Faculty Senate presentation addresses recent resolution
Editor’s note: Robert Hauser, professor of sociology, gave the following presentation at the Nov. 2 Faculty Senate meeting regarding a resolution about the reorganization of the Graduate School.
My colleagues and I have not offered this motion out of knee-jerk opposition to change. Far from it, we hope it will help lead to thoughtful and expeditious actions to improve research administration at UW–Madison.
There are two intertwined issues: research administration and shared governance.
First, there are some problems with research administration and compliance. Such problems are to be expected in an organization as large and complex as UW–Madison, and we can do and should do better. But we are not in a crisis situation; solutions that benefit all of us should be sought in a thoughtful process that engages the entire university community.
The second issue is the process for dealing with those problems. Thus far, the process has been less than exemplary.
Again, the issues of reorganization and shared governance are intertwined. Given the way in which the proposed reorganization was initiated, should faculty and staff place their trust in a sketchy proposal that offers no details of the role of shared governance in its realization?
I will discuss the issues briefly and in reverse order.
Last summer, the UW administration outlined a proposal to strip the Graduate School of many of its research functions and to place those functions, along with some other functions, under a new vice chancellor for research.
That sketchy proposal would have been put in place with no faculty participation had the University Committee not applied the brakes in July.
This fall, the provost has wisely sought faculty, staff and student reaction to his proposal — which remains about as sketchy as ever — in a series of five town meetings. I attended two of those meetings and viewed the video of another. With a few exceptions, the responses to the provost’s proposal in those well-attended meetings have been highly critical. In many cases, the provost’s responses to the questions raised in those meetings have been vague or uninformative. And town meetings, while useful and appropriate, are not mechanisms of faculty governance.
The attempt to make a major organizational change without appropriate buy-in from faculty and staff was a major blunder — a breach of trust when faculty morale was also low for other reasons. To repair that damage, we think it is most important that faculty and staff participate fully and appropriately in the solution of our problems. We believe that passage of our motion at the present time will be helpful in that respect.
There are some real problems in research administration and compliance.
Like others, my colleagues and I have suffered inordinate delays and other problems with the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. Some of us have had painful experiences with compliance issues. There are problems in human subject training. And so on. But we also have had some very positive experiences.
Based on the sketchy proposal presented at the town-hall meetings, we think it is fair to say that the administration has not yet made the case that its proposal to separate graduate education and research administration is either necessary or sufficient to solve the known problems in research administration. For example, would it make sense to consolidate compliance activities as a first step, independent of possible later decisions of greater organizational import? To what extent are some of the more obvious problems already on their way to resolution through recent, selective staff increases in compliance and RSP? And of great importance to my colleagues, among others: What are the effects of proposed organizational changes on research activities that do not follow the dominant model that is most familiar to the present administration?
The provost has been quoted as describing some recent compliance efforts as “mid-air collision avoidance.” We should equally avoid trying to fly a new aircraft while building it. As demonstrated by many of the excellent questions raised at the town meetings, the administration proposal contains some elements that have little to do with our current problems and that may well create more problems than they solve. We need to take a fresh and thoughtful look at ourselves and come up with thoroughly developed solutions that meet with approval — that have “buy in” from faculty, staff and students.
Speaking for myself, I think that the problems we face have arisen from external pressures — largely from the federal government — as well as from the growth and internal dynamics of our research enterprise. My take on the matter — based on some 40 years of experience here — is that university administration has drifted away from its traditional role — facilitating the day-to-day and year-to-year activities of the faculty — to an excessive concern with meeting external demands. I hope that approval of the present motion might help move us in a more productive direction, both within the university and in our relations with outside institutions.
Robert Hauser
Vilas Research Professor of Sociology
