Growth Models for Che Departments: Are They Really Useful in Recent Times

Growth Models for ChE Departments: Are They Really Useful in Recent Times? A Brief Synopsis

Pedro E. Arce1 Abstract

This contribution presents the basic aspects involved in development Model of Growth and illustrates the analysis with two case studies, the Department of Chemical Engineering at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering and the one at Tennessee Technological University.

1. Introduction

When one looks at the spectrum of ChE Departments in the USA, one may find that there is a class of departments that seem to be well-developed, with an appropriate infrastructure and with a tradition in achieving a good level of productivity that is almost at steady state. Some examples include Wisconsin-Madison, Minnesota, Berkeley, Purdue, and MIT just to name a few. These departments are mainly centered on a continuous renovation, adapting their focus by changing the research focus of the faculty to areas and/or projects that offer a more appealing financial support, and/or by adding faculty replacements with new research interests. On the other side of the spectrum, one may find departments where their function is focused more on undergraduate instruction and they have made of this their trade mark. Although there are others, Rose-Hulman is, perhaps, the most salient exponent of this family. The size and focus of this type of departments change slightly during a relatively long period of time.

In between the two cases identified above, one may find examples of departments that are interested in growing from their current positions towards a new and different level of operation. The author had been involved with one of such Departments at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering (Tallahassee, Florida) and currently he is working on a similar situation at the Tennessee Technological University (Cookeville, Tennessee). In addition, he has been a consultant for Latin American Universities, i.e. Chile and Peru where the goals and resource availability are considerably different to the ones present in, for example the USA or Europe. However, the basic concepts of the strategic plans for growth have strong similarities to the ones used in, for example, the USA or Europe.

In this contribution, the author discusses some general observations on models of program growth and their helpful role in guiding the building direction of a department. Additional details and illustrations will be presented during the actual delivery of the contribution. It is important to note that there are guidelines for several aspects related to program growth. For example, Ottino (1994) has reported suggestions on faculty development, Felder has a reach collection of thoughts on faculty training and re-training (see, for example, Felder’s Random Thought ______

1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, Prescott Hall 214, Cookeville, TN, 38505. E-mail: [email protected]

1 Column in CEE); material related to the modernization of the ChE curriculum is also available, i.e. “Frontier Education” at the MIT led efforts, and a national effort about future directions in research in both chemistry and chemical engineering (“Beyond the Molecular Frontier,” 2003) has appeared recently. However, it seems that a systematic analysis of the role of growth models in ChE (or other academic) Departments is not available.

Specifically, the purpose of this contribution is to offer some basic ideas behind this role and to illustrate the discussion with two case studies where the author was or is currently involved with. Details about this analysis are included below. It is the author’s hope that the analysis fosters further discussion on the very important aspect of program growth in Chemical Engineering.

2. Growth Model for Departments: Some Basic Ideas.

Engineering Departments in general and Chemical Engineering Departments, in particular, are not complety different from any business organization when it comes to development, assessment of the outcomes, and profit. They, of course, produce a very special type of “products”, i.e. students. They may be viewed as the most intelligent and sophisticated “manufactured” product ever “made” by a very special type of company, i.e. the university. With this in mind in this contribution, we have taken the position that the focus of this type of company is the development of high quality engineers that will serve well the profession as well as our Society. In particular, the focus of our analysis is on the growth of a chemical engineering department; however, the material may be relevant to other types of engineering or science academic departments.

Within the framework described above, a series of basic elements can be identified when it comes to growth efforts in ChE departments. For example, a non-exhaustive list is included below:

A- Strategic Outlook with a Vision and an Implementation Plan. B- The Role of the Critical Mass of the Faculty. C- Current areas of Strength of the Departments. D- Local (university), state wide, private and federal resources. E- Role of the National Trends of the Profession and Markets. F- Tools and Variables for Assessment of Departmental Growth.

Regardless of the other key aspects that play a role in the growth of the department, it seems that a strategic outlook is the corner stone for any effort in the right direction. A strategic outlook coupled with a vision of the department future is a very effective starting point. Strategic outlooks not necessarily need to be detailed or full of concrete evidences; rather they are a statement or re-statement of purposes and long term objectives put together in a collaborative way by people of the department. Of course, if they are backed up with a tradition of excellence and a history of achieving professional goals, then the possibility of reaching the new set goals is enhanced. Strategic outlooks are not complete without a detailed plan of implementation during, for example, the first year. This plan must be realistic, detailed, and set to build the next level of

2 the development. Most likely, it will cover only one year so that data produced and trend collected or observed can be used for feedback in the growth and made useful adjustments.

The formulation of a strategic outlook with a first year plan of implementation is not a trivial task or a task of only one individual. The participation of all faculty and administrators in a collaborative fashion is critical. There are, in addition, useful guidelines to consider such as forecasts of “marketing” trends, research initiatives for supporting the development of educational and training programs, resources and special needs, and geographical considerations. One important aspect of the implementation plan is the presence of a solid assessment plan to yield feedback (see below). A constant review and revision of the strategic outlook and program implementation is needed for a successful reaching of goals.

In general, departments can be viewed into two main categories when considering growth: Those that have a critical mass of faculty and those that do not enjoy the status of this level, yet. As it well known, for the current curriculum needs, a ChE department must delivery the core set of courses that are required to obtain an accredited BS degree. Based on this need, there is a minimum number of faculty staff that is required to teach these courses. This number, actually, varies if the goal is to only teach or if, in addition to this function, faculty members wish to be involved in research. Those that do not have the critical mass must incorporate into the equation for growth the critical needs to reach independence from (most likely) other programs and identify the direction for growth, i.e. research and/or other directions they want to follow. In general, the rule of thumb for a typical ChE Department is that they need a number of faculty staff in the range of ten-twelve full time, permanent faculties to cover efficiently the needs of the present undergraduate curriculum with a healthy graduate program.

Some departments such as the one at the FAMU-FSU (see Section 2, below) during the early stages and with a number of faculties much less than the critical one were able to deliver the basic needs with the help of adjunct instructors. Growth for those departments that have already achieved the critical mass is less complicated and it depends of the preferences of the faculty and the vision and resources of the university. This scenario has assumed a rather traditional view of the identity of the department within a college of engineering. Recently, this view maybe affected by the so-called “bounder less” departments where faculty staff of different engineering disciplines interacts efficiently. Nevertheless, this characteristic is more pronounced in a graduate level program rather than at the undergraduate level and, therefore, the assumption above will be most likely quite reasonable.

Another important factor to consider in the development of any growth model is the current areas of strength of the department, particularly in the research efforts. Integration and collegial collaboration among the faculty and administrators will be quite useful during this critical period of growth. Building around areas of strength is an essential and economical strategy, particularly if these areas have the potential to attract sufficient level of funding. As usual, departments that have areas in the “fashionable window” of the sponsoring agencies have perhaps the best chances to succeed if faculty with the proper credentials joins the department. This strategy have been around for quite a long time (Hager, 1995) in science where the focus of funding agencies have determined, in many cases, the success of research programs that aligned with their objectives. In the present situation of our profession, Departments that have a capability to adjust

3 to the almost continuing evolving situation in research funding and focus will have an excellent chance to succeed.

One useful consideration in the growth of the departments is the availability of resources at the local and state level. This almost automatically determined some of the directions. For example, the relocation of many biotech industries to Puerto Rico makes a unique situation for the Department of Chemical Engineering of the University of Puerto Rico to take advantages of the situation. Needs for training, research and collaboration are immediately established. There are other similar cases: The presence of the National High Field Magnetic Laboratory in Tallahassee has been an important driving force for the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering and in, particular, for the ChE Department. Others include, for example the area of Boston (MA), San Diego (CA) and Tampa (FL). States that form a partnership with some high tech industries most likely will profit from these efforts.

The discussion above clearly indicates that a combination and “sharing” of state, private and federal resources is in today technology and education a formula for success in academic growth. Some University Presidents (Wetherell, 2002) has taken this concept inside (to faculty and staff) and outside (to donors and legislature) of the university to make sure that everyone understands that the “old” status where the state was almost the exclusive provider of resources is gone. Whetherell, for example, used extramural fund rising even at the Tallahassee Community College when he was its president. This three-way of splitting funding sources becomes a must to maintaining the university level of excellence and good chances for growth when facing state mandatory budget’s cuts. Another successful way of increasing funding possibilities for growth is entering a promising partnership such an academic consortium to attract additional resources. Two of such programs are the EPSCoR and DEPSCoR supported by NSF and the DOE, respectively. These programs provide additional funding for research proposals is they qualify for the state priorities. The present of a healthy research program in the department will undoubtedly enhances the faculty success in attracting research dollars to help program development and growth.

The roles of national trends play a very important influence in the direction of growth for Departments. For example, the Council for research in collaboration with the National Academies has issued a new report (1) that most likely would play a significant influence on the direction that ChE Departments will growth. New efforts in the educational field fostered by the action of the National Science Foundation and leading ChE Departments (2) in the modernization of the curriculum will also shape considerably the growth landscape for ChE.

Finally, a Model of Growth without a proper assessment is incomplete. Therefore, variables and tools for evaluation and proper feedback is a very important aspect of any program for departmental growth. When choosing these parameters, generally the tradition has been on focusing on the research, teaching and professional services. After a faculty candidate is in place, a solid record on scholarly work, innovative teaching and active involvement in professional organizations give an indication of progress in a faculty member and, consequently in the departmental growth. In measuring scholarly contributions, many departments focus on the number and quality of peer-reviewed publications in recognized and relevant journals, record in proposal writing and submission, and mentoring of graduate and undergraduate students. In fact,

4 some departments (Colorado at Boulder) compare their production in peer-reviewed publications per faculty with the national averaged, use the increase in dollar amount in sponsored research (Mississippi State), and faculty participation in technical meetings either as a contributor or session organizers to check the level of activities in the department. Recently, others have used the number of NSF CAREER Award winners as an indication of success and prestige. Finally, one simple variable to measure growth is the number of tenure and/or tenure earning faculty added to the department. This is the variable used in the case study one (see the section below).

3. Case Studies: Brief Description of Two Cases Where the Either Author Played or is currently Playing a Role.

The author was actively involved in the development of the Chemical Engineering Department at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering from 1990 until 2003. During this time the Department showed an important growth in the number of faculty as well as aspects such as research and graduate education. More recently, the author moved to his current position of Professor and Chair at the Chemical Engineering Department at Tennessee Tech University. This department currently is undergoing a transformation and modernization. Brief descriptions about these two cases are included in the sections below..

Case Study One: The Department of Chemical Engineering at the FAMU- FSU College of Engineering, Tallahassee, Florida .

The author joined the Department of Chemical Engineering at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering in 1990 and was a faculty member until recently (2003) when he moved to his current position of Professor and Chair of the ChE Department at Tennessee Tech University. In 1990, the ChE Department at FAMU-FSU was rather small with about half a dozen of tenure track or tenure earning faculty members and it was running three programs, i.e. the BS in Chemical Engineering (undergraduate) and the MS/PhD Programs (graduate). The faculty was augmented with one adjunct faculty that focused on the Unit Operation Laboratory (UOL). The regular faculty generally focused on teaching core courses both in the undergraduate as well as the graduate program. The demands of the faculty to satisfy the needs were high and the department needed to growth in order to reach a more “balanced” status with an improved overall productivity. As mentioned before, this case qualifies for a Department with a faculty number below the critical mass at this point in time based on the fact that the program has both undergraduate and graduate level as part of the activities.

Since the decision was made to strengthen the graduate program without loosing the focus of the undergraduate program, a strategic plan was developed with this aspect integrated into other characteristics. The author helped to develop the first strategic plan for the growth of the Department with input from the faculty (see Arce, 1991). The key aspect in the conception of this plan was the effective integration of the different research programs available both at FAMU and FSU. The plan identified four key areas of focus research: Advanced Materials, Process Synthesis and Control, Surface Science and Catalysis, Biotechnology (Biochemical Cellular and Metabolic Engineering (details in Locke, Arce and Peters, 1993, in particular see Figure 1, pag. 13). These areas were integrated with the educational needs and the addition of a faculty

5 (generally) was justified based on these needs. Also, the Department successfully integrated faculty members that, although not with degrees in Chemical Engineering, they offered an outstanding combination of research and educational possibilities for the graduate program and research. By following the guidelines provided by the strategic plan, an effective Model of Growth was developed and used to reach a department of ten-twelve faculty members, i.e. the department effectively doubled its size within less than ten years and it reaches the critical mass for a ChE that delivers both undergraduate and graduate (PhD) level degrees. Most, but not all of the areas identified in the original program were developed. New opportunities call for adjustments.

After the critical mass was reached as it was described above, the faculty applied for a special grant from the Whitaker Foundation. The original suggestion of the author was to integrate both FAMU and FSU with a strong program in biomedical engineering such as the one at the University of Miami. The idea was attractive on many grounds but the Foundation was concerned with the logistics involved, unfortunately. However, a revised proposal was accepted with only both FSU and FAMU as partners that made sense from an operational point of view. This effort proved useful since the last five faculty hired have been in the biomedical areas. However, the Department has chosen these faculty members with a strong background in Chemical Engineering; this aspect is important for the integration between the two programs, ChE and Bio-Med Engineering. The help provided by the Whitaker Foundation was an excellent opportunity to re-shape the biotechnology areas of the (original) strategic plan and take advantage of the new funds. On the other hand, the Whitaker funds bring, in addition to an important source of funding, other concerns that must be dealt with care. In particular, the integration between ChE and Biomedical Program must be performed to avoid a potential breakaway of the biomedical engineering part. If this happened, one could view it as a failure from the point of view of Chemical Engineering since valuables resources and time has not given the growth in the Chemical Engineering part as originally planned. Others departments (i.e., Vanderbilt and Rice) that have given birth to biomedical engineering departments had to funneled considerable additional resources to re-build chemical engineering.

Finally, the possible lack or presence of a medical school could be an important factor in helping to shape the growth of a ChE department these days of high interest in biomedical focus. For example, FSU has initiated a Medical School recently. This was not contemplated in the original strategic plan written in 1992. However, it easy to see that part of the biotechnology area present in he original plan (see Figure 1 in Locke, Arce, and Peters, 1993) maybe integrated and/or interfaced with the efforts of the FSU Medical School. Many of the aspects described above help to illustrate the useful role played by a model of departmental growth.

Case Study 2: The Chemical Engineering Department at the Tennessee Tech University.

The work for the modernization and growth of the Chemical engineering Department at Tennessee Tech has just begun. During part of the 2002-2003 academic year, the faculty body has identified the major focus areas of research (see CEE Fall 2003 Issue and Table 1, attached). ChE at Tech focuses on three major areas, i.e. electrical field-based processes and systems, biological process and systems, and molecularly-based materials and interfacial systems, and, also, two “envelope” areas, i.e. computational mathematics and engineering education. These

6 key areas are the cornerstone for the future growth of the department and will anchor the addition of both human resources and research and educational infrastructure. The rationale behind these areas is on the current strength of the department but also on the integration of resources of the three Centers of Excellence available at Tech, i.e. “Water Resources”, “Material Research”, and “Power Research” Centers. In addition, the fact that at Tech the Doctoral Program is in Engineering, with a concentration in Chemical Engineering, brings an excellent integration of other faculty members to help with the graduate program and electives courses (see CEE 2003 Fall Issue)

The department has adopted a similar philosophy to the one used at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering: Develop the graduate program and research without undermining the tradition of excellence in the undergraduate level. In fact, the departmental faculty’s view is that graduate education is a great ally in present time when it comes to have a strong and current undergraduate program that brings the cutting-edge technology to classroom and labs for the overall training of students. Within this framework, two important milestones has been reached: A new special option with a Distinction in the Major and a new BS/MS program are in place to bring new research opportunities for talented undergraduates are now available. Based on these preliminary actions, the Department is in the process of developing an effective and suitable Model for Growth. An effective integration with the resources in Chemistry and Biology, including the Regional Hospital located at Cookeville is being used to this end. Faculty members has already developed collaborations with ORNL, Sandia and Brookhaven National laboratories and their funding rising effort is being successful with substantial portions from the National Science Foundation, NSF, NASA, and DOE. The author believed that the previous experience and growth achievements at his previous position at the FAMU-FSU will prove very valuable in helping to develop a successful model of growth for ChE at Tech.

3. Concluding Remarks

A brief synopsis of the key factors to develop models of growth has been presented. The analysis is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to give a framework of possible strategies for the growth of a department. Some additional details and illustration will be presented during the delivery of the contribution. The two cases studies illustrate the role of having an effective Model for Growth. One important aspect identified in the FAMU-FSU case was the practical guidelines for resources integration that maybe accomplished by having a realistic model. Finally, the main variable used to measure growth in this case was the (increase in) the number of faculty. However, the ultimate success of the growth shall be measured in the number of peer- reviewed publications, the level of (external) sponsored research, and the quality of the graduates.

Other interesting cases that are worth mentioning here include the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of South Carolina; the one at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder. These departments have added during a period of approximately decade a very important number of resources (human and others) that have boosted productivity and success considerably. One difference perhaps, and without any data analysis, with the one at FAMU-FSU is that

7 (strategically) the infusion of resources marked for Chemical Engineering has been at a considerable less level than in the others cases.

References:

1. “Beyond the Molecular Frontier: Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,” National Research Council, National Academies (2003) 2. “Educational Leadership Initiative,” coordinated by the MIT with NSF sponsorship. 3. Arce, P., “A Strategic Plan for Department Growth” in ABET Report, ChE at FAMU- FSU College of Engineering (1991). Available from the author. 4. Locke, B. R.; P. Arce and M.H. Peters, “ChE at FAMU-FSU”, Chemical Engineering Education, Winter Issue, 8 (1993). 5. Ottino, Julio, “Guidelines for Faculty Development,” Private Communication (1994). 6. Chemical Engineering Education, 2003 Fall Issue. 7. Wheterwell, T.K., Interview for Florida State University Presidency, 2002. 8. Hager, Thomas, “Force of Nature: The Life of Linus Pauling,” Simon & Schuster, N.Y., (1995).

8 About the Author:

Pedro E. Arce is Professor and Chair of Chemical Engineering Tennessee Tech. He holds a Diploma in Chemical Engineering from the University Nacional del Litoral, Santa Fe, Argentina and a Masters of Science and a PhD, both in Chemical Engineering, from Purdue University. Dr. Arce is deeply committed to the development and enhancement of the efficient learning methodologies in the engineering curricula where his focus is on active and collaborative learning environments. He has championed the use of the “Colloquial Approach,” “The Principal Objects of Knowledge or POK’s” the “(Sport) Coach Model of Instruction,” and more recently, “High Performance Learning Environment or Hi-PeLE

9 Table 1: Focused Areas of Research in ChE at Tennessee Tech and Faculty Distribution by Areas of Research

A- Electrical Field-Based Processes and Systems (Arce, Biernacki, Subramanian, Boles, George, Cunningham, Wells)

a- Micro-devices for Free Flow Fractionation and micro-electrophoresis b- Electrokinetics Soil Remediation c- Electrosletting of Particles in Processing Fluids d- Electrical-based Corona High Oxidation Processes e- Modeling, multi-scale simulation and analysis of batteries and fuel cells and other electrochemical systems for hybrid vehicle applications f- Estimation of transport and kinetic parameters of batteries using AC impedance spectroscopy

B- Biological Engineering Processes and Systems (Whitmire, Visco, Arce, Booth, Dycus)

a- Metabolic pathways b- Bioinformatics c- Biological micro-flows in the human body d- Separation of bio-macromolecules, biosensors e- Design and characterization of artificial environments for bio-growth f- Thermodynamic and transport properties

C-Molecularly-based Engineered Materials and Interfacial Systems (Biernacki, Arce, Visco, Booth, Boles, ElSawy)

a- Multi-scale approach to material design, synthesis, and characterization b- Micro- and nano-scale engineering of soft (gels) and advanced cement-based materials c- Micro-rheology of macromolecules in reduce environments d- Single-molecule fluorescence microscopy/spectroscopy e- Transport properties in porous structure systems f- Design and characterization of blowing agents

D-Computational Mathematics (Subramanian, Visco, Arce)

a- Method of lines in multiphase reacting systems b- Computational design of complex fluid mixtures c- MC and molecular dynamics simulations d- Modeling of multiphase and reacting systems

E-Engineering Education (Visco, Arce, Biernacki, Whitmire, Booth)

a- Systems-based learning environments (SYBLE) b- High performance learning environments (Hi-PeLe) c- Social learning approaches (SOLA) d- ABET-based models of assessment (ABMA)