Events

2019 Annual Meeting, Nov 23-26

The 2019 Annual Meeting will be in San Diego, CA, November 23-26. Register Now!

2020 Regional Meetings

Open Calls for Papers:

Rocky Mountains-Great Plains
Deadline: November 4, 2019

Pacific Northwest
Deadline: November 15, 2019

Southeast
Undergraduate Deadline: December 15, 2019

Mid-Atlantic
Deadline: December 16, 2019

Upper Midwest
Deadline: December 31, 2019

Midwest
Deadline: January 10, 2020

Eastern International
Deadline: February 1, 2020

Open Registration:

Mid-Atlantic

Midwest

Advertisement

Program Consultants and Reviewers

Departments

Reviewers

The Academic Relations Task Force has prepared a Guide for Reviewing Programs in Religion and Theology. This document provides department chairs with a set of strategic questions and suggested steps for conducting a program review and preparing for an outside evaluation. It contains an introductory statement on the study of religion; a discussion of the preliminary steps in constructing a successful review; a step-by-step description of the review process, and a " how to" on conceptualizing and writing an effective “self-study narrative” that helps to augment program resources.

In addition, the Program Advisory Service seeks to match experienced consultants with programs undergoing review or planning expansion. This program is still under development but currently maintains a data file of over 200 consultants with information on their institutional location and professional experience. Please contact us at aar@aarweb.org with the following information if you wish to receive contact information for consultants who may match your needs:

  1. Name of department or program.
  2. Name and brief description of your institution.
  3. Number of faculty in your department or program.
  4. Size of program:

    • Number of courses offered annually,
    • Number of total enrollments, and
    • Number of majors.
  5. The qualifications you would like in a reviewer (e.g., experience as a chair or dean; experience developing a program; service on a curriculum committee).
  6. The kind of institution you would like your reviewers to be from (e.g., private liberal arts, church-related, doctoral granting); give order of preference.
  7. Your goals for the review process.
  8. A list of what you consider comparable institutions.
  9. Timetable and general procedures of the project, including:

    • nature of review,
    • under whose auspices the review is to be done,
    • size of team,
    • etc.