AAUP
American Association of University Professors
Oregon State University Chapter
OSU
2007 - Influences on Academic Disciplines
Although some ideas of the Strategic Plan may prove beneficial to the
university, others run counter to the AAUP's principles. Particularly
troublesome are proposals that may impair and even undermine the development
of certain disciplines at OSU. We frame our discussion around the two
following assumptions:
First, although academic freedom is often viewed in terms of the individual
faculty member, this principle becomes clearer if extended to the academic
disciplines. The AAUP recognizes that each academic discipline has developed
effectively through an internally-directed process of peer review. In
other words, disciplines develop by allowing experts to prioritize ideas
based on the fit of these ideas within the existing structure of knowledge.
Furthermore, the AAUP believes that to function effectively, this internally-directed
development must be free from external pressures arising from economic
and political interests. Such external interests, because they lack the
expertise inherent in the peer-review process, can easily misdirect development
within a discipline, resulting in a stagnation or decline of disciplinary
knowledge. In addition, each discipline consists of a group of individuals
working toward a common goal of advancing knowledge in a particular domain.
Although constraints on individual faculty members academic freedom can
prove harmful to an academic discipline, even more direct and extensive
damage can result from administrative decisions that impact the discipline
(e.g., department or program) as a whole. Therefore, not only must the
academic freedom of each individual be protected, but also the freedom
of the disciplines which make up the university.
Second, it should be clear that an underlying aim of the Strategic Plan
is to redistribute resources toward potentially lucrative disciplines;
i.e., those that can make corporate connections or obtain external grants
that benefit the state's as well as OSU's economy). This is not necessarily
a bad thing, and it may be a reasonable approach to compensating for the
reduction in state funding devoted to higher education. Nevertheless,
the efforts to gain external resources can give rise to re-prioritization
of disciplines within the university, which can have problematic repercussions
both within and across the major colleges.
To
provide more specific examples:
1. As resources are redistributed, many non-lucrative disciplines will
suffer (e.g., major portions of the liberal arts and social sciences).
Some of these disciplines will be eliminated from campus, others will
be merged and lose their identity and autonomy, and others will simply
be reduced and marginalized. As a result, the University will become more
limited in its ability to represent the breadth of human knowledge, and
students will lack exposure to important areas of knowledge. In an extreme
case scenario, OSU will move from providing a liberal education to an
institute the provides vocational training.
2. As mentioned in the article on Shared Governance, administrative decisions
that bypass facutly expertise are likely to poorly informed and thus misguided.
On the one hand, resources may be shifted toward disciplines that end
up providing only modest or short term gains. At the same time, resources
may be shifted away from disciplines that will actually flourish in the
future. These decisions need to be based on the best possible information
and predictions, which is most likely possessed by the faculty themselves.
Given the lack of faculty input in current governance and decision making,
we can only expect that mistakes will be made.
3. A related concern arises from the Strategic Plan's emphasis on producing
economic gains for the university and state. Often, such an economic focus
will lead to a neglect of extremely valuable disciplines. For example,
the Oregon University System decided against promoting an interdisciplinary
Neuroscience program because such a program was not seen as productive
in terms of new jobs. However, to rule out an enormously important area
of 21st century science based for this reason is extremely short sighted.
There are so many other ways of thinking about productivity, and so many
other valuable outcomes of a particular discipline, that decisions based
on simple economics are likely to be misdirected.
4. A
similar example involves shifts of resources within a discipline, in this
case a shift from more basic research to more lucrative applied research.
The problem here is that each discipline has limited resources. If some
of these resources are shifted from basic to applied research, then basic
research will suffer. As basic research declines, then the underlying
conceptual framework necessary for generating future applications is undermined,
and the entrepeneurial enterprise may implode. Such an outcome becomes
more likely with increased corporate control instead of faculty control.
5. Another key component of the Strategic Plan is the development of interdisciplinary
collaborations. In many areas, interdisciplinary approaches can be extremely
productive and beneficial. However, it's important to note that in virtually
all successful instances the impetus came from faculty within the converging
disciplines - not from administrators or business leaders looking for
a way to make money. More important, there are potential downsides to
even a successful interdisciplinary effort. For example, most scholars
would agree that solid interdisciplinary scholarship requires adequate
training in both (or all) of the converging fields. If we develop interdisciplinary
programs by decreasing the size and course offerings of the parent departments,
many traditional but critical parts of the disciplines’
curriculum will fall through the cracks. As a result, students will end
up poorly trained in two areas and the interdisciplinary enterprise will
fail.
6. Along similar lines, many disciplines may suffer as programs are reduced
and then merged into larger units. Mergers may save some administrative
costs and promote more interchange between programs. But again, this carries
great risks for the individual disciplines, especially when these decisions
to merge are made by the administration rather than the faculty. Departments
and their represented disciplines consist of a set of coherent subfields,
integrated in terms of general conceptual/communicative framework inherent
within the particular discipline (as well as in terms of shared social
and motivational goals). Much can be lost if these integrative connections
are severed. If one were to merge departments such as Psychology and Sociology,
for example, a core around social psychology would probably develop, but
80% of the rest of these disciplines would possibly deteriorate. One of
the earlier OSU-2007 proposals actually suggested "working toward
the dissolution of departments". Even if one believes in the ultimate
unity of knowledge, this is a disturbing thought.
7. Building on the ideas expressed in points 5 and 6, another potential
problem facing disciplines arises from priorities established among the
five colleges or themes. Although the Strategic Plan recognizes that the
"Arts and Sciences" theme is fundamental to the others, it is
neverthelesss listed at the bottom of the list of five, and it clearly
lacks the applied, economic potential of the others. One fear is that
interdisciplinary and other initiatives may serve to redirect resources
away from Arts and Sciences toward the more lucrative applied themes.
This would be devastating to the structure of knowledge within the university,
because Arts and Sciences are truly fundamental (as the document admits).
This is not only true at the research level, but at the instructional
level as well.
8. Finally, we should point out that disciplines will suffer from reductions
in shared governance. As mentioned in the article on governance, the OSU-2007
governance structure is more hierarchical than ever, with greater power
at the top. If the Dean or Vice President redistributes an open position
from one to another department, then clearly the department losing the
position will suffer. The cost to one department may be compensated by
the benefits to another department, but such benefits are by no means
guaranteed. To provide another example, when departments are merged in
to broader structures, then many of them will no longer have their own
chair. Lacking the advocacy and protective functions often provided by
a chair, the departments and disciplines will become more vulnerable than
ever to outside interference.
In summary, we appreciate the idea that enhanced organizational flexibility
will be needed to enable the interdisciplinary opportunites that will
arise in the 21st century. However, this flexibility carries with it numerous
risks to departments and their associated disciplines. Perhaps most insidious
are the potential threats to the internal peer-review processes guiding
the disciplines, which will be taken over by administrative and business
interests. This is the fundamental reason for the AAUP's principles of
academic freedom and shared governance - to protect the disciplines from
such external influences.
