Use the comment feature to voice your thoughts on the proposed new college. Although the comment form requests your name and email, if you are uncomfortable supplying that information you can make up a pseudonym and a fake email address.
Use the comment feature to voice your thoughts on the proposed new college. Although the comment form requests your name and email, if you are uncomfortable supplying that information you can make up a pseudonym and a fake email address.
What changes with the name? Funding opportunities, lines of research (and support to them), the ontological, epistemological and methodological diversity of our department? Is that a reasonable collection of possible effects?
If nothing changes, then this discussion is irrelevant. I fear for the rhetoric, MTS, and PAIM students (and faculty members), as I don’t believe those areas are a great fit for this “Health and Human Sciences” college. Given that the last handful of lines available have been for PAIM, rhetoric, and organizational positions, is the department willing to sacrifice building those subunits of our department?
Generally, I believe this is largely beyond our control–and “our” in this sense refers to students, faculty, and the department as a whole. Because of that, I encourage all involved in the process to do their best to secure as many resources and long-term guarantees as possible. Such as the department being allowed to hold on to funds it receives from its activities (teaching some of the biggest classes like 114, 256, and 318, as well as grant incentives); holding on to both the rhetoric, MTS, and PAIM programs, regardless of the new college structure; similarly, work toward the growth, or at the very least maintenance, of our department’s reputation in all of the subdisciplines represented in the program; and finally (hopefully) increased travel, stipend, and research support from the new college.
No solution will be perfect, and there will be as many unhappy if we go as if we stay, but if we can focus on what can be guaranteed and gained from the move, perhaps we won’t get f@<<ed in the process.
Any idea when this department shift is being planned for?
How does Communication fit under “Health Sciences”?? I do not study health. Communication does include health communication but it also includes many other completely unrelated things. Will this misrepresent my degree to employers? Would I be required to take health classes? I don’t understand at all why we are even in this discussion.
As a liberal arts/humanities individual, I’m concerned that graduating from a “health sciences” program will adversely effect my future academic career in that potential employers in liberal arts/humanities departments at other institutions will take one look at that label and be confused as to why I’m applying to their program. I certainly think that any of those students accepted and enrolled in the program prior to this restructuring should still have the choice to graduate from their original school/college/department.
Perhaps the faculty involved could provide a rationale for why this move is necessary. Professor Dutta’s email didn’t give specific details. Is it for financial considerations, or does it represent a complete academic shift towards health comm? At least as grad students we should be told this much. If there will be no practical change to the academic side of things, then this move is simply for convenience’s sake. That doesn’t sound likely though, which is disconcerting.
I share the reservations about how the label of health sciences can have a negative affect on the career of someone who is not applying in the health side.
Thanks for all your postings and concerns so far. A few things that I do know of:
a)First, I do believe we have a say and that there will be a faculty vote at some point (to join this College of Health & Human Sciences or not, if the proposal for the new college is approved by the Provost). We will probably be requiring some sort of majority for a decision to happen. As I said in my email, faculty will be discussing this at the faculty meeting on September 9, and I have told Professor Sypher specifically that our graduate students ought to have a say in this. So these are exactly the kinds of discussions we need to engage in. So thank you.
b) The rough draft has a timeframe, but we (meaning the faculty) have not seen the rough draft yet. When it is ready to be shared with us (which I am hoping would happen before the September 9th meeting), I will let you know what the timeframe is. From what I hear from Professor Sypher, it would probably be sometime this semester that the faculty would be asked to vote.
c)The question that Bernie M raises is a good one. Honestly, I don’t have an answer to that because I have not seen the rough draft proposal yet. I am assuming that it would be made available to us sometime before September 9th,. The department faculty will have a chance to articulate the positives and negatives that might emerge out of being a part of this new college, and there might be things such as (a) ability to secure more grants, (b) ability to retain greater amount of money from grants at the departmental level, (c) ability to work more collaboratively with colleagues in psych, nursing, HK, (d) greater financial resources listed on the positive side. I am simply thought listing the positives here that might be enlisted by faculty who might support this move, and please note that these are NOT my views as a faculty member/graduate director.
If we move to a “health science”, how about the faculties and students who don’t study health? How about their future when looking for grant, job?…
Thanks, Dr. Dutta for responding to some of the comments although I have to say that I am still feeling like there is no positive side for students interested in qualitative, critical, or rhetorical studies. How well are we, as students from this epistemological perspective, going to be able to engage in a college of “Sciences.” I, for one, feel that the term science is suspect to begin with and carries serious implications for our orientation as a department.
For students that are already in the program, this feels like something of a bait-and-switch. I can understand that this reorganization would allow for more collaboration, as Dr. Dutta wrote, with psychology and nursing, but that is only relevant for some students. Moreover, as things already stand, students in health com have opportunities to engage in grant-driven research while those opportunities are more difficult to come by for students in liberal arts oriented areas. This proposed move would seem to give more opportunities to those grad students who already have them and fewer to those who don’t. I think Axolotl had a great suggestion in that students already in the department should be able to receive the degree they originally applied to get.
Well said, leftinthedust?. I too feel that students who were admitted under one college should in all fairness be allowed to graduate from that same college. At least the Masters students, given that they graduate sooner.
Just a thought, how many grad students in the department fall under health comm? Is it a significant majority?
I’m curious about what health com students have to say about this? I believe that many of them do intra-disciplinary work as well and it might be hasty to assume they think the proposed new college would be beneficial. I’m not a health com student but would be interested in hearing from some.
In answer to a few of your questions, as a health com student, I am hesitant about the change as well. Not all health researchers are excited about the title ‘sciences’. There is quite a bit of qualitative research in health com, and the title ‘sciences’ would be misleading, to say the least. In addition, one of the most valuable aspects of this department is its interdisciplinary nature. We are not only allowed to work with people from alternate fields, we are encouraged to. Choosing minors and working with researchers in alternate com areas is part of what makes this program so valuable and attractive to both current and incoming students. It seems that moving to a college of Health and Human Sciences will reduce our department’s flexibility.
My concerns are less personal than general. Though I don’t know much about the details and considerations behind the proposal, I think the label (and I belief that labels are powerful) “health science” would not do justice to the wide variety of research and teaching in our department. Something, I feel, that makes it the great and exciting place it is. It further does not represent the scope of the communication discipline, which is neither exclusively a science, nor exclusively concerned with health. I wonder if the restructuring would now or on the long run go to the cost of non-health science areas, projects and research programs?
Well, there might be some upsides for the health comm. faculty and students but for an international student like me this shift would mean a bleak future because back in my country, it would make a lot of difference whether I graduated from a Liberal Arts college or Health Science college. Graduating from the latter would seriously and severely hamper my career opportunities; and besides, with due respect to everyone, THIS IS NOT WHAT I SIGNED UP FOR!
I trying to imagine this move as sitting well with rhetoric, MTS, and PAIM program students/faculty, and I really can’t see it. Will the entire department be renamed “Health Communication” then? If not, with all due respect, it seems a really odd fit in a Health Sciences department.
I don’t think I will be sold on this plan until someone can convince me it is absolutely necessary for the future of the department.
I agree with many of the comment above voicing strong concern about the plan, and would agree that if the change were made, a grandfather clause should be added to allow students enrolled under the current configuration to get degrees under the current system if they wish to rather than being carried into a new system which may well materially hinder their progress toward jobs or other degrees they seek to achieve.
To extend the concerns about collaborations that may be broken, I particularly wonder about those students and faculty who are working to maintain ties with other liberal arts programs such as philosophy, history, English, anthropology, linguistics, etc. While these departments and ties aren’t likely to produce as many grants as the other programs mentioned above, graduate students in those disciplines often end up in Communication classes, building bridges across the departments. Beyond the (entirely rational) fears that the well-established traditions of qualitative, interpretive, and critical methodologies may flourish less under a new college with a label that is likely to seem antithetical to a large amount of the research done in the communication department, one must ask whether these graduate students in these other departments would continue to even to think to seek out classes in the department if held under a college labelled so antithetically to the way they do their own research.
It seems from recent recruitment efforts that the department values students with interests that cross into these disciplines, which makes me also comment that future recruitment efforts in these areas would likely be hindered by such a change. I would also ask whether, considering the number of students and faculty that currently work with Discovery Park centers regarding health communication, whether there is remotely a fear that these collaborations with scientific areas are at risk? It seems much more likely that the collaborations with liberal-arts-type colleges are much more tenuous that the collaborations with more “scientific” departments. The department’s current position is much more likely to foster the former type of collaborations without hindering the latter in a significant way.
In saying this, I seek to strongly add my voice to those above who rightly fear whether the diversity of the department–and particularly the existence of those branches of the department who already do not do research that is as likely garner grants–would be threatened by such a move.
Just a couple of quick thoughts, which are not intended to address all of the concerns posted here.
First, graduate students actually graduate from the Graduate College. Moreover, the “College of Liberal Arts” appears nowhere on your diploma, nor would the name of the new college, should we join one. Grad students will continue to graduate with Communication degrees. I am surprised that this has not been made perfectly clear to our graduate students.
Second, many communication departments (which are as diverse as ours in scope) are in colleges of Social and Behavioral Sciences (among other types of colleges). Just as we currently have social scientists who have flourished in a College of Liberal Arts, I have every reason to believe that humanists would be just as able to flourish in a College that includes the label “Human Sciences.”
Third, our graduate degree requirements are set by our department; unless Mohan says otherwise, I simply can’t imagine why we would restructure our entire graduate curriculum and requirements just because we become part of a brand-new college. There is no reason for anything to change in this regard.
We have a strong departmental culture that has established its own norms within the College of Liberal Arts. We don’t do things the way English or History or other departments in CLA do them (requirements for graduation, standards for tenure & promotion, etc.) and I have every reason to expect that we will continue our pattern of self-determination if we become part of a new college. If I believe that our departmental culture would be compromised by a move, I will oppose it. However, we have demonstrated through hiring practices and through our graduate course offerings that we value multiple research methodologies and epistimologies. We still have some imbalances to correct in the number of faculty in each area, but it appears to me that there is consensus about the importance of maintaining and strengthening every area– regardless of its potential to garner grant funding. There are still only a very few of us who apply for and receive significant grant funding. Purdue’s organizational structure and policies are such that Colleges receive very little incentive to encourage their faculty to get grants and departments have even less incentive. Almost all of the “goodies” are kept at the Purdue higher administrative level and I’ve been told by the Vice President for Research that this will “never change.” (Most universities do a much better job of literally “spreading the wealth” which creates both incentives and potential pressure from Colleges and departments for faculty to bring in grants.)
Most of what I have said here is not exactly controversial– at least I don’t think so. I hope you will talk to your advisors, particularly if they have been here for more than a few years. Although not everyone appears to favor joining a new college, they should at least be able to assuage any fears about your graduation requirements and how this will actually affect our own graduate students as a whole.
I congratulate everyone for participating in open dialogue. I hope that we can be calm and reasoned in our assessments of the possible pros & cons of joining a new college. I believe that it is the job of all faculty to assauge any unwarranted fears rather than letting them take on a life of their own. Where there are real possibilities for detrimental effects to our department, we will need to be vigilant and find ways to address them directly. If the structure, values, and priorities of the new College do not appear to support our own values as a discipline and as a department, you can be assured that it will not receive my support. I do believe that regardless of the eventual outcome, we will emerge as an even stronger program.
Susan
I think we should wait for a look at the draft report. After reading thru the above comments and talking to many peers, I feel, we should wait for a more concrete picture to emerge before putting forth our views/ “fears”. This is something that affects all of us, students of all streams and also faculty. I am sure that our faculty and department head would not take any decision that compromises our future and that of theirs and the department.
We have to be careful with everything we say as we should all be too well aware of how misconceptions manifest and breed. Without even seeing a draft, how can we voice “concerns” about something we know very little about? Rather than bash a Health Sciences college, remember that the word HUMAN also goes into that sequence. The college would be called health and human sciences (which any unit within our program would fall under) PAIM, Rhetoric, etc. still work with human interactions, thinking, texts, semiotics, social influence, perceptions, etc. The best thing we can do now is ask general questions such as, “Will this require some structural changes to degree requirements, titles, salaries, etc.?, “How do we as a larger communication department compare to other larger communication departments across the country?”, “What departments in other universities have made similar moves?”, and “What are the outcomes of other universities’ and departments’ decisions to move to different colleges?” Let’s all take a step back and voice our opinions instead on how we can get the actual information first and then go on from there.
It is precisely because we have not seen the draft report that we continue to have fears and concerns, and I think we should continue putting forth our fears/concerns. I am glad that we have this blog to post our thoughts. There are many of us in the department that see themselves as belonging to the humanities.
What is the timeframe in which this is going to happen?
After talking to many of my peers, one thing is clear. I am deeply concerned and most of my peers are also (even those that consider themselves social science). The thought of moving into a College of Health and Human Sciences worries me because I feel we will become much much narrower in the future. Although this may not affect what my diploma says, it will affect the type of degree I graduate with, the way in which people perceive me when I graduate, and my chances in the job market.
I don’t agree that Rhetoric, PAIM etc. fit within a College of Health and Human Sciences. I don’t see how there is even a remote fit there with these units.
The problem here is with the term “Sciences” and its effects on resources, structures, organization, scholarship. Unlike what Professor Morgan says in the earlier post, the difference lies between “Liberal Arts” and “Science.” Whereas Liberal Arts as an umbrella has historically been really broad including areas such as Mathematics and Astronomy (in addition to anthropology, english, psychology, sociology), Science colleges have been very narrow in their scope (I don’t see an English department in a Science college or a Health or Human Science College). So a social scientist can do their work and flourish in Liberal Arts (our department is a good example)…but the same is not true the other way round in a College of ——— Science.
I am concerned.
I have been reading the postings and have lots of thoughts/questions/fears/concerns going through my mind now.
The most common thought is that our concerns and fears are real; putting our “concerns” and “fears” in brackets is disrespectful as if we are building castles in thin air by sharing our concerns. Lala comes up with a “solution” to a “problem” he seems to have no clue of. When the proposal for this college started, our views we weren’t thought of as important. Then how can we think we have a role to play in the big picture. If we aren’t in the start, we aren’t in the finish either. And this is where our doubts come in. Would we be the pivotal factor in deciding which college to go? That is where this real fear comes in (unbracketed).
Professor Morgan says that few faculty apply for and get grants. She also says there are no incentives at Purdue to apply and get grants. So what is the real reason behind this proposal, if it doesn’t promise more money?
This is going to impact a lot of things and I would not have applied to Purdue had I known this was going to happen. I trust our faculty, and I think that faculty need to know what we are thinking and the doubts that we have in our minds. Any opportunity to talk openly is a good thing and given that there is a faculty discussion to be held soon, I don’t see any point in waiting to discuss the issues. The document has not been shared yet, but that does not mean we should not talk. Rather, I want to make sure that we talk about every point that comes to mind as much as possible, and I welcome this opportunity for open conversation. And I hope that we get a chance to keep discussing these things.
Well said, ?????? and skeptic. It is true, as Susan points out, that many communication departments are under colleges of social and behavioral sciences in other colleges and universities. The thing is, that during the application process, that label–as with the current proposed one–is bound to give humanities-oriented scholars pause when considering whether to apply to such colleges. And that’s nothing to be taken lightly. The history between the two branches of scholarship makes for strong feelings about labels, and rightly so–we are, after all a discipline that understands the importance of the way you communicate yourself. Purdue is already seen, broadly, as a technical and math/science-oriented school, and with COM 114 a required class, the department does not lack credibility in other areas of the university. It seems, when the liberal arts/humanities disciplines are already a lesser part of the school, a bad move to potentially shift into a title that would seem to lessen the humanities influence.
Beyond rightly heightening the fears of students and faculty in those subdisciplines, it would be foolish, I believe, to underestimate the importance of a college label on recruitment, perception by other scholars at other universities, etc. Underestimating that impact lessens the importance of our discipline, because it underestimates the importance of communication itself, but particularly of the cultural contextual details that many in this discipline have worked so hard to have taken seriously. Perception matters, and labels affect perception, and therefore fears about that perception should definitely be aired and taken seriously.