In response to what University of Wisconsin Chancellor Biddy Martin called the “single greatest complaint” she has received thus far as chancellor, a proposal has been constructed that would significantly change the structure of the graduate school, including the addition of a separate vice chancellor for research.
Specifically, Martin said she has heard many concerns the UW research enterprise has “serious, serious problems,” in her address of the faculty at the faculty senate meeting last Monday.
Martin said the graduate program, frequently ranked among the top five research institutions in the country and comprising a vast majority of UW’s total expenditures, needs significant changes.
“Not to make these serious changes would be a potentially serious detriment to our research enterprise,” Martin said.
The majority of graduate school problems and concerns stem from the fact that under the current structure, the dean of the graduate school, Martin Cadwallader, is responsible for both the graduate education enterprise and the university’s research enterprise at the same time, UW-Madison Provost Paul DeLuca Jr. said.
While these two areas of responsibility are interconnected in many ways, according to DeLuca, the specific roles of each are simply too extensive to be adequately addressed by one individual.
Under the proposal, these roles would be split between two individuals, with the creation of a brand new vice chancellor for research position.
DeLuca said there is concern among the faculty that segregating these roles would dissolve the very important relationship between them, and negatively impact both the graduate program and the research enterprise alike.
“That’s always a potential risk, but then this institution would never tolerate anything like that. It would insist that there is a strong relationship between those two (roles),” DeLuca said.
DeLuca said the restructuring he and Martin have proposed are designed to address a spectrum of issues largely related to how difficult it is for individual faculty to actually pursue research on this campus.
One serious concern is UW does not have the presence in Washington D.C. other universities increasingly have. UW is not systematically developing relationships with federal agencies, and as a result was not part of the agenda setting in Washington regarding national research, Martin said.
There have also been several “extraordinarily serious” safety and compliance issues over the course of the past three years, according to Martin.
“There were some real near misses,” she said.
She added she is very concerned about the lack of integration and operational effectiveness in UW’s safety and compliance in research and sponsor programs in the way research is administered as a whole.
The size and scope of research being done at UW has increased dramatically in the last few years, with dramatic changes to not only the type of research being done, but the way in which it is carried out, according to DeLuca.
“[This] has added a distinct layer of complexity to what we do,” DeLuca said.
There will be a town hall meeting this Wednesday at noon in the microbial science building for faculty, students and staff to voice their thoughts and concerns about the proposed restructuring. All involved in the UW community are invited to attend.





IP hash: b3c84ea1
This article presents only the Provost’s view of the need for the restructuring. It is not pointed out that the prevailing faculty and staff view is, to put it mildly, skeptical, as indicated by the majority of the comments at the town hall meetings to date. In particular, there are deep concerns about the manner in which this proposal is being pushed through with very limited direct participation in the decision-making process by faculty and staff, in stark contrast to this campus’ long tradition of shared governance. See siftingandwinnowing.org for a sampling of other viewpoints on this important issue.
IP hash: b3c84ea1
The article also doesn’t mention that a resolution will likely be presented for a vote by the Faculty Senate at the next meeting on November 2. Here is the text of the resolution:
“Whereas the Provost�s proposed reorganization of the Graduate School has proceeded without a detailed written plan and without time for due consideration of the implications of such a plan for research and graduate education, the Faculty Senate proposes that any such action to implement such a plan, e.g., through the creation of a new Vice Chancellor for Research or changes in the functions of the Graduate School, be postponed until such time as there is a fully developed written plan that has been reviewed and approved by the University Committee and the Faculty Senate with appropriate opportunity for comment from all members of the faculty.”
IP hash: 12972d96
I hope the article will give more detailed information.
IP hash: ee76e8cf
And where would the funds come to pay for a “separate vice chancellor for research?” That’s right, tuition increase AGAIN!
IP hash: 6bd0c401
Excellent reporting by the Badger Herald! Thanks to you, there is much broader awareness and input from all of campus regarding this important issue.
Were you aware that the two Ad-hoc groups studying the issue (University Committee, and the Academic Staff Executive Committee, or ASEC) appear to be receiving different treatment by the Provost? ASEC committee members were told this week by Provost DeLuca that they will NOT have the same December 31 deadline as UC to report on their findings. Contrary to what has been said publicly, he has shortened their deadline to December 1st. Why? It would be helpful for the campus public to have an answer to this question, because in the absence of a logical explanation it appears to Academic Staff on campus, that there is a double standard in the treatment of the Faculty and the Academic Staff. Furthermore, This decision (if true)undermines the public message sent out today by the Provost to all campus where he stresses the importance and value of feedback from the ad-hoc committees and other other campus stakeholders. It raises doubts that the public message and the stated intent to “seriously engage the university community in this conversation” is sincere.
If the Badger Herald reporting team could obtain confirmation or denial of this deadline change from the Provost and/or ASEC, it would be most helpful to this campus community member, and likely would be to others as well. Thank you.