FTF May 15, 2013

Recommendations of the Faculty Task Force For the Restructuring of the Division of Academic Affairs

Introduction On March 1, 2013, the Provost, pursuant to the Chancellor’s request, formed two Task Forces to consider the optimal structure for the Academic Affairs Division: a Chairs Task Force and a Faculty Task Force. The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate selected the members of the Faculty Task Force from nominations submitted by the and key councils/committees of the Faculty Senate. The members were:

 Adriana Lopez-Ramirez - of Arts, and Social Sciences  Cynthia Daily - College of Business  Kent Layton - College of Education  Shannon Collier-Tenison - College of Professional Studies  Matthew Gifford - College of Science  Steve Minsker - College of and Information Technology  John DiPippa - School (Chair)  Karen Russ - Ottenheimer Library  Thomas Clifton - Undergraduate Council  Amanda Nolen - Graduate Council  Andrew Wright - Faculty Senate Executive Committee  Elisabeth Sherwin - Planning and Finance Committee  Sarah Beth Estes – Academic Restructuring Liaison (non-voting member)

Time Line The Task Forces were to review the existing Academic Affairs division structure and to recommend, by May 15, 2013 at least two new academic structures designed to:

 Enhance interdisciplinary collaboration to facilitate UALR’s timely response to the changing needs of the city, state and nation in terms of curricula, community engagement, and research.  Implement an efficient academic structure that will result in cost savings allowing UALR to match available resources to strategic priorities.

By April 23, 2013, the task forces submitted their preliminary recommendations to the Liaison who made them available to the campus community. On April 26, 2013, the Liaison held a - wide “town hall” on the task forces’ preliminary recommendations. The task forces incorporated the feedback from the April 26 town hall into a final set of recommendations due to the Provost on May 15, 2013. Those recommendations will be considered by the Academic Restructuring Steering Committee which will send a final recommendation to the Provost by August 15, 2013.

Faculty Task Force Process The Faculty Task Force met six times between February 27 and April 17. In addition, the Faculty Task Force held “town hall” forums for each college, for the Ottenheimer Library, and for Faculty. Finally, the Faculty Task Force met twice after the April 26 town hall to consider the feedback it received at the meeting and from other sources. 1

FTF May 15, 2013

In the interest of transparency and to solicit wider input, the Faculty Task Force provided a venue for comments through Blackboard. The Faculty Task Force also created a Blackboard site where we provided information to the campus community about our charge, the context, as well as a forum for campus response on the discussion boards.

Decision Criteria The Faculty Task Force exhaustively discussed a number of restructuring plans. The criteria we used to guide our choices included:

1. Efficiency: To restructure in order to achieve cost savings. 2. Alignment: To place like, similar, or related disciplines together. 3. SSCH: Where the majority of SSCHs were generated by majors in the department. 4. Size: The ultimate size of the college. (e.g., Some reorganizations created unmanageable mega- colleges.) 5. Collaboration: Whether the structures allowed for increased interdisciplinary work. 6. Community: Whether the structures allowed for increased community engagement.

Possible College Structures On the following pages are the three preliminary plans unanimously endorsed by the Faculty Task Force. The order in which they are presented does not reflect our preference of any one plan over another. Across all three plans there are opportunities for new efficiencies and synergies regarding the merging of departments of related disciplines. Merging small departments could result in several benefits: 1. create more stability and program support when faculty retire, go on OCDA, or otherwise step down from their duties; 2. create more efficient departmental structures (e.g., reduce the number of Chairs and administrative staff); and 3. create a greater concentration of resources (e.g., technology, skill, knowledge, supplies).

Applied Science Department Regarding the Department of Applied Science, the Faculty Task Force decided to retain its initial recommendation notwithstanding the strong case put forward to keep it as currently configured. We concluded that the Applied Science Department is unique among departments at UALR in that 1. it is inconsistent with the way the college governs and supports its other PhD programs, 2. elements of the current PhD program are fully supported by faculty outside the Applied Science department; and 3. it is an artifact of an earlier period in UALR’s development, when it was the only PhD program at UALR.

While we recognize that the department is interdisciplinary in nature and conducts important and significant research, neither of these characteristics will be lost under our recommendation. That is, the interdisciplinary nature of the PhD will not disappear. Rather, we believe that a more efficient structure will create more opportunities for such collaboration. Moreover, the home location of the faculty should not have an adverse effect on the research any individual faculty member pursues.

2

FTF May 15, 2013

The Applied Science faculty will move to a department where they are best qualified based on their terminal degree. For example, a faculty member with a doctorate in Chemistry will move to the Chemistry Department. Because the Faculty Task Force believes that the Applied Science Department is unique and, therefore, our proposal does not “target” this department or “single them out” unfairly. It is the only department we recommend dissolving because it is the only department with the unique constellation of characteristics discussed above. We recommend that the Steering Committee consider whether any other program or department has substantially the same characteristics as the Applied Science Department. If so, we believe that such departments or programs should also be reviewed.

3

FTF May 15, 2013

Plan 1

College of Business College of Arts, Humanities College of Education & College of STEM College of Professional & Social Sciences Health Professions Studies

Departments: Departments: Departments: Departments: Departments: Accounting Art Teacher Education Computer Science Criminal Justice Educational Leadership Engineering Technology Public Admin./IOG Marketing & Advertising Theater Arts & Dance Counseling, Adult, & Rehab. Grad. Institute of Tech. & Writing Economics & Finance Psychology Education (CARE) Information Science Speech Communications Business Info. Systems Int’l & Second Languages Audiology & Speech Path. Systems Engineering Nursing (Approved for 7/1/13 start.) Sociology & Anthropology Health, Human Performance Const. Management & English & Sport Management Civil/Const. Engineering Schools: History Biology Mass Communication Political Science Chemistry Social Work & Interdisciplinary Physics & Astronomy Studies Earth Sciences Mathematics & Statistics

Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track) Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track) Track) = 45 = 126 Track) = 70 Track) = 126 = 95

Plan 1: 1. The College of Education gains the Departments of Audiology & Speech Pathology and Health, Human Performance and Sport Management. 2. The College of Engineering and the College of Science are combined. The Applied Science department is eliminated and the faculty will move to an area where they are best qualified based on their terminal degree. The Applied Science Ph.D. and M.S. will be moved to the college level, to parallel the structures and processes for EIT's doctoral degrees. 3. The Department of Nursing moves to the College of Professional Studies.

4

FTF May 15, 2013

Plan 2

College of Business College of Arts, Humanities College of Education & College of STEM College of Professional & Social Sciences Health Professions Studies Departments: Departments: Departments: Departments: Departments: Accounting Art Teacher Education Computer Science Speech Communications Management Music (Early Child., Middle School Engineering Technology Criminal Justice Marketing & Advertising Theater Arts & Dance Ed., Secondary Ed., Special Graduate Inst. of Technology Public Admin./IOG Economics & Finance Psychology Education, Reading, and Information Science Rhetoric & Writing Business Info. Systems Int’l & Second Languages Curriculum & Instruction) Systems Engineering (Approved for 7/1/13 start.) Sociology & Anthropology Educational Leadership Const. Management& Schools: English (Higher Ed. and Ed. Admin. & Civil/Const. Engineering Social Work History Supervision) Biology Mass Communication Political Science Educational Psychology Chemistry Philosophy & Interdisciplinary (EDFN, LSTE, Adult Ed., Physics & Astronomy Studies Gifted, Earth Sciences

School Coun./Counsel. Ed) Mathematics & Statistics Nursing School: Health Professions Departments: Rehabilitation Counseling Interpreter Education, & Orientation/Mobility Audiology & Speech Pathology Health, Human Performance & Sport Management

Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track) Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track) Track) = 45 Track) = 126 = 70 Track) = 148 = 73

Plan 2: 1. Department of Nursing moves from the College of Professional Studies to the College of Engineering, Science, & Technology. 2. The College of Education & Health Professions is reorganized into new departments and a school to merge similar disciplines with the addition of the Departments of Audiology & Speech Pathology and Health, Human Performance & Sport Management. This represents only one of several models the College of Education & Health Professions could consider for reorganization.

5

FTF May 15, 2013

Plan 3

College of Business College of Fine Arts & College of Social Sciences College of Education & College of STEM Humanities Health Professions

Departments: Departments: Departments: Departments: Departments: Accounting English Sociology & Anthropology Teacher Education Biology Management History Psychology Educational Leadership Chemistry Marketing & Advertising Art Political Science Counseling, Adult, & Rehab. Physics & Astronomy Economics & Finance Music Criminal Justice Education (CARE) Earth Sciences Business Info. Systems Theater Arts & Dance Public Admin./IOG Mathematics & Statistics (Approved for 7/1/13 start.) Int’l & Second Languages School: Computer Science Philosophy & Interdisciplinary School: Health Sciences Engineering Technology Studies Social Work Departments: Graduate Inst. of Technology Speech Communications Audiology & Speech Information Science Rhetoric & Writing Pathology Systems Engineering Health, Human Performance Const. Management& School: & Sport Management Civil/Const. Engineering Mass Communication Nursing

Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Faculty (Tenured, Tenure- Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track) Track and Non-Tenure Track) Track and Non-Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track) = 45 = 117 = 62 Track) = 92 Track) = 126

Plan 3: 1. Proposes a more comprehensive reorganization of the colleges resulting in: a. a new College of Fine Arts & Humanities; and b. a new College of Social Sciences. 2. The creation of these two colleges as well as moving health sciences related departments from the College of Professional Studies to the College of Education eliminates the existing College of Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences and the College of Professional Studies. 3. In this plan, Nursing is moved to the College of Education and joins the other Health Professions programs creating a School of Health Sciences.

6

FTF May 15, 2013

Additional Issues for Consideration The Faculty Task Force realizes that reasonable arguments can be made about the location of some programs. Thus, if one of our reorganization plans is accepted, these programs deserve further discussion before settling on their final placement. They are:

Nursing 1. Does it belong in the College of EIT/Sciences where the majority of SSCHs are produced? 2. Does it belong in College of Professional Studies? 3. Does it belong in the CoE where it would fit within the newly formed School of Health Professions within the College of Education?

Sport Management 1. Does it belong in CoB because of the emphasis on management? 2. Does this program need to remain within the Health, Human Performance, and Sport Management structure due to shared faculty, courses, and resources? If so, then it would move to the CoE with Health and Human Performance.

Construction Management 1. Does it belong in Science/Engineering because of the strong STEM connection? 2. Does it belong in CoB because of the strong management connection?

College of Education 1. The College of Education provides an opportunity for significant reorganization without threatening the integrity of already existing programs while also creating a natural fit for Audiology & Speech Pathology and Health, Human Performance and Sport Management. We present only one of the several ways that the college could be reconfigured that would integrate the new programs into the structure of the college. Audiology & Speech Pathology 1. Does it belong in the College of Professional Studies? 2. Does it belong in the College of Education?

7

FTF May 15, 2013

Structure of the Division of Academic Affairs The Faculty Task Force realized that reorganization of the Division of Academic Affairs presented an opportunity to consider some non-academic units that currently exist in Academic Affairs and to make recommendations about those non-academic units that the task force believed should exist under Academic Affairs. Thus, the Faculty Task Force recommends that:

1. The Graduate School and ORSP should be split with each unit reporting to the Provost. 2. The Office of Institutional Research, which currently resides under Budget, Planning, and Institutional Research, should be moved into Academic Affairs and report to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Policy, Assessment, and Diversity. 3. Currently, Extended Programs and Accelerated Online Programs also reside under the Director of Budget, Planning, and Institutional Research. The task force proposes moving these two initiatives into Academic Affairs and combining them into a College of Online Studies (a virtual college). 4. This proposal is independent of Plans 1, 2, & 3. That is, it should be considered along with each plan but also in isolation as a separate recommendation.

Proposed Restructure:

Given this structure: 1. Neither the Graduate School Associate Dean nor the position of Vice President for Research would be needed. 2. The Dean of Extended Programs would encompass all current responsibilities as well as oversee, or, interface with the Director of Accelerated Programs. 3. The Graduate Institute of Technology will move to the newly combined College of Engineering, Science, and Technology.

8

FTF May 15, 2013

4. With the restructuring of the Graduate School both ORSP and Compliance require new oversight. Currently the Compliance Office receives its budget from ORSP. Its staff is overseen by the Graduate School but it reports directly to the Chancellor. For the sake of convenience we are proposing that ORSP and Compliance report to the Provost. Federal regulations govern reporting and oversight in this area and any change must be consistent with those regulations. For that reason, we recommend a thorough evaluation of the unit’s place, budget and reporting process.

Ancillary Issues During our discussions, the Faculty Task Force realized that matters outside of its charge would also have a significant effect on the efficiency of any new structure. In this section, we list, in no particular order of preference, those matters. They are: 1. The university should reform some of its processes to enhance efficiency and save money. These include but are not limited to: a. University Wide Software Licenses b. Centralization or decentralization of support services, e.g, information and computer support 2. Whether department chairs should be assigned to 9-, 10-, or 12-month contracts based on the size of the department, the number of programs supported; and student or administrative demands. 3. The non-academic areas should also undergo a restructuring that is equally as transparent and participatory as we have attempted to demonstrate. 4. The Graduate School should conduct a comprehensive efficiency review. 5. ORSP should conduct a comprehensive efficiency review. In particular, ORSP should pursue grant/IRB facilitation/processing software to streamline all the signatures and processes.

Conclusion Economic efficiency was not the sole factor that led to these proposals. Better alignment of programs and faculty will not only increase curricular and administrative efficiency but also lead to better interdisciplinary cooperation and more community engagement. Moreover, all areas of the university need closer examination to identify redundancies and inefficiencies the elimination of which will lead to significant cost savings. Finally, the Faculty Task Force recognizes that changes of this magnitude will have significant consequences throughout the university. Therefore, in addition to the above proposals, the Faculty Task Force recommends that the Steering Committee consider the following: 1. The impact of each proposed model on faculty composition within Colleges. (Tenure, Tenure Track, Non-tenure Track) 2. The impact of each proposed model on faculty governance within colleges and across the University. 3. The administrative costs/savings of combining colleges. 4. The development of a detailed implementation plan with a timeline.

9