Many departments are facing the prospect of a merger with
another department. Therefore, APS approached ACDP to conduct a short
survey to gain a perspective on how many departments have gone through a
merger, what the issues were that they had to deal with during and after
the merger, and whether it was seen as a beneficial or detrimental move.
A survey consisting of five questions was emailed to all ACDP members. A
total of 84 out of 186 chairs responded, yielding a very high response
rate of 45%.
Merged Departments
Of those Chairs responding, 51 (61%) said their department had not
undergone a merger. However, 11 of those 51 Chairs (22%) noted that
their institutions had either floated the idea, were considering it
informally or formally, or had actually talked about it at a recent
point in time. A total of 30 chairs (36%) reported they had undergone a
merger and another 3 chairs (3%) said they had undergone a type of
merger or partial merger. For the remaining questions, those 33 chairs’
responses were combined.
The greatest number of mergers began occurring in the 1990s (11
departments) and continued in the 2000s (19 departments to date; 56%)
(Table 1).
| Table 1. Year of Merger |
| Years |
No. of Depts |
% |
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000-2004
2005-2007
2008-2009 |
1
3
11
13
3
3 |
3
9
32
38
9
9 |
| N=34 (1 department underwent 2
mergers). |
Types of Departmental Mergers
The majority of the mergers were with two other departments:
pharmacology (18 departments) and anatomy (11 departments). Also,
several mergers involved departments in biochemistry, cell biology,
neuroscience, and basic sciences/pre-clinical sciences (Table 2).
| Table 2. Other Departments
Involved in Merger |
| Department Merged With |
No. of Depts |
% |
Anatomy
Biochemistry
Cell Biology
Neuroscience
Basic Sciences/Pre-clinical Sciences
Animal Health & Biomedical Sciences
Biophysics
Communication Disorders
Microbiology, Immunology & Biochem.
Molecular Biology
Structural & Chemical Biology |
11
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1 |
25
7
5
5
5
1
2
2
2
2
2 |
| N=44 (if more than one other
department was involved in a merger, each was counted
individually). |
Merger Results: Beneficial or Detrimental?
When departments were asked whether they viewed the merger as
beneficial or detrimental to their department, the majority responded
that it had been beneficial (19 departments; 58%). In addition, 6
departments noted that their merger had aspects that were both
beneficial and detrimental (Table 3).
When asked for more information as to why the merger worked or didn’t
work for their department, chairs focused on four major areas:
departmental culture, research, teaching, and administration.
Departmental culture issues
Difference in departmental culture between the merging departments was
mentioned the most as being the hardest issue to overcome. A few chairs
noted the downside of merging, as typified by this comment.
“It was a disaster. When the deanship again turned over in 2005, the
departments were separated again. The problem was that the missions of
the two departments were quite different and the faculty had quite
different goals. As a result, discussions on allocation of resources,
teaching loads, etc became quite divisive.”
The majority of chairs reported that it was possible to deal with the
differences and several chairs offered advice on how they overcame them.
Many pointed out that strong leadership from the Chair and involvement
of faculty from both departments aided in easing the difficulties of the
merger.
“This was a difficult merger, due to the differences in culture and
philosophy (but not in the dedication to quality research and teaching)
between the groups. Forming divisions allowed each group to focus on
continuing special interests, while the new “culture” of the merged
department was forming. I initiated several department-wide events and
programs that allowed for interactions between faculty and students of
the former departments.”
“Before the merger, each department had their own agendas and areas of
emphases with regard to expansion of research programs, commitment to
and input on medical school curricular issues, graduate programs, and
service – this eventually turned into a strength.”
“Even though at first there was much angst over the merger in both
departments, over time, the merger has been beneficial.… With proper
leadership and compromise from faculty in both departments, as well as
institutional support for the new department, the merger can work out
exceptionally well.”
“Prior to the merger, I met with all of the physiology faculty members
and allowed them to express their concerns and talked to them about what
I would do to help them and what I would expect from them. It helped
that I knew all of the faculty members very well and had collaborated
with some of them in research. As the Chair of the combined Department,
I was very open about departmental decisions, provided the combined
faculty with travel to research meetings that wasn’t available before,
provided more assistance for pilot projects and worked hard to create a
feeling of one department rather than two departments with one name.”
“There were definite difficulties trying to integrate the two groups.
One faculty (Physiology) was research oriented, and the other (Anatomy)
was poorly funded and primarily oriented toward teaching. Usually,
mergers occur between a strong department and a weak department, so
there is work to do in developing a constructive environment and
utilizing everyone to best advantage.
One has to have the mindset that faculty from different departments
might have quite different activities and vocational skills. For example
in the case of my department, if we are lucky enough to recruit anyone
that can teach gross anatomy, the chances that he/she will also be
productive investigators are very low. They provide an important service
to the department and school, however, so they have to be treated
respectfully, rewarded for excellence in teaching and student and
service activities, and accepted by the department for their mission.
Other faculty members (like those already in Physiology and most of
those newly recruited) taught low numbers of hours and were all NIH-funded.
People of disparate activities and interests have to be carefully
integrated and helped to establish a climate of mutual respect. This is
an area where ‘academic leadership’ is possible and the example of
respect set by the chair can make a difference.”
“Recognize that evaluation standards (ones used for promotion and annual
evaluation) must recognize differences between academic fields, e.g.,
education and research, molecular biology and behavioral neuroscience.”
Research issues
A few Chairs noted the merger was a detriment to their Department’s
research program, as typified by the following comment.
“[The merger was] detrimental to research since the primary focus is
now on Developmental and Reproductive Biology (including Reproductive
Physiology), but this has been done at the expense of the other
physiology subdisciplines.”
However, the majority of chairs reported seeing their department’s
research mission expand and increase, even if it took some time to
occur.
“Initially the merger was probably detrimental without any additional
benefit as areas of overlap in research and teaching were not obvious
or, more likely, not looked for. However, at this stage the merger has
provided a much stronger Department with more crossover of programs and,
in turn, more room for development of new programs.”
“Research space is more equitably distributed across faculty in the two
formerly separate departments owing to now common guidelines for space
allocation. Cross-disciplinary research interactions [were] strengthened
owing to more venues for interaction between the formerly separate
faculties.”
“Scientifically, there’s no Pharmacology research without Physiology,
and there are very few Physiologists who do not depend on drugs with
specific mechanisms of action in their research. It is a continuum, and
it is stimulating to get fresh points of view.”
“The merger dramatically promoted collaborations between these two
groups of scientists and also expanded the knowledge base for each
group. It has also broadened the scope of our faculty recruitments.”
“I agreed to the merger because I could pick up several unfilled faculty
positions and appropriate space. I filled these positions with
research-oriented faculty that helped fill important niches in our
intellectual base.”
“… we coordinate research directions and have a single graduate program
(Neuroscience) rather than each area pursuing their own agenda. This has
enabled us to develop critical masses in a limited number of subjects
and maintain a cohesive outlook rather than each division pursuing
isolated agendas.”
Teaching issues
Chairs commented that teaching can be a potential problem area.
“[You] have to guard against under-/over-emphasis on a particular
discipline when providing input for curricular and other issues related
to the missions of the school of medicine.
Same [equitable distribution] applies to distribution of teaching and
service efforts. However, it is important to note that some faculty
view this as a benefit (those who gained from the common vision), while
others might view this as detrimental (those who lost space, were asked
to increase teaching contributions or otherwise modify their effort
distribution, etc). Cross-disciplinary cooperation [is] stronger with
regard to medical education issues.”
“[It] has weakened the teaching programs for the medical students.”
“The big problem: at the Dean’s level there is only a limited window
(several years) where the merged Department is viewed as ‘two combined’
Departments. After that, it’s just one Department with twice the
teaching load. The total number of faculty will be less than if you had
two separate Departments, so build in your new hires up front.”
“However, this has not been as good an arrangement for the
non-neuroscience oriented faculty. This leads to some loss of
traditional perspectives (sore point with some faculty), but we try to
incorporate aspects of Anatomy, Physiology, and Pharmacology within the
Neuroscience curriculum."
However, overall the chairs noted that their Department’s teaching
programs were strengthened by the merger.
“Traditional Departments were based on conventional teaching programs
in which a single discipline was taught. Now with increasing emphasis on
interdisciplinary teaching, a merged Department will be poised to teach
in a new style that will become the modus operandii of the future.”
“The integrated course is outstanding. More faculty, not fewer, turn
out to be needed to put together the medical student course.”
“The graduate program is much stronger by allying with the molecular and
cellular biomedical scientists than if we had remained isolated.”
Again, it was seen as important how the chair reacted to and dealt
with perceived issues between the faculty of the two Departments.
“Although in the professional curriculum we still have a traditional
division of courses between Anatomy, Physiology, and Pharmacology, we
plan and think in a more cooperative manner (no turf wars to justify
hours in the curriculum, which are ultimately used to justify numbers of
faculty).”
“Teaching first year medical students is completely different than
teaching second year students. In Pharmacology (second year) the
students have been educationally homogenized by their shared coursework
in year one, and we can make a whole lot of assumptions about what they
have or have not been exposed to. In Physiology (first year) the
students are all over the map - some have master’s degrees or PhDs in
Physiology, others have never had a basic course in the discipline. It
is stimulating to teach in both years and watch this progression. Also,
many of my faculty now teach in both years - e.g., Cardiovascular
Physiology in year 1 and Cardiovascular Pharmacology in year 2. This
makes reinforcing and expanding concepts presented in year 1 easier in
the year 2 course.”
“We also now have some Pharmacology faculty helping with the Physiology
teaching, and I was able to replace the previous Chair of Physiology
(who recently retired) with an Eminent Scholar in Physiology and
recouped a Physiology faculty position that the previous Chair was not
allowed to fill.”
“I put the Anatomist who was viewed as the senior and of greatest
leadership potential into a position of vice-chair for Education (and
pay him more). He organizes all of the courses, faculty committees
regarding education, service and school committees regarding education,
and end-of-the-year teaching evaluations. He has raised the teaching
standards and enthusiasm of all of the departmental faculty about their
teaching activities. He is encouraged to be innovative and to coach
members of the faculty that are new or having difficulties with
language/communication, etc. At this point, our several courses are all
highly rated by students and faculty reviews.”
Administrative issues
Costs: Administratively, with respect to cost savings, there seems to be
mixed responses. Many of the Chairs reported no or a minimal decrease in
administrative costs.
“Administrators are attracted to the notion, thinking that
significant dollars can be saved. This is most likely not the case. One
might save on one or two administrative persons depending on the size of
the department but otherwise – it’s really down to how productive each
faculty member is in terms of research and teaching. Those numbers
(i.e., the number of functioning faculty) remain constant whether
coalescence or dispersal is the model of the day. If one creates a large
department then subdivisions often arise, each with a “chief.” So how is
that cost effective?”
“More administration, not less is needed for this to work efficiently.
More money is needed to fund the merged Department than the individual
Departments.”
Other Chairs did report reduced administration costs.
“Dean was able to state to Central Administration that he had reduced
administrative positions.”
“Having only one Department head reduced administration costs and we
were allowed to retain the funds allocated for the other Department head
salary, as part of our general operating budget for the merged
department.”
“We have less administrative overhead and improved efficiencies; just
one larger staff instead of three smaller duplicative ones.”
“Administrative savings are not that great, but down the road a
recruitment package will need to be developed for one chair hire, not
two. The College was able to recruit recently a strong chair for [the
Department] because of the merger strategy.”
Stronger presence in School of Medicine: Many Chairs noted that a
positive factor for merged Departments was having a stronger presence in
the School of Medicine.
“Mostly beneficial in terms of having a much larger critical mass,
more resources, larger presence in the Faculty of Medicine.”
“Neither Department was large enough to be as effective as was the
combined Department.”
“The graduate program is much stronger by allying with the molecular and
cellular biomedical scientists than if we had remained isolated.”
On the other hand, several chairs made the opposite observation.
“[There is the] potential for reduced basic science input to school
of medicine/university issues, owing to reduction in votes on Department
head councils (the number of basic science Departments has decreased
from 5 to 3, owing to mergers of formerly separate basic science
Departments).”
“Physiology is not as strong in the SOM as if it had been a department
because it is easier to dissolve divisions than departments.”
Other administrative issues: Other issues raised by Chairs in merged
Departments include faculty input, Chair work load, amount of resources,
and location of merging Departments.
“Larger faculty provides more possibilities for input/discussion on
Departmental matters. [However, it means] increased work load for Chair;
less time for interaction between individual faculty members and the
chair.”
“Broader consensus on faculty recruitments and directions for research.”
“The combined overhead from the merged Department is four-fold greater
than the two individual Departments brought in independently.
“One single, important issue remains in full integration of the
Department. The two component groups of the faculty are located in the
spaces of the former Departments separated on opposite sides of the
Medical Campus. To achieve full collegial interactions within the
faculty, efficient function, and removal of costly administrative
redundancies, it is essential that the Department be located in
contiguous space.”
| Table 3. Results of Merger |
Result
Beneficial
Detrimental
Both
Not sure
No response |
No. of Depts.
19
2
6
5
1 |
%
58
6
18
15
3 |
| N=33 |
Conclusions
Based on the responses and comments received, being involved in a
Departmental merger can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the
particular situation and university. However, by far, most Chairs
responding reported that it turned out to be a beneficial arrangement.
In almost all comments, the initial response to the merger was
detrimental because neither Department involved wanted the merger or the
change that accompanied the merger. Oftentimes the cultures of the two
Departments were different, in some cases drastically.
That said, the Chairs who had the most success were those who were
willing to involve faculty from both merging departments in the process,
make adjustments as needed in terms of faculty responsibilities and
evaluation, and work hard to encourage collaborations both in research
and teaching.
While mergers are usually not welcome, the good news is that after a few
years of adjustment, most are viewed as having been beneficial for the
faculty.
|
