Oakland University Senate

Seventh Meeting
Thursday, 10 April 1997

Minutes

Members present: Alber, K. Andrews, S. Andrews, Awbrey, Benson, Blume, Brieger, Buffard- O'Shea, Cole, Connellan, Dillon, Downing, Frankie, Gardner, Gilroy, Goslin, Hahn, Haskell, Hildebrand, Hovanesian, Kazarian, Keane, Liboff, Lilliston, Long, Mahamwal, Miller, Moore, Moran, Olson, Otto, Pettengill, Polis, Purcell, Reynolds, Rice, Rozek, Russi, Sahu, Schellenbach, Schochetman, R. Schwartz, Sen, Speer, Talbert, Wood

Members absent: Briggs-Bunting, Burke, Fliedner, Gordon, Herold, Jarski, Kheir, Kleckner, Landsberg, Meehan, Meuser, Reddy, Riley, H. Schwartz, Sevilla, Tower, Wharton

Summary of actions:

1. Approval of minutes (Andrews, Speer) Approved.
2. Motion to recommend the approval of a Masters program in Training and Development. (Goslin, Keane) Approved.
3. Motion to table until the next Senate meeting a motion to recommend that the Lucy Craft Laney Institute of Learning not be chartered. (Dillon, Andrews) Approved.
4. Motion to appoint persons to Senate standing committees (Reynolds, Speer) Approved.
5. Motion to recommend that the university modify its recognition of Martin Luther King Jr. Day by suspending classes . (Dillon, Liboft) Approved following the approval of a motion to waive second reading (Andrews, Downing)
6. Motion to establish the Senate Athletics Committee (Andrews, Reynolds) Approved following the approval of a motion to waive second reading (Andrews, Buffard-O'Shea)
7. Motion that the Senate remain in session during the spring term to consider several pending items.(Andrews, Alber) Approved.

Mr. Connellan called the meeting to order and entertained a motion to approve the March Senate minutes.  Mr. Andrew so moved, Ms. Speer seconded and the minutes were approved as distributed.   Information items reported by Mr. Connellan included the strong enrollment figures for the coming semesters and the appointment of Dagmar Cronn as the new Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.

The first item of business was reintroduced by Mr. Goslin who corrected the motion to read:

MOVED that the Senate recommend to the President and Board of Trustees the approval of a Masters degree in Training and Development (not a Master of Arts degree as printed in the agenda).

He reminded the Senate that the proposal was approved by the Graduate Council and announced that the additional information requested by the SBRC and SPRC has been supplied to those bodies.  Mr. Long reported that Senators were also sent the memos addressing questions that were raised about the proposal.  Mr. Quinn, the coordinator of the program, explained that the goal of the program is to develop leaders in training and development, that the normal education level for such professionals is a masters degree and that there are already around 150 masters programs already in existence in the United States. For example, both Columbia and MIT have such programs and colleagues there have provided strong endorsements for Oakland's plans.   In addition to these schools, peer institutions were also asked to review the proposal and professionals at these institutions also responded positively.  Ms. Otto noted that the Masters in Training and Development fits well into the goals of the School and the University, that it is a program designed to help people meet their career goals and aspirations.  She added that the program is important to the community we serve, to the employers and the students, especially the students who are eager for the program and the opportunity it will provide for them to advance in their careers. And she emphasized that the faculty is professionally relevant and involved in the profession. 

Mr. Liboff asked Mr. Quinn to provide some basis of comparison with regard to research and scholarly work in the existing training and development program at Oakland and also to comment on where he thinks the program should go.  Mr. Quinn replied that nationally recognized programs come out of both large research and medium sized institutions. For those in the field, research is very applied, action oriented research, adding that what he likes about Oakland is the action oriented research focus.   He stated that there is a great role for research in the area of training and development.  He spoke strongly in favor of the teacher scholar model and stated that students should do action research projects as part of their program.

Mr. Andrews expressed concern about whether there is enough expertise in the School to provide instruction in research design, statistics and project thesis.  Mr. Quinn noted supervising student research is a time consuming activity and thus there is a need for a variety of research activities, some which would be classic research and others, workplace research.  He stated there is sufficient expertise in the School to provide the needed supervision.  In response to Mr. Andrews query about whether or not the vita were sent to the reviewers, Mr. Quinn replied absolutely.

Mr. Schochetman pointed out that implicit in the proposal is the claim that the department already has the expertise in training and development, yet Mr. Quinn has just been hired and the proposal also indicates the possibility of hiring one to two additional faculty.  He expressed puzzlement by the claim that the department already has the expertise when plans are in place to get additional faculty.  Mr. Quinn replied that there are faculty in the School who have many of the skills required by the proposed program citing existing courses in cultural diversity, team building, leadership. He added that new faculty have been hired to replace faculty who have retired or taken on other responsibilities. Ms. Otto confirmed that faculty have been hired as replacements and also due to growth of their programs.

Expressing his discomfort about speaking out against the proposal, Mr. Moran however noted concerns about the quality of the program and the faculty.  He listed a number of items: the survey of graduates indicated interest but no indication of the numbers that would enroll; although the program is planned for Groves High School, only 15% of the prospective students wanted it there; he felt the letters expressing employer interest were weak.  He opined that there is a quality issue that needs to be addressed, that the basis of graduate education is research and that many of the faculty involved in this program do not have strong research records.  He added that faculty have to be actively involved in the creation of knowledge in order to pass it on to graduate students and that the proposal being debated is more of a credentialing mechanism. And lastly, he expressed his concern about the negative impact it might have on the  undergraduate program.

Ms. Speer, speaking as a Dean in a practice discipline, responded that this program, like masters programs in Social Work, Physical Therapy, and Nursing, are preparing practitioners for the discipline.  She pointed out that, in these fields, it is a different model, that the doctorate is defined as the research degree and that the focus at the masters level is to develop excellent practitioners.  Mr. R.Schwartz stated the goal of a masters program is to develop professional expertise through inquiry and added that this is not the place to debate role and merits of masters level education.   We have a program that has been reviewed by numerous bodies, he averred, noting that the quality of the program is not at issue.  He added that the Reading and Language arts program, now the largest Ph.D. program in the university, underwent the same type of debate when it was proposed.

Mr. Liboff thought a good analysis of the distinction between Colleges of Education and Colleges of Arts and Sciences is that in education masters degrees are add-ons, that is, you take another year or two and add material to a base.  He doesn't see the masters in nursing and physical therapy as simply add-ons. It is a difference in philosophy he opined, and argued that the masters should not be an add-on but a program based on a scholarly basis at the masters level. Mr. Schwartz disagreed with the add-on designation.   He argued that providing information and knowledge to students when they haven't been practicing is one thing but practicing professionals look at information in a very different way.  He felt that the research and scholarly modes at the advanced level make it qualitatively different than what goes on at the pre-service level.

Mr. Andrews brought up a concern with the staffing of the program; the vitas of faculty in other proposals under consideration support the claim that the faculty have the skills needed; here however, he noted, we are dealing with a department with no full time professional faculty and some faculty who lack professional activity and research skills.   Ms. Rohde felt that the School is being underestimated, commenting that the faculty work together and that there are plenty of people to draw on who have strong research backgrounds.  Mr. Andrews countered that he was referring only to the proposal at hand and addressing the vitas included; he asked whether there was a possibility that others in the School will be involved.  Ms. Otto replied that the School operates as a unit and that it has the resources needed to support the program. In reply to Mr. Schochetman's query regarding new hires, Mr. Connellan stated that two searches have been authorized, one to replace Ms. Awbry and one new position based on growth. Mr. Moran pointed out that there is no guarantee that the people being hired will stay or get tenure.

Mr. Liboff wondered whether his perception that in order to get the best graduate educators we have to go abroad is correct. He expressed concern about the insular quality of many departments offering graduate programs and asked Mr. Quinn about the national picture relating to faculty in the area of training and development.  Mr. Quinn replied that he'd like to see faculty with a doctoral background and practical professional experience. He added that the program includes one course in globalization which explores how training and development issues vary from country to country. In response to Mr. Liboff s query about hiring individuals to provide geographic and university diversity, Mr. Quinn stated that he thinks we should hire the best people, no matter where they come from.

Senators are elected to represent the best interests of the University, stated Mr. Moran. He expressed concern over the fact that the Senate Budget Review Committee was told not to ask questions about the quality of the program.  If we don't address questions of quality at the committee and senate level, where do we address them, he asked.   Mr. Schochetman took issue with Mr. Schwartz's claim that the Senate shouldn't concern itself with quality, noting concerns over the use of graduate students as mentors and the use of part-time faculty.  Mr. Quinn noted that the graduate program will be staffed with full-time faculty.  Mr. Schwartz then called the question, which was seconded and approved.  Following a call for a paper ballot, Mr. Schochetman of the Elections Committee distributed the ballots, counted them and reported the results as 28 votes in favor of the proposal, 13 against.

The second agenda item, a motion not to recommend the chartering of the Lucy Craft Laney Institute of Learning, was handled with dispatch. Mr. Dillon moved to table the motion until the next Senate meeting, Mr. Andrews provided the second and the motion to table was approved.

The first item of new business was the usual April motion to staff Senate Committees. Ms. Reynolds moved that the persons listed in the agenda be appointed to Senate standing committees and the persons so designated be appointed as chairs. One change was noted, Ching Ko will serve as chair of Academic and Career Advising instead of Devadatta Kulkarni. The motion was approved following Ms. Speer's second.

The motion to recommend to the President that the university modify its recognition of the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday by suspending classes that day was moved by Mr. Dillon, seconded by Mr. Liboff.  Hearing no discussion Mr. Andrews moved to waive the second reading, Mr. Downing seconded and the motion to waive was approved as was then the main motion.

Continuing through the agenda items, Mr. Andrews moved that the Senate establish the Senate Athletics Committee as a Senate standing committee with the charge and membership as specified in the agenda, Ms. Reynolds seconded the motion.  Mr. Connellan questioned item 4 of the charge which states the committee will take on additional duties as directed by the Steering committee, and wondered if that wasn't a little broad, since it doesn't specify that the activities have to do with athletics.  Mr. Andrews replied that the language is also in the charges to the Senate Planning and Senate Budget Review Committees and felt it is clear that the duties would related specifically to athletics.  Ms. Moore asked if this is a typical composition for such a committee and Mr. Russi replied that it was.  Mr. Andrews then moved to waive the second reading, Ms. Buffard O'Shea seconded.  The motion to waive the second reading was approved as was the main motion.

The last agenda item, a motion that the Senate remain in session during the spring term to consider the pending items listed in the agenda was moved by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Ms. Alber.  Mr. Liboff proposed a friendly amendment that would limit the number of additional sessions to one.  Mr. Andrews remarked that since none of the pending items have received a first reading, either the senate would have to waive the second reading or not take action on any of the proposals. Mr. Liboff explained that in the past spring meeting have been poorly attended. The idea behind the three dates, explained Mr. Connellan was to get the maximum flexibility. Mr. Andrews added that the Steering Committee is aware of the attendance problems and was assured that the extra meetings are not intended to rush anything through but rather to consider those items that have received due consideration and which are ready for Senate action. He also noted that quorum requirements would ensure that an adequate number of senators would be present and that these dates are tentative and none of the meetings may actually take place. This motion is simply a constitutional requirement--if we want to have Senate meetings in spring term the senate must approve it and the agenda will be limited to the specified items. The motion was then approved.