational goals the JCSP offers.
However, this issue is not entirely controlled by the Department of Defence Studies or the Royal Military College. Programme Outcomes are within the responsibilities of the Canadian Defence Academy, and the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole are the primary stakeholders.
Nevertheless, the Department understands that the priorities affecting the CDA commander in general and the staffing level of the CDA HQ make it unlikely that such direction or oversight will be forthcoming in the near term. As such, via the CFC Commandant and the Director of Academics as the PME advisor to Com CDA, the CFC will explore the options open to pursuing this direction.
Dean of Graduate Studies’ Response:
The Dean agrees with and supports the departmental response to the recommendation regarding the JCSP Programme Outcomes. I appreciate your recognition of enhancing these outcomes to capture the program's educational goals better, as identified in the self-study report.
I understand that the development and modification of Programme Outcomes fall under the purview of the Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), making it a broader issue beyond the immediate control of the Department of Defence Studies or the Royal Military College. However, your proactive approach to addressing this challenge is commendable.
I commend your commitment to improving the JCSP and your proactive efforts to address this critical issue. Together, we can work towards ensuring that our Programme Outcomes fully reflect the educational goals and standards we aspire to achieve.
The Dean would like to offer his full support. Feel free to reach out if there are specific ways that the Division of Graduate Studies can assist in this critical initiative.
Recommendation 4
Continue to advocate to higher authority for:
- A clear statement and guidance regarding the CAF policy on the priorities for senior officer JPME.
- Appropriate resources and support for recruiting and retaining the highest possible quality of military faculty.
Departmental Response:
Recommendation 4 is divided into two subcomponents. The Department agrees with the first sub-recommendation ("A clear statement and policy guidance as to the CAF policy on the priorities for senior officer JPME"). The continual concern regarding the level of "warfighting" instruction on the JCSP, as well as areas such as design and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity programmes (DEI), all raise issues of how much latitude the College has in developing its curriculum in the absence of consistent strategic guidance from the CAF.
As with the previous recommendation, this issue is not entirely under the control of the Department of Defence Studies or Royal Military College, despite its centrality to the programme under examination. Further, there is a certain amount of risk when asking for direction; what is received is either poorly considered or inadequately reflects the needs of the profession (past direction from senior levels of the CAF has sometimes been highly "tactical" – "add more material on IEDs," for example).
This issue must be managed by the Commandant of CFC, with the support of both the Directors of Programmes and Academics. As such, while the Department can provide supplementary information on this issue through the Quality Implementation Plan, it cannot provide details on how it will address it.
The second part of the recommendation ("appropriate resources and support for the recruitment and retention of the highest possible quality of military faculty") requires the reader to understand that the Department of Defence Studies has no role in selecting CFC military personnel, nor can CFC fully control this space, although the Commandant plays an advocacy role. The Department cannot address this recommendation in any subsequent Quality Implementation Plan.
Dean of Graduate Studies’ Response:
The Dean appreciates the comprehensive departmental response to the first sub-recommendation 4 and for articulating the challenges associated with developing a clear statement and policy guidance regarding the CAF policy on the priorities for senior officer Joint Professional Military Education (JPME).
I appreciate the Department's recognition of the importance of this issue and the complexities involved, especially given the necessity for consistent strategic guidance from the CAF. Your concerns regarding the latitude in curriculum development, particularly in areas such as warfighting instruction, design, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness (DEI) programs, are well-founded. The lack of consistent strategic guidance from the CAF indeed poses significant challenges. I also appreciate the inherent risks of seeking direction that may not adequately reflect the needs.
The Division of Graduate Studies will support the Commandant of CFC, the Directors of Academics and Programmes and the Department in advocating for clear, consistent and strategically aligned guidance from the CAF.
Regarding the second part of Recommendation 4, I understand and acknowledge the limitations faced by the Department of Defence Studies and CFC in directly influencing the selection of military faculty. The Department's clarification that it has no role in the selection process and is largely beyond the control of the CFC, despite the Commandant's advocacy efforts, is well noted. Given these constraints, it is clear that the Department cannot directly address this recommendation in the Quality Implementation Plan.
While the Department may not directly control the selection process, the Division of Graduate Studies can support the Commandant's advocacy efforts. We can collaborate in communicating the importance of recruiting and retaining high-quality military faculty to the appropriate authorities within the CAF.
The Dean appreciates the Department's candidness regarding its limitations in this area and your continued commitment to improving the program within the constraints you face. We will continue to support your efforts in any way possible to ensure the highest standards of faculty quality and program delivery.
Implementation Plan
| Recommendation | Proposed Follow-up | Responsibility for Leading Follow-up | Timeline for Addressing Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Improve the onboarding of new faculty. |
Development of a robust onboarding programme |
Department |
August 2024 |
| 2. Communicating expectations and workload to students |
Address student expectations during orientation. |
Department | August 2024 |
| 3. Review of Program Learning Objectives & Course Learning Objectives with input from different services within the CAF |
Department Director of Academics |
Ongoing | |
|
4. Advocate to higher authorities for:
|
|
Commandant CFC Directors:
Commandant CFC DGS |
|
Conclusion:
The ERC Report provided positive feedback on the outcomes of the Department of Defense Studies graduate programs. It confirmed that the RMC is delivering programs consistent with other comparable institutions in Ontario. However, the ERC identified areas with room for improvement, and RMC has already taken steps to address some of the issues raised. RMC will continue to work toward program enhancement and improve student success in the graduate programs in Master of Defense Studies.
The Dean of Graduate Studies, in consultation with the Director of Studies, the Vice-Principal of Academics, the Program Chair and the Head of Defense Studies, is responsible for monitoring the Implementation Plan.