2.2.1     External perspective

The IQAP will establish and describe the process for the selection and appointment of external reviewers and any others who will review the New Program Proposal (See suggested Template), as well as the adequacy of the administrative unit’s planned utilization of existing human[1], physical and financial resources.

At least two external reviewers are required for new undergraduate and graduate programs. The university may also include an additional internal member from within the university, but from outside the discipline (or interdisciplinary group) engaged in the proposed program, to participate in the review process. (See Guidance)

External review of a new doctoral Program Proposal must incorporate an on-site visit. External review of a new undergraduate Program Proposal will normally be conducted on-site, but the Provost (or delegate) may propose that the review be conducted by desk review (see Definition), virtual site visit (see Definition) or an equivalent method if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable (see Guidance). The Provost (or delegate) will also provide a clear justification for the decision to use these alternatives.

Certain new master’s programs (e.g., professional master’s programs (see Definition), fully online, etc.) may also be conducted by desk review, virtual site visit or an equivalent method if both the Provost (or equivalent) and external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable. An on-site visit is required for all other proposed master’s programs.

The external reviewers—normally associate or full professors, or the equivalent—will have suitable disciplinary expertise, qualifications and program management experience, including an appreciation of pedagogy and learning outcomes, and will be at arm’s length from the program under review. (See Guidance for suggestions on the selection of reviewers and for a definition of arm’s length.)

2.2.2     External Review Report

The External Review Report(s) (preferably one joint report, where circumstances permit) will:

1. Address the substance of the New Program Proposal;
2. Respond to the evaluation criteria set out in Framework Section 2.1.2 (see also Guidance, as well as the suggested template for the External Review Report);
3. Comment on the adequacy of existing physical, human[2] and financial resources; and
4. Acknowledge any clearly innovative aspects of the proposed program together with recommendations on any essential or otherwise desirable modifications to it.