I seldom write about Cornell, my employer of nearly 19
years, except in a veiled way. The
university, overall, has been very good to me, providing a vital and
challenging environment to work and exist.
But here I break that rule for the email below.
As an organization, Cornell tends to think and coordinate as organizations do: they form committees and generate studies.
In the context of the long email below, Cornell administration tends to be disingenuous
in its statements. In keeping with other
committees investigating similar themes and topics, the sentence containing the statement that the goal
of the committee is to “identify opportunities for continuing to strengthen the
social sciences at Cornell” means one thing: to somehow centralized the Social
Sciences at Cornell, and strip power for the individual units.
The reason for this move is cost savings. The end result will be some overarching
entity, The School of Social Science, The Social Science Entity, Social Science Incorporated; this entity will supposedly pool
resources and eliminate redundancies.
Centralization certainly has its place in congregations of people gathered together to perform some task(s). But it has a shadow side in all but ignoring the benefit of
organic growth and the decentralization that fosters it. The centralized folks, of course, prefer
centralization. It is where they derive
their power and authority.
Decentralization is tantamount to disorder, and even chaos. And it is supposed to be less cost effective. Yet where is the evidence that Cornell’s
centralizing drive saves money? Has anyone studied that outcome?
The Provost is a shadowy and strange presence on campus, feeding money or not depending upon their internal (and often opaque) reasoning. Besides tightening a belt that may very well be on the waist of bogie man, what do they do? Why do they exist?
Provost’s Review of the Social Sciences at Cornell
Charge
Review the current state of the social
sciences at Cornell, and identify opportunities for continuing to strengthen
the social sciences at Cornell.
Scope
The review will focus on the
traditional social science disciplines as they appear in all colleges and
schools, as well as research infrastructure units that support the social
sciences. However, the review will also recognize and consider disciplines that
intersect traditional social sciences. Contributions to the research, teaching,
and public-engagement missions of the university, as well as the organization
of social sciences faculty throughout the university, will be included.
Process
First, a small internal committee will
be convened to develop a document that describes the current state of the
social sciences at Cornell. The report produced by the committee will be
descriptive—it will not provide a critique of social sciences, nor will it be
prescriptive in tone. The report will be informed by data and information that
are internal and external to Cornell, pertaining to the teaching, research, and
public-engagement missions of the university. The internal committee is not
intended to be representative of all social science disciplines, but rather is
meant to be a small group with enough knowledge to produce the descriptive
report. The Provost will invite nominations from the campus and will appoint
the membership.
Second, a group of highly regarded
scholars, external to Cornell, will be identified and invited by the Provost to
review the report of the internal committee and to participate in a site visit
that will include interviews, tours, and discussion. This group will be asked
to provide its assessment, together with recommendations for further
strengthening the social sciences at Cornell.
Progress reports will be provided to
the Faculty Senate Committee throughout the process.
Internal
Committee
Co-Chairs: Judith Appleton and Ted
O’Donoghue
Members: Rose Batt, Jesse Goldberg, Katherine Kinzler, Yael Levitte, Katherine
McComas, Kelly Musick, Holly Prigerson, Jed Stiglitz, and Martin Wells.
September
2017 Update
Following completion of the self-study,
receipt of the report of the external review committee, and a period of invited
comment on the report, the next step in Cornell’s review of the social sciences
will be to address the central issues raised in the process to date.
Committees will be formed to address:
1. Organizational
Structures: university level organization of the social sciences, including
academic units and centers/institutes (work to begin late September 2017)
2. Idea Panels: explore
areas of strength and opportunity for radical collaboration in the social
sciences (work to begin October 2017)
3. Administrative
Issues: specific concerns regarding current policies and practices that impact
faculty productivity (work to begin Spring 2018)
Charges for all three committees, along
with up-to-date committee membership, can be found here [current draft
September 20, 2017]
Any questions or concerns you may have
on the review process may be submitted to ssreview@cornell.edu.