This memo by Dean Gary Sandefur (Letters and Sciences) was copied to L&S faculty, staff, and graduate students. It is reproduced here for the convenience, and public comment, of S&W readers. – Eds.
To: Heather Daniels, Chair, ASEC
Hector Deluca, Chair, UC ad hoc committee
David Musolf, Secretary of the Faculty
Noel Radomski, Chair ASEC ad hoc committee
Donna Silver, Secretary of the Academic Staff
William Tracy, Chair, University Committee
From: Gary Sandefur, Dean, College of Letters and Science
Date: November 13, 2009
Re: Proposed Reorganization of the Graduate School
Cc: Chancellor Martin, Provost DeLuca, Vice Chancellor Cadwallader, Vice Chancellor Bazzell, Vice Chancellor Sweeney, Letters and Science Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students
I write in regard to the proposed reorganization of the Graduate School into two separate entities and the creation of a new position of Vice Chancellor for Research that is distinct from the Dean of the Graduate School. My statement reflects what I have heard from my faculty, staff, and graduate students, and my own views about how to move forward.
I hosted one Town Hall meeting in Science Hall and co-hosted another in the Humanities Building. I also discussed these issues with my Associate Deans, with the L&S Academic Planning Council, with the L&S Council on Academic Staff Issues, and with the L&S Faculty Senate. In addition I have participated in discussions of these issues at the Chancellor’s Cabinet and in the Deans’ Council. I thank Provost DeLuca and Chancellor Martin for encouraging open discussion of these issues by the Deans and for providing us with several opportunities to do so. I have also had a number of one-on-one conversations with faculty and staff.
Almost everyone with whom I talked in the College was concerned that the creation of a new position seemed to be on a very fast track. Most of the people with whom I talked expressed a preference for the track we are now on, where there is extensive campus discussion culminating in reports from the Faculty and Academic Staff Ad Hoc Committees to the Chancellor and the Provost. I express my thanks to our Chancellor and Provost for their responsiveness to concerns voiced by many faculty and staff.
An issue of general agreement is that the world of research has become increasingly complicated. Part of this has to do with regulations. New regulations involving conflict of interest, effort reporting, institutional review boards, compliance, and allowable expenditures with federal grant money have created headaches for researchers and research administrative staff. Another major change is the growth in multi-investigator and sometimes multi-institutional awards and the opportunities for pursuing these awards. These new sorts of opportunities require a different sort of approach than grants involving one or two principal investigators. I also heard general support for more resources in research and sponsored programs and compliance, including laboratory safety.
As one would expect there is no one view from within the College of Letters and Science on how to address these issues and whether the proposed reorganization is the way to go. The current discussion has provided an opportunity for people to reflect on how the University might address these issues. Some people have expressed support for the proposed reorganization, pointing to the fact that most of our peer institutions have separate research and graduate education entities. Others expressed openness to the idea but wanted to hear more information about 1) what would remain in the Graduate School and what would be part of the new office; 2) how would this address the issues that have been previously identified with Research and Sponsored Programs, contracts with private industry, laboratory safety, and other compliance issues; 3) how much would this cost; and, 4) how would the costs be paid? Still others expressed the view that we have not had to pay any major fines, as have some institutions with a separate graduate school and research enterprise, and we are among the leaders in research and development spending, so why do we need to contemplate a major change? Should we not be focusing just on reorganizing problematic areas and putting resources and personnel into under-funded parts of our research administrative infrastructure?
A concern that I heard frequently was the fear that the reorganization of the Graduate School and the research enterprise was being driven by needs and concerns in the biomedical research community. This concern was expressed not only by members of the arts, humanities, and social sciences but also by faculty and staff in the biological and physical sciences. The fear is that focusing exclusively on the needs of the biomedical research community in any reorganization may unintentionally disadvantage researchers in other fields.
Another concern was that the current organization allows for a major role of shared governance in the research enterprise, and that moving the research enterprise to a Vice Chancellor position would not be conducive to this. Still another concern was that much of the discussion focused on research, and only passing attention was given to graduate education.
My own views about all of this are as follows. I think it is good to ask ourselves why most of our peers now have a structure that differs from ours. Most of them have separate graduate school and research enterprises. Perhaps we have a good deal to gain from doing this. On the other hand, it could be that our situation is such that our system works better for us than what most of our peers do. To resolve this question would seem to require some conversations with our peers about the costs and benefits of their system relative to ours.
I do think it is time to reexamine our graduate education and research enterprises and ask ourselves how we can best position ourselves for future success. Both research and graduate education have changed significantly in recent times. I do not claim to know what the best structure is. However, we should examine the changes that have occurred and develop some proposals for adapting to these changes.
One could imagine a separate Vice Chancellor for Research, or a Vice Provost for Research, or a position for research that reported to the Dean of the Graduate School. I do not think it is a good idea to create such a position and then charge that person with the task of reorganizing our research enterprise with no budget, no staff with whom to work, and no well-defined process for moving forward with reorganization. I think that is too much to ask. Instead I think a committee or task force appointed by the Chancellor, the University Committee, and ASEC should examine our problems and our opportunities and suggest a set of alternatives from which the Chancellor and Provost can choose.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input into the discussion.
Dean Sandefur has captured well some of the questions that have been raised about the restructuring. I know the deans are in a delicate position on this issue, so I for one appreciate his honest acknowledgment of the legitimacy of faculty, staff, and student concerns about the proposal as well as the fact that he is not simply lining up silently with the other deans behind the provost. It is refreshing. I hope it will not be an isolated example.
– an L&S professor
This is indeed refreshing. I liked Dean Sandefur pretty well already, but this made my opinion of him rise significantly.