University of Toronto OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units Interdisciplinarity Committee Working Group Report Following approval by Governing Council of the Policy on Interdisciplinary Education and Research Planning (February 2007) and the development of the Guidelines for Administrative Functions and Protocols of Extra-Departmental Units, the Governance and Administration Working Group was established by the Interdisciplinary Committee in order to research and identify best practices for administration and governance of extradepartmental units (EDUs). The membership of the Governance and Administration Working Group included Susan Pfeiffer (Dean, School of Graduate Studies and Vice-Provost Graduate Education and chair of the Working Group), Brian Hodges (Director, Donald R. Wilson Centre for Research in Education, Faculty of Medicine), Sara-Jane Finlay (Director, Academic Human Resources), David Keeling (Bursar, Victoria University), David Klausner (Vice- Dean Interdisciplinary Affairs, Faculty of Arts and Science), Cheryl Regehr (Dean, Faculty of Social Work), and Helen Lasthiotakis (Director, Policy and Planning). The working group met over the course of the spring and reviewed documentation relating to governance and administration of interdisciplinary units across the University of Toronto and at institutions in Canada and the United States. The group conferred with current EDU directors and received valuable insights regarding best practices for units. There was a close working relationship with the Fostering Interdisciplinarity Working Group, which focused on mechanisms for fostering interdisciplinary education and research. Although various models and structures and best practices are suggested in the appended Best Practices for Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units, the Working Group stresses that there is a need to recognize interdisciplinary research and education will continue to occur in a variety of formal and informal ways. The Working Group concludes that we cannot and should not regulate all EDUs under specified frameworks. The potential variety of approaches makes it particularly important to communicate and share best practices for those initiatives that are formally constituted. Based on discussions in the Working Group and matters identified in the drafting of the Best Practices, in order to further advance interdisciplinary teaching and research, the Working Group recommends that: 1) A university-wide network and/or professional development opportunities for EDU directors and senior administrative officers be developed. These activities need to recognize their particular professional development needs and provide opportunities for collegial interaction. Coordination and networking can be
developed within a particular division, but are also important at the universitywide level. This initiative may be facilitated by a steering group of the Interdisciplinarity Committee, and administratively supported through the Office of the Vice-President and Provost and Office of Research (as co-chairs of the Interdisciplinarity Committee). These activities should: a. allow for directors and senior administrative staff to meet, and to share information and opportunities for collaboration; b. facilitate discussion on matters such as managing budgets, working collaboratively with other units, development, grant writing, overcoming disciplinary cultural barriers, and related topics. 2) The Vice-Provost Planning and Budget convene a working group to explore matters relating to the fiscal support for EDUs in the context of the new budget model, including: a. development of models for interdivisional teaching with respect to divisional budget methodologies; b. guidelines for assignment of indirect costs associated with interdivisional and interdepartmental research; c. options for funding of university-wide interdisciplinary initiatives. The working group should include members of the Interdisciplinary Committee. 3) A communication strategy for disseminating information regarding the best practices for EDU and, in general, interdisciplinary research and education be developed. 4) The Office of the Vice-President and Provost compile a listing of undergraduate and graduate programs that are offered among divisions, departments and EDUs at the University. This would complement the listing of extra-departmental units at the University. Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 2
Best Practices for Governance and Administration Extra-Departmental Units Principles for governance and administration of extra-departmental units Roles and structures Establishment of EDUs Units affiliated with external institutions Ongoing administration and financial sustainability Appendix 1: Models for EDU organization Appendix 2: References and further reading Principles for governance and administration of extra-departmental units Universities have traditional close links between departments and academic disciplines. Unlike departments, extra-departmental units (EDUs) are organized around emerging research and teaching foci that span disciplines. In this sense, EDUs are opportunistic in their establishment within a disciplinary framework (Klein, 1990). As EDUs are proposed and formed, there may be tension between the goals of advancing and supporting the EDU research and teaching while maintaining strong disciplinary units. Universities have a history of balancing the synthesis and integration with disciplinary fields, while forming inherently interdisciplinary disciplines. The initiative that gives rise to an EDU may or may not require a formalized structure initially. Nevertheless, even at a nascent stage each EDU carries an administrative cost (e.g., the time of a director, staff support, an office with a phone, development of a web site, etc.) that is carried by existing budgetary units. What begins as an informal grouping of faculty and students with similar research and educational interests can reach a point where the collaboration would benefit from a formal structure within an identified EDU. An EDU develops its own governance and administrative structures, as per its needs for its size and mission. Across the University, there are some consistencies in organization as a result of the level of authority of an EDU:A and EDU:B. The most variable units, in terms of organizational structure, are the EDU:C and EDU:D. They form the majority of EDUs. A formal governance and administrative structure should: Align and support the unit s classification as per the Guidelines for Administrative Functions and Protocols of Extra-Departmental Units 1. Maximize the potential for collaboration and integration of colleagues from diverse backgrounds and disciplines. Representation should be inclusive and flexible in terms of membership and relationships and should include academic administrators, faculty members, staff and students, as appropriate. 1 http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/assets/guide100.pdf Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 3
Specify clear governance and administrative links to existing structures at the university. These links allow for integration, rather than isolation, of interdisciplinary research and education and facilitate communication. Provide fora for discussion and communication that are oriented toward advancing the unit from a strategic perspective. Successful units ensure that communications are occurring at all levels of institutional governance and administration on both academic and administrative issues. Support the attraction, creation, development and sharing of resources with established departments and divisions. For example, courses offered through an EDU may be taught by faculty members with departmental homes and there may be inherent tensions regarding the time devoted by that person to the EDU. There should be a forum to communicate and negotiate issues as they arise. Formalize accountability requirements and identify the structures needed to support them. The accountability requirements will reflect the activities of the unit (research and/or academic programming); financial resources and budget planning; human resources; reports and reviews, performance measures; communications; and, strategic plans. Allow effective and efficient administration of the unit. Roles and structures In order to assure effective functioning, the best practices for the governance and administration of an EDU include certain roles and structures. The persons playing those roles are expected to undertake various actions, timed to correspond with institutional expectations for oversight and accountability. Each of these roles and duties is discussed in more detail, below. The key roles and structures need to be aligned to the the size and mission of an EDU and certain flexibility can be considered for each; however the principles of governance and administration are still applicable. The key roles include: Lead academic administrator Director Financial and/or administrative officer Members, Executive committee Members, Advisory and/or governing committees The activities that those persons may undertake include: Annual report, provided by Director Convening of Advisory and/or Governing committees External review Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 4
A lead academic administrator is a champion for the EDU at the divisional level as well as the authority for consultation and sign-off. For multi-departmental or multi-divisional units, a lead dean or vice-dean, chair or principal (appropriate to the type of EDU) should be identified as the administrative and budgetary reporting authority. Within a multi-departmental faculty, an administrative organizational model may specify that EDU:A, EDU:B or EDU:C report either to the dean or to a designated vice-dean. The Faculty of Arts and Science recently created the position of Vice-Dean Interdisciplinary Affairs on this model. An academic administrator at the divisional level can increase the visibility, accountability and coordination of interdisciplinary activities, facilitate a network for communication and sense of community, and assist in bridging departmental boundaries. Although communities of EDU directors and senior administrators can and often do occur naturally within a division so that scholarship and administrative practices are shared, these networks can be facilitated at the divisional level. The director is a key component to the success of an EDU, drawing on a diverse array of attributes in his/her ability to coordinate EDU activities with affiliated units. Diplomatic and negotiating skills are required to formalize joint support, shared personnel, and shared funding with the awareness of the differing priorities of affiliated units. The director may be involved in tenure committees and/or annual performance reviews for faculty associated with the EDU. According to the level and size of the EDU, the director manages the process of appointments to establish suitable teaching staff complement for programs or course offerings through appointments, cross-appointments, adjunct, visiting, and/or status-only appointments. Through involvement with an executive committee, the director ensures that associated disciplinary units are aware of values associated with the unit s interdisciplinary research and teaching. The financial and/or administrative officer of an interdisciplinary unit that spans departments and/or divisions should be visible and accessible to faculty members and students involved in research and/or academic programs with the unit. EDUs by their nature are normally dependent on various financial sources: internal and/or external grants, tuition revenue, indirect cost recovery, etc. EDU:A and EDU:B are normally treated as separate financial units (cost centres) while EDU:C and EDU:D normally have budgets managed by a lead department or faculty. EDU directors and financial and/or administrative officers require a high level of expertise as a result of the nature of their funding and financial reporting. Given this expertise, the sharing of support staff between EDUs in a given division is appropriate and beneficial. Members of an Executive Committee are normally responsible for overseeing matters of day-to-day success of the unit. Executive committees meet regularly during the academic year and meetings are usually chaired by the Director. The committees need not be formal entities in terms of requiring a Secretary and minute-taking, though a record of decisions taken and actions agreed upon should be maintained. As appropriate, members of an executive committee may: Assist in shaping policies, practices and goals Foster and develop interdisciplinary research and education programs Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 5
Oversee the process of appointments to establish suitable teaching staff complement for programs or course offerings through appointments, crossappointments, adjunct, visiting, and status-only appointments. Plan how to enable participants to contribute back to (and obtain rewards) from their home units Provide a forum to discuss process/principles for evaluating faculty that participate in the EDU given that they report to more than one unit, often with different cultures how to take these activities fully into account at time of hiring, tenure, promotion, annual performance reviews Advise on financial and budgetary aspects of the unit, for example, administrative resources and indirect cost recovery in EDUs that rely on external funding Assist with administrative matters (for example, development of suitable space plans and support for students). Membership normally includes the heads or senior administrators (or their designates) of units involved with the EDU, but the committee should not be too large. Faculty members and students can play valuable roles on an executive committee. Representatives of external institutions or units collaborating in the delivery of a program or research may, at the discretion of the director, be members. It is normally the case that donors and other interested parties are inappropriate as members of the executive. A unit that is functioning well may not require the executive committee to meet often but at least an annual meeting is essential. The executive committee is an important forum in which to deal with tensions that can come forward as both the affiliated department(s) and EDU seek credit and recognition for research achievements (Sá, 2006). Especially within units that do not control tenure lines or award degrees, scholarship and vitality depend on the cooperation of the home department(s) of teaching staff whose academic home is a department. Departments expect members to contribute to the academic discipline. Strains on faculty participation are reported at times. An effective executive committee can minimize tensions through regular discussion and the fostering of an awareness of barriers to interdisciplinary scholarship. Advisory Committees and/or Governing Committees: Inter-departmental, inter-divisional EDUs and units that have relationships with external institutions benefit from the establishment of a governing committee to advise and/or oversee the breadth and quality of the EDU endeavors. Such a committee: Creates a forum for regular communications on matters that can affect the success of the unit Provides feedback on the strategic plans and assists in helping to steer research and education programs in evolving, productive directions Reviews the performance of the EDU in light of its strategic plan Enhances communication and opportunities for agreement of the affiliated units Assists in external relations and promotion of the unit. A governing committee has the responsibility for oversight of the accountability of the unit, monitoring the quality of the educational and research activities of the EDU. It should receive annual reports and any external reviews of the unit. The committee ensures that the EDU functions in a manner consistent with the mission and values of the affiliated units. Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 6
Committee membership should mirror the composition of the unit with widely-based representation, and should include the senior academic administrators (deans, vicedeans, chairs and/or principals) involved with the EDU. A governing/advisory committee that has broad representation can help to sustain the longevity of the unit. Some members of the committee may be present by virtue of their positions as academic administrators whose have major roles in the EDU. For other members, the committee may benefit from delineating a fixed term for member participation, including that of the Chair. Given that communication is a critical element in the success of EDUs, an identified best practice is for advisory or governing committee to meet regularly. Governing committees and advisory boards can include members external to the University community. Membership for governing committees is assigned at the time of the formation of the unit through a memorandum of agreement or understanding. External representatives provide valuable support and advice to the EDU administration and can advise the Director on long-range plans and development opportunities. Members serve as informed advocates for the unit outside the University and act as a bridge between scholarship conducted in the unit and application of scholarship outside of the University. The balance of representation on governing/advisory committees should be carefully considered. Examples of organizational models for EDU:A and EDU:B that reflect the best practices for roles and structures outlined above are included in Appendix 1. Organizational models for locally approved EDU:C and EDU:D are varied and need not be as formalized, depending on the nature of the unit and its level of activity; however the principles of governance and administration are still applicable. An annual report prepared by the EDU director and/or the executive committee is a valuable tool to convey the accomplishments and ongoing mission of the unit. The report is presented to the lead academic administrator, advisory and/or governing committee, and internal and external community as appropriate. The report normally reflects the achievements of the unit, the quality and level of activity including participation of governing/advisory/executive committees, structure of the unit and its functioning, level of funding, etc. External review: Reporting and accountability regarding the quality and achievements of the EDU should include a specified process of a regular, periodic external review. Periodic evaluation is critical for all types of EDUs. It is an integral part of scholarly assessment at the University of Toronto as specified by the Policy for Assessment and Review of Academic Programs and Units. The process of periodic review can assist to highlight and promote successful initiatives and to modify unsuccessful ones. A part of the review, specific to an EDU, should be a discussion around whether the mission and/or classification type of the EDU is appropriate for the type and level of activity of the unit. The timing of external reviews should be explicit and may be tied to the term of the Director. As per the University Guidelines for Review of Academic Units and Programs, while reviews are normally conducted every five years, the time interval between reviews must not exceed ten years. The review process is initiated by the lead academic administrator. The review document is received by the academic administrator to which the unit reports and is shared with all the stakeholders for comment. Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 7
Establishment of EDUs The Provostial Guidelines for Assessment of Divisional Submissions 2 set out the procedures for the development and the internal assessment of new academic programs and units. A proposal for an EDU that requires governance approval either at the divisional or university level normally includes a summary of the unit s: Vision, mission and objectives Background/rationale for the proposal Educational components as appropriate, e.g., degree programs and/or programs of study; research opportunities for students; other common intellectual activities (e.g., seminar series) Research focus Associated units Faculty and administrative staff Budget and/or space and infrastructure Governance and administration structures For establishment of interdisciplinary units, similar best practices to those outlined below can be found in the guidelines for the establishment of graduate collaborative programs. They are intended to provide a form of multi-disciplinary experience for students already enrolled in home degree programs: It is sometimes difficult but very much worthwhile to take the time to lay out the structure of the EDU and to set up agreements with the affiliated departments and/or faculties/schools. Agreements that outline explicit governance and administrative structures minimize misunderstandings regarding operation, and they assist in delineating and vesting support for the EDU. Agreements should specify expectations for cross- or jointly-appointed teaching staff members, reporting and accountability requirements, financial support, and any other relevant matters. An EDU governing or advisory committee can form naturally from the committee that is initially brought together to search for the inaugural director of the EDU, in that these committee members are invested in ensuring that the EDU and its director are successful. An EDU that is affiliated with one or more external institutions develops an agreement in the form of a memorandum of agreement or understanding with the University (see section below). Such an EDU is guided by a governing committee explicitly specified in a memorandum. In considering governance and administrative structures, divisions need to consider the balance between intellectual innovation and organizational overload (Harvard Magazine, 2002). Existing structures may provide the governance oversight for more than one EDU. 2 http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/assets/policy/review/guidelineassessment.pdf Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 8
Units affiliated with external institutions University of Toronto units may partner with external institutions, offering programs and/or participating in joint research projects. The above best practices are highly recommended for these units. As noted above, external institutions or units collaborating in the delivery of a program or research may be members of an executive, governing or advisory committee as appropriate. Joint governance of EDUs works well when the institutional goals are clearly identified and it is agreed that they are complementary. In consideration of the role of advisory bodies at the University and their membership, the Provost's Statement on the Role of Advisory Bodies specifies: It is essential to the nature of the University that all its teaching and research activities be governed by the principles of academic freedom and integrity, as set out on the University's Statement of Institutional Purpose, the University's Statement on Freedom of Speech, and the Memorandum of Agreement between the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Faculty Association. External members of advisory boards and committees are chosen for their knowledge, expertise and experience, for their ability to provide valued counsel and guidance, and for their commitment to the purposes of the University. The advice of advisory bodies is always welcomed and understood in the spirit of this shared commitment. Units that jointly deliver academic programs and/or partner in research programs with external institutions, should develop a memorandum of agreement that contains: An introductory statement that delineates the institutions objectives in pursuing the agreement, making the best use of systems, teaching methods, materials and technologies and human, physical and fiscal resources. Term of the agreement. Academic matters relating to the delivery of programs and/or courses to be offered; how and when programs will be reviewed; standards for academic quality in programs, teaching staff; authority for approval of changes to programs. Human Resources: The conduct of employees should be specified to be governed by the appropriate statutes, by-laws, agreements, regulations and policies, present and future, of the institution that is their employer. Criteria for appointment and promotion for jointly held faculty appointments between the University and an external partner should be consistent with university policies on faculty appointments and promotions. Financial arrangements. Space and facilities. Students and student life. Governance of the unit to be specified in terms of structures and membership. Two administrative co-leaders should be named, one from each institution who will deal with all administrative issues at the institutional level. Communication protocol and permission. Review and termination of the affiliation/partnership. Signing authority should be specified. Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 9
Ongoing administration and financial sustainability Faculty members and students are attracted to the innovative and exciting qualities of interdisciplinary research and teaching. Shared teaching, research and administrative resources assist in sustaining this attraction by taking advantage of existing administrative structures and expertise. Possibilities for shared resources should be explored on an ongoing basis and negotiated by the director with the affiliated units. Although it may be relatively straightforward to get initial support for an interdisciplinary endeavour, many challenges arise once the unit is established and enters the next phase of its life cycle. The unit and its members need to establish credibility, usually with limited resources and time. Strong leadership and momentum for its research and teaching focus needs to be sustained as appropriate to the EDU s growth. For example, initially an EDU requires a strong leader capable of coordinating across and with existing units, securing funding, elucidating and delineating the interdisciplinary research and/or teaching program of the unit, establishing credibility, meaningfully involving faculty members, formally establishing the unit, etc. In an EDU s teenage years, however, the unit faces the task of sustaining its scholarly and financial credibility, while at the same time continuing to be flexible in maintaining its own identity while at the same time enhancing the profile of the department(s)/division(s) with which it is aligned. Critical decisions about the unit s direction, priorities and life span need to be discussed. When initially proposed, a unit s budget is often not of central importance as the unit may have been successful in securing institutional or external funding support. However, EDUs often lack secure financial commitments, and financial sustainability can become a serious challenge to the fulfillment of the unit s mission. Experience has demonstrated that collegiality and creativity are essential components for a successful EDU, with motivation toward shared goals being critical. It is important to have a clearly defined plan for the flow of funds and indirect costs/overhead funds between departments/faculties and the EDU, with proportions of allocations based on an agreed model. Such an agreement normally identifies a percentage of funds that will flow from departments and divisions involved with the EDU. The longer-term sustainability of the unit should be addressed as part of the annual budgeting of the unit, prepared by the director with the assistance of an executive committee as appropriate. Literature reviews regarding interdisciplinary units and experience at our University indicate that successful units are adept at communicating and creating and sustaining collegial networks both within the university and externally. It is critical that an EDU establish a forum where discussions, at both the scholarly and administrative levels, can occur. Such communication needs to recognize and accept disparate disciplinary cultures (for example, research frameworks and publication cultures). The leaders of successful EDUs are proactive in regularly conveying their units accomplishments, progress and aims to all relevant constituencies. Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 10
Appendix 1 Models for EDU organization Organizational models for EDU:A and EDU:B that reflect the best practices for roles and structures outlined above are included below. Organizational models for locally approved EDU:C and EDU:D are varied and need not be as formalized, depending on the nature of the unit and its level of activity; however the principles of governance and administration are still applicable. Models specify clear governance and administrative links to existing structures at the university. EDUs can be formally aligned with one or more departments, faculties/schools, colleges, EDU:A/EDU:B, and campuses. Multi-Divisional EDU-A or B Dean or designate Lead Dean from Faculty in which the administrative home of the EDU is established Executive Committee Responsible for budgetary decisions Director Advisory Committee Deans and/or Chairs of relevant Divisions May include stakeholders external to the University. Governing Committee Composed of Deans and/or Chairs of relevant Divisions May include stakeholders external to the University. Director Executive Committee Responsible for budgetary decisions Multi-Departmental EDU-A or B Dean Steering/Advisory Committee Chairs of relevant departments Dean as Chair Director Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 11
Appendix 2 References and further reading University of Toronto documents: Policy on Interdisciplinary Education and Research Planning Conveys the commitment to interdisciplinary education and research for the University and assigns planning responsibility. See http://www.utoronto.ca/govcncl/pap/policies/intedresplan.pdf Guidelines for Administrative Functions and Protocols of Extra-Departmental Units Outline the administrative frameworks and procedures involved in the establishment and work of each type of unit. These are intended to set lines of authority and reporting, and to clarify issues concerning reviews and the work of coordinators or directors. http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/assets/guide100.pdf Graduate Collaborative Program Guidelines Proposals for new collaborative programs require both University of Toronto approval and the approval of the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies. The approvals process is outlined in the Guidelines. See http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/current/governance/procedures/collaborative.program.guid ELINES.nov06.FINAL.pdf Policy for Assessment and Review of Academic Programs and Units Governs the overall framework for the internal assessment of proposed new programs and units and the review of existing programs and units and defines the overarching principles, scope, procedures and accountability within this framework. The Policy specifies administrative Guidelines for the actual assessment and review of programs and units. See http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/policy/review.htm The following is a list of some of the many papers that are concerned with interdisciplinary structures in higher education: Association of American Universities (2005), Report of the Interdisciplinary Task Force. Washington, D.C. Council of Ontario Universities (2005), Interdisciplinarily in a Disciplinary Universe: A Review of Key Issues Harvard Magazine (September-October 2002) Getting Centered, p. 61-63 http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0902148.html Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Sá, C. (December 2006) Interdisciplinary strategies: 5 case studies of research-intensive universities. Association for Integrative Studies Newsletter, 28 (4). Report of the Working Group on Governance and Administration of Extra-Departmental Units 12