Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Rethinking Departmental STRUCTURES Who has done it? Why do it? How? Who can help? By Maury Cotter January 26, 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Rethinking Departmental STRUCTURES Who has done it? Why do it? How? Who can help? By Maury Cotter January 26, 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Rethinking Departmental STRUCTURES Who has done it? Why do it? How? Who can help? By Maury Cotter January 26, 2013

2 Rethinking structures is one strategy for Educational Innovation  Curriculum Design Departments across campus transforming their curriculum for learning excellence, market need, and best use of capacity  Delivery Technology to support collaborative, self-paced learning Spaces for new learning  Serve and graduate more students Professional degrees and certificates Increasing capacity in high demand areas  Agile infrastructure Restructuring units for optimal size and disciplinary connections Expanding summer offerings Streamlining and updating policies for efficient changes

3 Structures – Examples  School of Medicine and Public Health. Reconfigured from 3 depts to 2 depts: Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology – TO - Cellular and Regenerative Biology, and Neuroscience Reconfigured to create: Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine  L&S Merged: Comparative Literature and Folklore Program  Engineering. Merged into another dept: Engineering Mechanics to Nuclear to create Eng. Physics Created: Biomedical Engineering  CALS Merged: Forest and Wildlife Ecology; Poultry Sciences and Meat and Animal Sciences merged to become Animal Sciences Dissolved: School of Natural Resources, Dept. of Continuing and Vocational Education Absorbed: Food Microbiology and Toxicology into Bacteriology  SOHE : created as a spin off from CALS

4 Variations Absorb Reconfigure Merge

5 Why Do It? SMPH: Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology To Cellular and Regenerative Biology, Neuroscience “The new structure features research priorities as opposed to traditional teaching disciplines. The new departments formed reflect the strengths of the departments dissolved. It made the focuses stronger.” Rick Moss, Associate Dean Interview:

6 SMPH: “Size and strength go hand and hand; we’re seeking optimal size.” Optimal Size Allows:  Goal of collaborative, programmatic research  Need critical mass to develop focused research areas  Recruit and retain – people want to be part of a program of research by its mass, achievements, synergy, collaboration  Administrative functions strengthened; Better positions and career ladder for staff

7 Why Do It? Letters and Science Department of Comparative Literature and Folklore Program To Department of Comparative Literature and Folklore Studies “Intellectual reasons have to be primary - improving the ability to achieve the academic mission of the unit: improving a department’s ability to successfully engage in teaching and research, serve its students, and make significant contribution to the field. ” Mary Layoun Department Chair, Comparative Literature

8 Comparative Literature and Folklore Program Challenges of being too small It’s difficult to: Provide the breadth of intellectual needs Compete on a national scale; reputation; grants Recruit, hire and retain the best faculty and graduate students Fill leadership roles and functions: Chair, Graduate Studies, Undergraduate Studies, Budget, Curriculum, Communications, Events, Planning, Merit/Promotion/Personnel, Planning, Fundraising… Take sabbaticals Provide breadth of services to students

9 Why do it? College of Engineering Two examples Merge one into another: Engineering Mechanics into Nuclear to form Engineering Mechanics Strengthened research programs A Program to a Department: BioMedical Engineering High interest in BME Masters Program Funding and collaboration opportunities

10 Why Do It? SMPH Too Big and Too Small to… Surgery Orthopedic Surgery Rehabilitative Medicine Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitative Medicine …Just Right…

11 How to Do It: The Approval Process. Department(s) develop proposal(s) Discussions at dept., S/C, campus levels S/C APC Votes Faculty vote in their executive committees Faculty Senate Reviews/Approves UAPC Votes Faculty discuss in their departments Access Advice

12 SMPH 3 to 2: How Did They Decide?  School level committee. Facilitated. Group recommended the merger. 2 months  Faculty in each department discussed  Each faculty member declared which department they would be in.  Each department voted to dissolve and to form  SMPH APC voted  UAPC voted  Faculty Senate  TOTAL – 15 months  Status – recruiting department chairs – desirable jobs

13 Comp Lit & Folk: How Did They Do It?  Chair and Director began discussions with Faculty and some graduate students). 5 mos.  Exec Comm authorized Chair to pursue. Gained support of Dean. 2 mos.  Held joint Retreat. Developed high-level document. Facilitated process - 6 mos.  Received Permission to Plan from L&S APC. 5 mos.  Developed formal Proposal. 5 mos.  L&S APC approved. Oct. 2012  UAPC approved. Dec. 2012  For information to Faculty Senate. Spring 2013  Effective 2013-2014 Academic Year  Total – 2+ years

14 There are challenges:  Allegiances – to colleagues, disciplines, staff, intellectual community  Change is hard! It takes time away from “real work.”  Each faculty member’s career is their identity and is deeply rooted.  Resources to sort out: patents, royalties, IP, etc.  Fear of unknown. Are we sure it’s better than what we have?  Because we don’t make structural changes often, “how to do it” might seem a mystery.

15 Some Questions to Consider  Has our discipline evolved so that new boundaries or combinations or names could enhance potential?  Do you have critical mass for achieving strength? Recruiting and retaining, attracting research funding, taking on complex research issues, teaching, interdisciplinary collaborations, administrative functions, etc.  What other benefits or opportunities are possible?  What do we want to know about ourselves? Potential partners? Where can we get that data? (APIR, Query Library)  Who will provide the leadership needed?

16 Components for Proposals for Departmental Restructuring Approvals and endorsements History/Background/Rationale Scope Strategy Action Plan for Establishing the New Structure Anticipated Curriculum/Academic Program Changes

17 Exemplary Proposals  Exemplary Proposals:

18 Want help?  Exemplary proposals  Peer-to-peer conversations  Facilitated discussions  Expertise on academic planning and approvals  Check list, guide  Contact: OQI - Maury Cotter, APIR - Jocelyn Milner,

Download ppt "Rethinking Departmental STRUCTURES Who has done it? Why do it? How? Who can help? By Maury Cotter January 26, 2013."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google