REPORT

 

Investigatory Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Reorganization

 

Faculty Senate 4/29/04

 

 

            The Investigatory Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Reorganization held its first of 5 meetings on February 23, 2004 and its last on April 12, 2004.  The committee made up of faculty from A&S, CELS, & HS&S was chaired by Dayle Joseph, Dean of the College of Nursing.  The members included Joseph DeAlteris, CELS, Rod Mather, A&S, C.B. Peters, A&S, Bill Rosen, A&S, Cathy Roheim, CELS, and Betty Young, HS&S.  Meetings were well attended and there was consensus in the group as to how we were going to address the questions relating to academic reorganization.

 

            The Committee was charged with examining 5 reorganization models chosen by another committee chaired by Judith Swift.  This committee consisted of Deans Winifred Brownell, A&S, Jeffrey Seeman, CELS, and Lynne McKinney, HS&S.  Our committee was specifically asked to address the following questions:

           

1.     Is the present organization of the Colleges appropriate to the academic enterprise (projected to be more interdisciplinary in the future)?

2.     Are the reorganization models viable options with respect to the vision and mission for URI?

3.     Can interdisciplinary partnerships and centers be more effectively integrated into present or future structures?

 

The committee members agreed that the task before us was challenging, as we felt that we needed more information about the models before making any kind of decision.  Our first action was to return to the prior committee to gather more in-depth information about the models.  We learned that the committee looked at several models that were focused on enhancing teaching, research, and outreach.  The prior committee did a thorough investigation of our competitors to determine their college structures and to determine the location of the sciences.  Interestingly about half of the schools had a College of Science (New Hampshire, UMass, Quinnipiac); while the others had a College of Arts & Sciences (BU, VT, Northeastern).   We also learned of a white paper written by Dean Seeman that built a case for organizational change, which would allow for operational and financial efficiencies.  This cogent paper suggested combining the applied and basic sciences to assure that the Universityıs place on the cutting edge of innovation in science was maintained and further proposed that it could be enhanced.

 

            Given this background of information the committee quickly began its work of conducting an in-depth review of the 5 proposed models.  We began the process by critiquing the models individually and then as a group.  This exhaustive review generated a list of pros and cons for each of the 5 proposed models.

 

Model I. Reaffirmation of the Current Structure

 

            Model I refers to maintaining the current structure of the Colleges after a thorough review.  This review validates that this structure is best for URIıs present and possibly its future.  The following table indicates the strengths and weaknesses of Model I:

 

PROS

CONS

Least disruptive

Status Quo

Protects land-grant mission

Difficult to respond in fluid ways to needs that arise

Commitment to GE

Collaboration difficult

Collaboration exists

Sciences are scattered across colleges

Alumni ties

Basic & applied sciences are separated

Synergy with liberal arts

 

 

 

Model II.  Three Restructured Colleges

 

            Model II establishes three new colleges ­ College of Arts and Humanities, College of Children, Youth, and Families (working title), and a College of Science.  The responsibility for general education would expand to several colleges.  This approach has the potential to strengthen the focus of the arts, humanities, and science.  The following table identifies the pros and cons of Model II:

 

PROS

CONS

Strengthen Arts and Humanities

Reduces overhead for A&S

Strengthen Sciences

Anxiety created

Improve student advisement

Children, Youth, & Family ­ name inappropriate

Easy to understand

Could marginalize general ed

Foster new student programs (U & G)

May undermine the synergy of GE and liberal arts education

Allows for internal reorganization in Colleges

 

 

Model III  Completion Model

 

            Model III  suggests a transformation of CELS.  Marine affairs, Cell and Molecular biology, and the Geo-science departments have previously joined CELS. To complete the transformation of CELS it is therefore proposed to bring together most of the life sciences as part of the ongoing biotechnology initiative. The following table identifies the pros and cons of Model III:

 

 

 

 

PROS

CONS

Clearer advising path for students in life sciences

Creates disruption

Faculty share facilities (who pays?)

Basic and applied sciences further divided

Value depends upon what the new department becomes

Intermediate stage to something else ­ unworkable without a bigger plan

Additional funding (from where?)creates excitement

Does not address emerging needs

Removes course overlap

Lose land, sea, and urban grant mission

 

Addresses biological sciences move but potential for destabilization with a domino effect  ­  a start rather than a completion

 

Model IV.  Traditional with Overlay

           

The expansion of partnerships and institutes as an overlay of the extant college structure is the central focus of Model IV.  This model would allow more fluidity in response to change, but the core values of the current structure remain.  This model requires new policies and revisions if it is to be successful in accomplishing its intent.  The following table identifies the pros and cons of Model IV:

 

 

PROS

CONS

Similar to Model I with emphasis on centers, partnerships, & institutes, etc.

Requires more administrators

More interdisciplinary opportunities

Requires revision of policies ­ overhead, workload, etc.

Overlay should be done regardless of model chosen

Demand for research could interfere with curriculum development

Potentially provides a way for faculty to seamlessly cross disciplines

May marginalize unfunded research and student scholarship endeavors

 

 

Model V.  Realignment of Departments with Specific Focus

 

            In Model V. there are 3 Colleges:  Arts & Humanities, Human & Social Sciences, and Environmental and Applied Sciences.  This model divides the basic and applied sciences.  The following are pros and cons of Model V:

 

PROS

CONS

Difficult to identify

Separates basic and applied science

 

Creates problems for experiential learning opportunities

 

 

            Following this review the committee made the decision to drop Models III and V from our deliberations.  Model III was thought to be a first step to a bigger process and Model V was seen as a half-way step.  The committee agreed that these two models were not going to make significant improvements and that we should not undertake any process that was incomplete.  Model II was reconfigured as Model VI, which seemed to better suit the needs of our University.  The new model would consist of a College of Arts & Humanities, a College of Human & Social Sciences, and a College of Science.  As in Model I, Model VI would require an overlay of Model IV (partnerships, centers, institutes).

 

            The committee decided to take a second look at the proposed models in an attempt to reexamine if one were superior to another.  In Model I the focus is on reaffirming our current structure.  There is no visible change if we stay with this model.  Our energies can be placed elsewhere, as we will not have to deal with reorganization.  The committee further recognized that some operational inefficiency will continue to occur, as there will still be duplication of courses.  If this model is chosen, there has to be a serious effort to introduce an overlay (Model IV) and improve upon the concept of having centers, partnerships, and institutes that foster collaboration. More opportunities for an interdisciplinary campus atmosphere must be created.

 

            In Model VI the committee is suggesting and proposing a more radical reorganization of the three Colleges. The Committee felt that this model encourages shared resources.  In addition, the basic and applied sciences are together creating organizational links and efficiencies.  This model has the potential of enhancing teaching and research, as well as providing a greater focus on curricular revision and research productivity.  There is potential for departmental consolidation in Model VI making the College costs more efficient. If Model VI is chosen, there again has to be a serious effort to introduce the overlay of Model IV.

 

            The committee then took a closer look at forming a separate College of Science. We recognized that some of the science programs would be costly to deliver and that some of the sciences would be in other colleges (GSO, BMS, & EGR).  In this regard the committee had concerns about having several colleges responsible for the general education mission. Additionally the committee had concerns with the possible detrimental effects that would attend the break-up of the College of Arts & Sciences and its traditional role in the deliverance of a liberal arts education. For instance, the biological sciences would be separated from the social sciences.  Consequently, the committee formulated Model VI creating three large colleges that will have dominant and joint roles in general, liberal arts, and graduate education.

 

            The committee felt that the type of reorganization implied in Model VI is a major undertaking and should be studied more carefully.  We suggest that another committee be appointed and given ample time to study the two options [Models I and VI] that we have suggested are potentially viable.  In either choice, the University must strengthen its commitment to centers [Model IV].  Conceptually centers are the overarching umbrella in which partnerships are an important component.  The committee embraced the notion of possibly forming four overarching centers for either Model I or Model VI:

           

            Center for Science

            Center for Humanities

            Center for Social Science

            Center for the Arts

 

We also recognized that the centers could closely align themselves to the Universityıs focus areas thus suggesting the formation of other centers such as a Center for Health. 

 

            Change, such as initiating the move of one department, may lead to additional unanticipated consequences.  The University needs a solid plan to avoid an untoward domino effect.  Although there was consensus in the committee that the College of Science has merit, there was concern that reorganization planning needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner first.

 

Recommendations of the Investigatory Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Reorganization

 

  1. Two models are recommended for further discussion and consideration in the very near future. [The two models recommended are: (a) Model I - Reaffirmation of the current structure; and (b) Model VI - A reworked Model II whereby A&S, CELS and HS&S are reformulated as a College of Arts & Humanities, a College of Human & Social Sciences, and a College of Science.]

 

  1. With either of these two models it is recommended that the University strengthens its commitment to the concept of having viable Centers and Partnerships* that overlay and potentially interact with all the colleges. [The overlay model, Model IV, would be incorporated so that bridges between or umbrellas over all the colleges of the university can be established to achieve the goal of having a more fluid and collaborative organizational structure.] {See University Manual, Chapter 3 for a description of Centers and Partnerships.}

 

  1. It is further recommended that another group be formed soon to study, integrate and formulate a solid plan of action to implement a selected set of models. {Either Model I/IV or Model VI/IV.} [Some of the considerations that forced us to make this recommendation were: (a) Small changes, such as moving one department, could lead to additional unanticipated changes if a coherent plan is not available; (b) The University needs a solid plan to avoid an untoward domino effect; (c) While formation of a College of Science has merit, University reorganization must be addressed in a more comprehensive manner; and (d) This committee simply did not have sufficient time to consider all the ramifications of forming a College of Science or many of the other changes that might result from reorganization of the three identified colleges, A&S, CELS and HS&S, that are implicated in these recommendations.]

 

Conclusions:

     There was a three part charge given to the committee. With respect to the three components of our charge we have come to some concrete conclusions.

 

  1. Is the present organization of the Colleges appropriate to the academic enterprise? We have narrowed the possibilities for reorganization but we are also aware that the present structure is certainly satisfactory and although there may be some advantages to moving to Model VI, the committee did not have ample time to think through the implications of this type of change.  Change without proper planning and resources has little merit.  This important issue needs further in-depth study by another cross-disciplinary committee. We believe that the academic enterprise could be enhanced by interdisciplinary activities beyond the present structure.  Thus by implementing Model VI such a goal could be met but this will have to be decided by another group.
  2. Are the reorganization models viable options with respect to the vision and mission for URI? We have come to the conclusion that either Model I or Model VI could work as long as Model IV is incorporated into the mix. The other models do not appear to be viable options for URI to consider.
  3. Can interdisciplinary centers and partnerships be more effectively integrated into present or future structures? Yes, as long as there is a coherent and logical plan developed prior to implementation!