Dear CHS faculty and staff,
You may recall that in July, I announced that I was initiating a process to evaluate and restructure the associate dean roles in the College. In considering a restructure, I wanted the College to be in the best position to achieve our instructional, research and service mission into the future. I also observed an opportunity to improve the connection between members of the College and the Dean’s Office, which could improve the everyday experience of working in the College.
On this page, you may review the new structure, see answers to some questions you may have and submit other comments and/or concerns about the restructure.
I look forward to working with you as we move forward.
View an ADA/accessible version of the information from these documents.
I want to improve the connection between members of the College and the Dean’s Office. I also want to put us in the best position to achieve our instructional and research mission, particularly during this challenging time and into the future. The agility we need can be best achieved with a close team that possesses a breadth of skills and experiences.
I convened a short-term Dean’s Advisory Committee to inform the restructure. The Dean’s Advisory Committee included Chris Burdett (Political Science), Alaina Campbell (Advising), Lee Franco (Kinesiology and Health Sciences), Kathy Ingram (Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies), Shiv Khanna (Physics), Greg Patterson (English) and Isabelle Richman (School of World Studies). We had an additional member who stepped aside when she decided that she would pursue one of the associate dean roles.
Together, we reviewed publications that assess models for dean’s offices. Some members of the committee also surveyed chairs, associate chairs, current associate deans and select staff in the Dean’s Office to identify strengths and opportunities for improvement in the current structure. With this information, we had long discussions during Zoom meetings and in shared documents.
The College is very eclectic. We have academic departments in the humanities, social sciences, behavioral sciences, natural sciences (theoretical and applied), mathematics and statistics. The areas are loosely organized around similar departments; however, this was not the only consideration. We also had to balance the workload of the area associate deans by having roughly even numbers of faculty, staff and students in the areas.
Don’t worry! The associate deans are going to work closely as a team. All of the associate deans will meet regularly to make sure that they all have the information they need and are implementing policies in the same way across departments and schools. If we have an unexpected problem, my job as dean will be to make sure that small differences don’t lead to unequal experiences across the areas.
When I was at the University of Cincinnati, we had only three associate (divisional) deans and that was it. Since I left, they have added another associate dean. I didn’t think that this model would work for us. The Dean’s Advisory Committee and I developed a model that balances a single, direct line from the Dean’s Office to each academic unit and having content specialists among the associate deans. I expect it will lead to responsiveness as well as forward-looking programming.
There will be two search committees. One committee will recommend a slate for the associate dean for research and operations and the two area associate deans, which will make it more likely that we will have a team that represents the College well. The associate dean for undergraduate programs will have a separate search committee, because the required expertise and type of candidates will be meaningfully different.
The search committee members for the area associate dean positions and the associate dean for research and operations are:
The search committee members for the associate dean for undergraduate programs position are:
All but the associate dean for undergraduate programs will be internal searches from the full-time faculty in the College. The associate dean for undergraduate programs will be a staff line for which we will conduct a national search. The interim associate dean for equity and community partnerships, once appointed, will continue until June 30.
I hope to have the associate dean for research and operations and the two area associate deans in place for January 1. I am not sure if the search for the associate dean for undergraduate programs will be complete by then. I will charge the search committees very soon.
When I arrived there were five associate deans and one assistant dean. The new team will have five associate deans and no assistant dean. The cost of the new associate dean team will be only slightly higher than the current system. I will use my start-up funds to payout the contracts of current associate deans who do not continue on the new team.
The Dean’s Advisory Committee did not explicitly discuss this. However, we did discuss the importance of providing professional development opportunities for tenure-line, tenured and term faculty. Consequently, I intend to continue to have faculty fellows as part of the Dean’s Office.
The survey of chairs, associate chairs and Dean’s Office staff found that many people believe we need more staff in the College office to facilitate the business of the College. As a result, we’re also considering hiring another person into finance or human resources.
Here is the current organizational chart for the College [PowerPoint] (view ADA/accessible version). You will see that in the current model, all of the chairs, the associate deans and many other Dean’s Office staff report to the dean. The new organizational model will give chairs a contact in the Dean’s Office whose attention can be more closely focused on all of the needs of their department. Chairs will still technically report to the dean.
Yes. These positions have been approved for rehire and we are in the process of filling them.
Do you have a question or concern about the restructure? I welcome your input.