From the desk of the chancellor: Chancellor addresses Graduate School proposal
Dear faculty, staff and students,
UW-Madison is a research powerhouse. Once again, the university ranks third in the nation in research expenditures, a testament to the quality of our faculty and research staff, and a reminder of the importance of a responsive and supportive infrastructure for research and for graduate education.
I am writing to bring you up to date on the proposed establishment of a separate Office for Research and its potential to help us sustain and enhance our competitiveness.
The proposal for reorganization arises in response to widespread and repeated complaints on the part of faculty, department chairs, deans and external partners about grants administration, inadequate infrastructure and problems with industry contracts; a number of safety and compliance problems that have led to investigations and fines by major federal funding agencies and have required crisis-like efforts on the part of the university administration to avoid harsher sanctions; the need to establish a strong presence with national agencies and with foundations to remain competitive and help shape national priorities; the importance of being able to give adequate attention to graduate education and support; and our commitment to ensuring that faculty, academic staff and graduate students are well-served by the university’s research infrastructure and its Graduate School.
Provost Paul DeLuca and I believe that the problems and opportunities before us require change and that the growing complexity of research and graduate education suggest structural change and additional investments, in addition to increased efficiencies. I am pleased to hear that “administrative process redesign,” under the campuswide leadership of Vice Chancellor Darrell Bazzell, has been adopted by Research and Sponsored Programs (RSP) and has already begun to improve the efficiency of grants management.
Provost DeLuca has developed and shared a proposal that would involve creating a new position — a vice chancellor for research — whose responsibility it would be to coordinate research infrastructure in a separate Office for Research, foster research efforts across campus, and establish a greater presence with funding agencies and foundations for UW–Madison and its researchers and scholars. The Graduate School would continue to be served by a dean whose full-time job it would be to ensure we are keeping pace with innovations in graduate education, to oversee the allocation of the WARF grant, and increase support for graduate programs and students.
Because of the serious problems with which the administration has been dealing over the past two years, Provost DeLuca expressed a hope early on that agreement on a new structure could be reached quickly. Since then, he has consulted with deans, associate deans, centers reporting to the graduate school, graduate school deans and the University Committee, and is in the process of holding five town hall meetings for interested faculty, staff and graduate students.
In response to the provost’s proposal, the University Committee recommended that a faculty ad hoc committee be formed to consider the proposal and the problems that gave rise to it. The ad hoc committee is working diligently and hopes to have a response by the end of the semester. The Academic Staff Executive Committee (ASEC) has appointed its own committee to consider the issues and also intends to report at the end of the semester. In the meantime, faculty and staff have asked that the process for decision-making be slowed from what the provost had initially suggested and timed to accommodate the work of these committees. Provost DeLuca readily agreed. Both of us look forward to the opportunity to discuss the committees’ conclusions with them and seek responses from faculty and academic staff. We will also continue, in the interim, to consult with faculty and staff, with deans and governance groups, and with current and potential partners.
Our goal is to find solutions to the problems that many of you have brought so insistently to our attention, and to find ways to take advantage of new opportunities. The goal is NOT to force any particular outcome. There is too much at stake to do anything except seek the best possible way forward.
I have been made aware of several very significant concerns to which I would like to provide unequivocal responses, in writing, so our discussions can proceed without unnecessary worries. First, we are not proposing and will not support changes in the forms of faculty governance that currently exist in the allocation of those components of the WARF grant that flow through the Graduate School — e.g., the fellowship competition, fall research competition and mid-career awards. Second, it is not the job of the administration to decide what faculty will pursue in research and scholarship. It is also not the intent of reorganization and it will not be an effect of any changes that are made.
Third, centers that currently report to the Graduate School may end up remaining in the Graduate School or move to other administrative units. It is not yet clear what the best location would be and the centers need to think hard about different options. Fourth, the emphasis on safety and infrastructure has led some to worry that a reorganization would be designed only to help the sciences. There are opportunities in a potential reorganization to provide much-needed visibilty, advocacy and support for the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences. It is not clear that the current setup adequately meets the needs of those disciplines.
Finally, as I noted above, we will make no final decisions about the reorganization of the Graduate School until the ad hoc committees of the University Committee and ASEC have completed their deliberations.
On the other hand, some of the safety, compliance, and infrastructure problems are sufficiently serious to require that we act without too long a delay. Should the deliberations of these committees take significantly longer than currently anticipated, we may well have to take interim steps, short of complete reorganization, to address some of the most compelling problems.
I urge you to share your ideas with the committees established by the Faculty Senate and ASEC and also with the deans, the provost and me. Together I am confident we will come up with strategies that ensure our continued excellence in research, scholarship and graduate education.
Best wishes,
Biddy Martin
