|
|
|
March 26, 2001
FINAL REPORT Charge: To solicit, review and/or design possible College contributions to multi-school research/educational initiatives. The six members of Caucus 1 have kept in touch via email since January, logging the receipt of proposals from the various routes implicit in the multi-caucus structure. By early March, 2001, we had compiled a roster of proposals collectible into three basic categories:
Caucus 1 met three times (March 15, 16, and 22) to handle the work on its agenda. This report covers our discussions and evaluations of all of the proposals listed above. At our first meeting the caucus reviewed its charge and the ten criteria against which all proposals are to be critiqued and ultimately graded. Before we picked up a specific proposal for discussion, however, we noted that many of the proposals contain concepts of intellectual merit that might suffer in the SAPCAS competition for limited resources because each calls for a costly administrative structure (directors, staff, office space, equipment). We were alerted from the outset that redundancy might doom otherwise worthwhile projects. Many of these proposals could be saved, we reasoned, if there were a common CAS humanities and social sciences center that could serve as the incubator for these programs. This CAS center would be directed by an advisory board or committee of faculty, supported by a single but versatile administrative staff, and housed in a facility central to CAS turf. The Robert Penn Warren Center would seem to be fulfilling this function now, but its mandate does not cover the transinstitutional scope of several of the proposals Caucus 1 has seen. We therefore discussed in general terms the need for a separate institute to work in cooperation with the Warren Center. With the announcement on March 20, 2001, of the Academic Venture Capital Fund "to provide start-up funding for new or expanded academic programs," we think there might indeed be--at the very least--a source of funding for the proposals we have rated as conceptually innovative but programmatically immature. PROPOSALS: 1A: Subcommittee 1A forwards two proposals: Law and the Humanities, Law and Politics. Our first observation upon seeing the report of 1A was that there were indeed two proposals with scant elbow room between them. Law and the Humanities receives the higher of the two grades from Caucus 1. This proposal scores well on each of the 10 criteria. Law and the Humanities seeks no administrative structure at this time; rather, the proposal seeks to add faculty to cross-disciplinary area(s) between Law and several of the traditional Humanities departments. The Caucus sees this as very promising in the building of new areas of graduate and undergraduate education. Potentially innovative paths to the JD degree become available for both Law students already matriculating, and for undergraduates seeking admission to VU and other law schools. Law students understood as graduate students also benefit, as do graduate students in "traditional" programs where themes and methodologies of legal history and study are becoming more prevalent. The group proposing this initiative has already identified prospective appointments (criterion #10). The rationale for the program makes a persuasive case that several faculty from a spread of departments and schools are already actively working in the allied fields of law and humanities, and that the addition of a few strategically selected senior appointments would be sufficient to charge this area into action and national recognition. The will and commitment for these appointments exists in the Law School and in CAS. Caucus 1 is convinced that distinctive change to the Vanderbilt law degree, and to graduate and undergraduate education more generally, would ensue if emphasis were placed on making these appointments. The proposers of Law and the Humanities expect curricular change to be made when the new appointments are successful. We saw this as a reasonable configuration of cart and horse. Grade: A. Law and Politics, on the other hand, seems flawed by concentrating solely on the link between Law and the PSCI department, thereby not reaching far enough to satisfy the criteria urging "boldness" (#6) and expansion of interdisciplinary range (#3). PSCI has traditionally been the undergraduate feeder program into law schools, and this proposal seems not to venture far from this traditional base. Most or all of the objectives of the Law and Politics mission statement (see p. 2 of the proposal) can be fulfilled or are currently being fulfilled on the departmental level. Caucus 1 suggests that the proposers of Law and Politics connect their proposal to the Law and the Humanities proposal. Grade: C. 1B: Center for the Americas. Caucus 1 was very favorably impressed with this proposal, and sends it forward with great enthusiasm. We note that it has been in the works since spring 2000, and has matured significantly. Several revisions through a series of weekly meetings of subcommittee 1B, admirably chaired by Prof. Marshall Eakin, have honed the document to address the SAPG criteria when and as feasible. Caucus 1 discussed various aspects of the proposal, seeking clarification. These queries included funding of requested endowed chairs, graduate fellowships, and the future of the Comparative Literature Program if this Center were to be successful. We could not find a serious point which subcommittee 1B had not addressed. We do suggest, however, the inclusion of a high-profile, national advisory council, with yearly meetings that might be scheduled around a conference or other public event. Grade: A. 1C: Center for Creative Arts. At $50 million, this proposal, not surprisingly, took up most of one meeting of the Caucus. By any standards, this report is the most complex. Professor Carol Burke, the Chair, has indeed accomplished a truly impressive feat. This report summarizes years--if not decades--of inconclusive discussion on the role of the arts at Vanderbilt, and heroically attempts to connect the past with a vision of the future. "Boldness," then, was not a problem. Caucus 1 could not, however, agree wholly with the rationale that strives to bind the three major components of this proposal (MFA in writing, Institute for the Study of Popular Music, Studio Art/Media Studies) into one coherent Center. After long discussion, the Caucus recommends the removal of the MFA program and the Institute for the Study of Popular Music from the Center for the Creative Arts. Our reasons will be put forward below. We strongly endorse the proposal for a Center for the Creative Arts comprising the Studio Art, Theater, and Media Studies components. As Studio Arts already has funding for an artist in computer generated art, and as the Theater component will make use of new media for several design functions, the inclusion of the Media Studies component seems both logical and necessary. Indeed, failure to move on this initiative now will only put Vanderbilt further behind in the Arts. As our deliberations have progressed, the Whitney Museum of American Art has been showing works in digital art. Reviewing the current show, critic Michael Kimmelman warns: "And there is no denying the inevitability and multiple implications of thebig message here, which we discount at the risk of sheer stupidity: Technology is changing how artists, especially young ones, make all types of art and, in turn, how we experience it" (NY Times,23 March 2001, B29 - Registration Required -). For all the reasons so clearly stated in 1C's proposal, a major commitment to the Arts at Vanderbilt is long overdue and would significantly transform the nature of Vanderbilt education on both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Several of the criteria aimed at diversity of the student body (#10), boldness (#6), potential for external funding (#8), and creation of a stimulating learning environment (#9) are well-served in this proposal. Film Studies, for example, a field now shared by several departments and programs, will be significantly enhanced by the construction of this facility. A seriously equipped film studies program will provide greater excitement and leaning opportunity at the graduate and undergraduate levels. More "humanistic" questions such as the meaning of ethics, personhood, and community in the new media culture cannot be adequately addressed without the serious study of the means by which those themes are produced. Thus, the Media Center component promises to link several schools (Law and Owen, for example) where issues of copyright and cyberlaw have been mentioned. Caucus 1 notes that Caucus 4 has also taken up the issue of computer assets in, separately, the Library and in the Learning Resource Center. Suggested use of computer facilities in the Library are exclusively course-based (see Caucus 4 Report, sections A and C). The Media Center proposed by 1C does not overlap with that purpose and function. Facilities proposed for LRC (Caucus 4 Report, section F) do seem to duplicate those sought by the Center for the Creative Arts. We suggest that the Steering Council set up a procedure by which these overlapping requests might be reconciled for the good of the university and the planning process. As for studio space and space for first-class rehearsal and performance, this proposal is long overdue. No major university hoping to raise its national profile can do so without serious investment in the arts. With the opening of a major new arts institution in Nashville (The Frist Center for the Visual Arts), it makes sense for Vanderbilt to make this strategic and careful move. Expansion at Blair is bringing music performance space there to state-of-the-art condition. Theater should not be left behind. Grade: A. The Caucus spent a lot of time clarifying its reasons for detaching the MFA and Popular Music components from the larger 1C proposal. We realize that many of our colleagues have invested valuable time and hope in these aspects of the plan. With regard to the MFA: the program as proposed is excessively costly _ as proposed, it would be as large as the curent Ph.D. program in English.. There is no demonstrable professional need for the numbers of MFA's this new program would produce. The "multi- school" and multi-department aspects of this proposal fall far short of meeting the criterion of expanding the interdisciplinary range of individual departments. And by removing the writing faculty from the English department, this plan would in fact significantly weaken rather than strengthen "the disciplinary integrity" of the department. (Criterion #3) The Caucus concluded that were an MFA in creative writing to be established, the English Department would be its proper home. We therefore recommend that this part of the Center for the Creative Arts proposal be detached. The proposal for an Institute for the Study of Popular Music is intriguing and Nashville and Vanderbilt form a nexus for its creation. But the Caucus thought that this program is more appropriate (by virtue of the predominance of research over performance) in one of the culture studies proposals generated by the SAPCAS process. In fact, we rate it as a superior candidate for independent "incubation" funding from the Academic Venture Capital Fund. Since its success depends on cooperative work by faculty from several departments, the Caucus thought that more discussion among the named faculty and perhaps a year-long seminar in the Warren Center, or at a separate venue, would make this a stronger proposal and would test the claims on financial resources and administration. Other issues the Caucus found unresolved include: possible duplication of a similar program at Middle Tennessee State University; the contribution in faculty and in budget from Blair; active interests among other VU faculty (e.g. the range of disciplines and people listed in the "Center for Teaching" section of the proposal seems to fall short of the criterion of involving "a broad spectrum of the faculty" (#2). On the other hand, potential for cooperation with other music institutions in Nashville (by way of research opportunities and internships) is great. PROPOSALS FORWARDED FROM CAUCUS 6: Program in Gender and Sexuality. The program outlined in this proposal is indeed important, and the roster of interested faculty is wide and deep (although the Caucus did question the large number of affiliated faculty in the Nursing School and their actual involvement). Caucus 1 thought that interface with the Women's Center ought to be explored more fully, and that this proposal was another prime candidate for the AVCF "incubator." It was not clear to the Caucus that all or even a critical number of the faculty named as interested in the program had discussed the intellectual and administrative contours of the plan face to face, or in a formal structure like a year-long Warren Center seminar. The Caucus urges the proposers to consider this stage as a necessary and vital refinement of the proposal. Grade: B. E-communication and commerce. This proposal struck the Caucus as exclusively an Owen School of Management enterprise, and as such not a candidate for CAS funding. No grade. Interdisciplinary Program in International Relations. This proposal does not fare well according to the criterion requiring involvement of a wide array of current faculty, nor in the one asking for identification of several faculty already on site and working in the area. Its heart is a new undergraduate major, which can be routed through existing administrative channels. The organizers of this proposal might do well to contact the group putting together a Center for European Studies. And together these proposals could be reconciled with the agenda of the Provost's International Affairs Committee. Both proposals have common interests and curricular design. No grade. Masters in Public Policy. This proposal calls for the resuscitation of a former Masters degree in this area, and as such may be directed to the Graduate School. Possible overlap with the Graduate Program in Social and Political Thought (currently offering the MA) should be explored as well. No grade. Language Acquisition and Diversity Education. There is certainly a serious need for more and more effectively trained ESL teachers in the nation and in our region, and the Caucus agreed that Vanderbilt ought to be doing more. We further agreed that GPC, as the college at Vanderbilt charged with the education of elementary and secondary teachers, was the appropriate driving force for this proposal since GPC the reputation and the infrastructure for successfully housing and implementing it. Grade: C Vanderbilt Institute for Medicine, Health and Society. This is an ambitious proposal with immense potential. The Caucus thinks it is at this moment only in a preliminary form. The text of the proposal itself seems to have been edited in advance of a series of face to face meetings of the principles. We urge the group to select a manageable number of representatives of the various constituencies and to begin a series of nuts- and-bolts meetings during which the draft of the proposal as it now stands can be edited into a more coherent document. Some of the issues the Caucus identified were: clarification of the budget consequences for all schools involved, location of the important bricks-and-mortar space (i.e., depending on where the center is actually located, the relative impacts of CAS and Medical School will be largely determined), consideration of the professional viability of the proposed MA in a market where the Masters in Public Health is an established credential, curricular implications for pre-med students, and continuing ed. certification for MD's. Grade: B. Proposals Originally Submitted to Caucus 1: Proposal for a Center for the Study of Religion and Culture Caucus 1 noted that this proposal had been submitted to more than one Caucus in the early stages of the SAPCAS review. Caucus 1 received it "over the transom" and as a referral from Caucus 2. In discussion it was noted that all of the requested appointments (4) concern scholars in comparative religion even though the proposal parenthetically states that the new faculty lines may be "located in multiple departments and, preferably, schools." This request struck the caucus as self-contradictory, and thus we graded the proposal on criteria 2 and 3, which call respectively for a "broad spectrum of faculty" and for an expansion of the interdisciplinary range of departments. That the proposals call for fifteen new graduate fellowships without clear explanation of what these new students would do also suggested to the Caucus that this proposal needs more work. In general, Caucus 1 found this proposal to be a plan for the enhancement of an existing program, the doctoral program in History and Critical Theories of Religion, and therefore not under the purview of Caucus One. We recommend that Caucus Two reacquire it. No grade. Proposal for a Center for Nashville Studies Caucus 1 found a lot to like in the potential of this proposal. It ranks high in outreach and community benefit potential. Insofar as it could be the nucleus of a Nashville Archive, this potential center would connect profitably with the Metro Nashville Archives and the collections maintained in the Nashville Public Library. The potential for community service learning is likewise high. There are already channels for internships between Vanderbilt programs and Nashville institutions and organizations; this proposal would multiply them. It seemed to the caucus, however, that the center as proposed lacks a complete estimate of the number of present faculty who could be involved and of the extent and depth of their involvement. I.e., would this commitment last for several years or only as long as a research project or individual course? The proposal also needs a clearer estimate of its impact on graduate and undergraduate education. The caucus concluded, for example, that there was probably more undergraduate than graduate potential _ and this conclusion tended to make us see it as not measuring up to criterion #1. In the course of our discussion we raised again the proposal for a Vanderbilt Institute for Research in Popular Music, part of Caucus IC's report. We discussed the possibility that such proposals as VIRPM and the Center for Nashville Studies were natural neighbors in an experimental venture in locally-grounded culture studies, and as such constituted a prime candidate for funding from the recently announced Academic Venture Capital Fund. No grade. Proposal for a Center for Critical Studies Caucus 1 began by asking just how "innovative" this proposal is. To several of the members of the caucus it came through as the kind of proposal that would have sparked the founding of the Robert Penn Warren Center 10-15 years ago. It positions itself as a kind of anti- culture-studies center dedicated to the structures of several areas of humanistic inquiry rather than to the content of them. The intellectual topics or areas listed as the territory of the proposed Center can be located presently in a couple of graduate departments: Philosophy most prominently, but also English and History. As such, the proposal also sacrifices some claim to innovation in graduate education. Furthermore, it seems to anticipate or indeed duplicate other initiatives more fully developed at this time: e.g. the claim of Critical Legal Studies as a benefit is already addressed by the proposal of Caucus 1A. Sustainable faculty interest and commitment was also a concern of the Caucus. With several intellectual areas named and relatively few faculty, it was a concern of the Caucus that there would not be sufficient people to go around, to keep the vital signs of each area clicking. In the end, we find this proposal to be a kind of incubator itself, anticipating the idea of an Institute for Advanced Studies, put forward as a way to manage funding from the Academic Venter Capital Fund. Each of the topics mentioned in the proposal could, for example, be envisioned as working groups with varying odds on longevity. This proposal duplicates in too many ways the mission of the Warren Center as currently interpreted, and anticipates the concept of the Institute for Advanced Studies. Caucus 1 encourages the Steering Council to fold this proposal into the deliberations on the IAS. No grade. Proposal for a Center for European Studies This proposal calls for the rejuvenation of the current Center for European Studies, founded 20 years ago. In so doing, it gives up the claim to innovation. The proposal for an MA in European Studies seems to call for more justification, particularly in light of International Studies emphases at Vanderbilt. The Register for January 29-February 4, 2001 announced a committee to explore and implement plans to beef up Vanderbilt's "emerging presence in the global arena." The organizers of this proposal for the Center for European Studies should be encouraged to explore ways in which their plans can feed into the plans generated by the Provost's International Affairs Committee. Grade: C+ Proposal for an Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Culture Studies. Caucus 1 found this proposal a serious plan for overhauling graduate studies at Vanderbilt. If implemented as suggested, it would fundamentally remodel the Ph.D. in most departments. It was that concern about department-by-department discussion and agreement that persuaded Caucus 1 not to recommend this proposal at this time. Indeed, there is already a Provost's committee charged with exploring the future of the Graduate School, and this proposal might be anticipating, or running against the grain of, some or all of this committee's finding and recommendations. Many issues need to be addressed: the viability on the professional job market of the interdisciplinary degree now and in the future; the feasibility of achieving the ends of this proposal through existing departments and programs; and the potential for coordination among culture studies on both graduate and undergraduate levels. Caucus 1 concluded that discussions on this issue should continue. We agreed that interdisciplinary studies at the graduate level is the direction the various fields are taking, and that Vanderbilt needs to tune-up its Ph.D. with more attention and less resistance to interdisciplinary programs at the graduate level. This proposal seems to be an excellent place to start. We recommend that a working group be identified and included for priority funding under the AVCF. From Caucus 4: Center for Research on Economic Development and Information Technology. This proposal essentially adds Information Technology to an existing graduate degree program, and seems at present to involve only one faculty member. Caucus 1 concludes that this proposal is not appropriate for SAPCAS or SAG consideration.
Michael Kreyling
|
||||||