Summaries of School Meetings

Statement from President Carol Garrison:

On June 24-25, Provost Eli Capilouto and I conducted school meetings with deans, chairs, faculty and staff from the schools of Arts & Humanities, Business, Education, Engineering, Natural Science & Mathematics, and Social & Behavioral Sciences. Our purpose was to listen to feedback, answer questions, and gather more information regarding possibilities for realignment involving the six schools reviewed by the Academic Realignment Commission.

I began each meeting by emphasizing that the report of the Academic Realignment Commission provides a platform upon which we will continue our discussions. The report outlines innovative organizational options for UAB to study, based on the observations of a diverse group of highly qualified academic and community leaders. We are grateful to them for their diligence and dedication to this project, and we believe they delivered sound recommendations for us to consider.

We are committed to considering your views on the commission's recommendations and any other ideas that could enhance the excellent education, research, and service already taking place at this university. For this reason, I urge you to offer your opinions and suggestions by completing the online survey at www.uab.edu/future (kept open for a longer period as requested) or emailing us at provost@uab.edu in the next few months. While we will not make a final decision regarding possible realignments during the summer while many faculty are off campus, it is important to conclude a timely review.

The thoughtful and productive discussions we had at the school meetings assure me that we will determine the best means to achieve the goal we initiated at the outset of this process: to optimally position UAB for additional multidisciplinary collaborations that will provide attractive educational programs and curricula for students of the 21st century. I look forward to working with you to implement initiatives that will advance the future of this university.

SUMMARIES OF SCHOOL MEETINGS

The following summaries present ideas and comments from school meetings that took place on June 24-25, 2009. No direct quotes from individuals are included. While the statements of every individual are not reported, the summaries reflect themes emerging from each meeting. Deans of each school have reviewed these summaries and were given the opportunity to make additions or corrections.

Options presented and referred to in these comments:
Option 1: College of Arts and Sciences, School of Business, School of Engineering
Option 2: College of Arts and Sciences, School of Business, School of Engineering, School of Education
Option 3: School of Liberal Arts, School of Science and Engineering, School of Business, School of Education

School of Arts & Humanities (June 24, 2009, approximately 70 attending)

Various attendees offered their preference for one or more of the options. Most of the discussion focused on the positive and negative aspects of Option 1.
Faculty expressed concerns about Option 1 due to cultural differences between the School of Arts & Humanities and the School of Education. Some believe that the nature of the School of Education, as a professional school subject to mandates from the State Department of Education, could provide practical obstacles and possible philosophical differences that would be difficult to align.
Some attendees suggested that collaborations between experts in content areas and specialists in pedagogy might best take place in a Center for Teaching and Learning or in seminars.
Two faculty members, one from foreign languages and one from the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, expressed support for Option 1, stating that UAB could set a new standard for collaboration in content/pedagogy, give students more opportunities for multidisciplinary majors and research, and offer more centralized advising. The faculty member from foreign languages suggested that Option 1 could be a way to cross-train students for education careers and that realignment could result in efficiency in faculty service time on committees.
A school advisor cautioned that a large college might not be able to offer as much individualized attention to students. The advisor spoke of the importance of being thoroughly familiar with the various school disciplines, the continuous interface that occurs between them and the departments to ensure students are fully and correctly advised, and of the special relationship students develop with them. The advisor also cautioned against centralized advising as an effective strategy.
Programs in African American Studies and International Studies were mentioned as on-going collaborations within and outside the school. It was suggested that realignment could promote more holistic approaches to learning.
Faculty asked about possible organizational and administrative structures within the new units. The response was that a discussion of this nature is premature. However, it was mentioned that the commissioners recommended against having discipline-specific associate deans.
Faculty from fine and performing arts noted that their units often have less equality in large structures. They expressed the need for equal representation in budget, policy, administration, etc., if they became part of a larger structure. A performing arts chair mentioned that he had taught in universities with large arts and sciences colleges and believes this model to disadvantage the arts.
Some expressed a preference for Option 2 in that it would give UAB the equivalent of a "small liberal arts school" in the midst of a cutting-edge research center.
Some noted that they did not believe any change is necessary and would need more information than what was noted in the ARC report to be convinced that realignment is needed.
Many agreed that the ultimate success of any realignment would result from practical considerations of the many details it would necessitate and that a high level of involvement in those details would be required at every level.

School of Business (June 24, 2009, approximately 35 attending)

Attendees agreed that they see themselves as part of "one university" and therefore have strong opinions about realignment options.
While the School of Business was not designated in any of its organizational realignment options, the ARC noted that it should continue to increase its collaborative opportunities, particularly with the School of Engineering. Many attendees expressed their desire to be proactive in establishing more partnerships to serve all constituencies.
Faculty from economics expressed support for Option 1, stating increased opportunities for interdisciplinary research on the economics of health, behavior, psychology, etc.
Faculty from management, information systems and marketing all expressed the need to improve research relationships with various health disciplines. The Medical Equipment and Supplies Distribution degree track was noted as an example of an intersection of business courses with health curriculum to offer students unique learning/degree opportunities.
Advisors and faculty expressed interest in broader-based advising, specifically within a larger College of Arts and Sciences as proposed in Option 1. They argued that current advising services are too narrowly focused and that advisors should have knowledge of course offerings across disciplines to offer students the broadest understanding of their many opportunities.
Attendees noted the need for the creation of business courses (e.g., Personal Finance or Business Principles) to benefit students from other degree disciplines and to increase interdisciplinary relationships between faculty in various schools.
Faculty expressed interest in furthering collaboration for Sports Management and Business Education programs.

School of Education (June 24, 2009, approximately 60 attending)

Various attendees offered their preference for one or more of the options. Most of the discussion focused on their concerns related to Option 1.
Several attendees agreed that more synergy is needed between faculty in the School of Education and faculty in other units. However, because there were no models of other Research Extensive universities with this particular combination of units given in the ARC report, attendees expressed concerns about whether Option 1 could succeed or would be in the best interest of the School of Education and the university as a whole. They asked for more research about other places where such a configuration has been successful and requested information about how, within Option 1, resources would be committed to different units and how collaborations would take place.
Many asked about titles within a college if Option 1 were adopted, with concerns that calling Education a "division" would diminish its national stature and reputation. One faculty member reflected on how Education used to be a division within UAB before it was awarded school status due to its growth and importance.
Attendees were concerned about the hierarchical structure for administration if Option 1 were implemented. Specifically, concerns were expressed about having a "division" within the larger college and whether the division would be "marginalized" without having an independent budget and a direct reporting line to the provost.
Many noted that the School of Education is accountable to UAB, the State of Alabama, and various accrediting agencies; they expressed concern that being a part of a larger school could limit their ability to respond to the mandates of all entities effectively.
Attendees asked that alumni and the Birmingham community be more engaged in the conversation about possible realignment.
A faculty member noted that having more university colleagues and administrators with the shared goal of K-12 education would be helpful in facilitating collaborations between disciplines. However, a successful realignment would require strong leadership from someone who has the credentials and experience to understand the broad depth of multidisciplinary opportunities in a diverse College of Arts & Sciences. The faculty member expressed concerns related to potentially competing budget priorities in achieving the research and teacher/administrator preparation goals of a combined unit.
Some believe that few faculty members in other disciplines have teacher preparation as a primary focus and therefore the relationship might not be a productive one.
Some attendees expressed concern about both faculty and doctoral-level student recruitment within a larger school due to potential impression of the lack of identity and independence and were concerned that a sense of solidarity could be lost.

School of Engineering (June 25, 2009; approximately 30 attending)

Most of the discussion focused on the positive and negative aspects of Option 3 and the role of the School of Engineering if they were not realigned.
Many attendees stated that they wanted to collaborate with other units and to grow the School of Engineering. They urged that the School of Engineering maintain its identity but liked the idea of joining forces with applied science and mathematics units.
Faculty in the electrical and computer engineering believe they have potential for partnerships with faculty in computer science. They admit that there are differences but believe there is also enough overlap for strong collaboration.
Faculty in biomedical engineering believe they have opportunities for increasing research with faculty in biology and chemistry in the School of Natural Sciences & Mathematics. They also would like to increase their interaction with the health sciences schools.
Faculty in Materials Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering saw advantages in working with physics faculty in the School of Natural Sciences & Mathematics.
Some attendees expressed concern about the contrast in size between the School of Engineering and a possible large College of Arts & Sciences.
A student in attendance expressed his preference for Option 1 and stated that the opportunity to connect with the School of Education would give him better credentials to teach in secondary schools. He noted a trend toward studying engineering in high schools and expressed his hope that UAB could be a part of training teachers to meet that demand.
Many agreed that the School of Engineering could strengthen its outreach by combining with the School of Natural Sciences & Mathematics. They expressed their wish for more ability to collaborate with the sciences and their belief that such collaboration would make UAB an even stronger presence in research.
Attendees discussed possible collaborations with the School of Business and noted the possibility for strengthened partnerships in Information Engineering and Management and Construction Management at the graduate level.

School of Natural Sciences & Mathematics (June 25, 2009, approximately 50 attending)

An overwhelming majority of attendees expressed the need to create a college or school of sciences.
Faculty see the creation of an independent college or school of sciences as a powerful recruitment tool and competitive advantage for the state's brightest students, as it would provide enhanced opportunities for undergraduate research and learning.
Faculty believe the recruitment benefits of a college or school of sciences would extend to the graduate level health programs by creating a pipeline for top students in the sciences to be exposed to health programs through interdisciplinary undergraduate research.
Faculty feel none of the three ARC reorganization options result in significant benefits for advancing research and graduate education in the sciences, or for science undergraduate students and their career objectives.
Faculty see the research and graduate education programs in science departments having different missions and few overlaps with most other departments in an arts and sciences school even though the faculty are supportive of a liberal arts education for its undergraduates.
Some suggested that certain departments that are now parts of other schools, such as forensics and psychology, could be brought into a college or school of sciences because of the similar nature of the disciplines and potential interactions. Others expressed interest in including programs from schools not reviewed as part of the ARC study in a college or school of sciences, including some from the Joint Health Sciences.
Faculty from biology did not believe that aligning with the School of Engineering would be beneficial because their research interests were not similar. Computer science faculty also pointed out that their research and educational interests were more aligned with a college or school of sciences. A few faculty from two other departments did express their research had some common interest with some engineering faculty.
Faculty who partner with the School of Education in cross-curricular offerings did not believe it was necessary for the schools to be merged to do so.

School of Social & Behavioral Sciences (June 25, 2009; approximately 50 attending)

Many attendees expressed support for Options 1 and 2. No one at the meeting expressed support for Option 3.
Faculty from sociology expressed support for Option 1 and stressed that partnerships could benefit urban initiatives, programs and research that would distinguish UAB from other universities in the region.
Faculty from justice sciences expressed a preference for Options 1 or 2. They noted their current initiatives in the Hoover School System as models for collaboration involving secondary schools. They also stated that better teacher training could yield better students for UAB in the future.
Faculty from history said they would welcome an opportunity for more partnerships with faculty from the School of Education. They pointed out a summer course in their department, "Teaching American History," as a model. They also noted that past efforts have had limited success.
Faculty from government expressed preference for Option 2 and urged a rekindling of the urban nature of UAB by strengthening the connection with the Birmingham community.
Faculty from psychology expressed initial hesitancy with merging with Education (and instead preferred Option 2), but stated that Option 1 began to have more appeal as they considered potential partnerships, particularly in teacher training. They asked about the views and preferences of the School of Education and wondered how the legislature might react to realignment including the School of Education.
Some stated that they already had collaborations with the School of Education and speculated that these relationship could be strengthened further if Option 1 were implemented.
Some noted that a model such as Option 1 could distinguish UAB from other state universities.
Attendees discussed benefits of a possible realignment of schools to create a counterbalance to the sheer size of the health schools on the east end of campus.
Some attendees expressed concern about who would lead a large College of Arts & Sciences and stated that a future leader must be someone who understood many standards of excellence and had a total commitment to the breadth of all the disciplines that would be included in a College of Arts and Sciences.
Attendees expressed concern about losing momentum at the graduate level and urged that any possible realignment not simply create an "undergraduate college."
Faculty noted that most social scientists study change and evolution and are therefore often energized by it. However, they also noted that they have a strong sense of community in their school and don't want to lose that or the approachability of their dean.