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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.