Provost explores merger of communcation and culture, journalism, telecommunications

It all started with a harmless question asked at a board of trustees meeting.

What is the relationship between different communications departments at IU? Specifically, are journalism, telecommunications and communication and culture best serving students in the way they are currently organized?

Now, after six months, countless conversations and the formation of two committees, Provost and Executive Vice President Karen Hanson is still trying to find the answer.
“In any case, there is no consensus,” Hanson said.

The two committees — external and internal — are expected to submit a report to Hanson in mid-April, making a recommendation about the units’ structures that Hanson will eventually present to the board of trustees. This could potentially result in a reorganization of the departments or no changes at all.

Brad Hamm, dean of the School of Journalism, said he and his faculty are open to the question and would welcome a reorganization.

“Asking this question at IU is a normal thing,” Hamm said, noting the numerous programs around the country that combine communications studies into one unit. “This idea of a possible merger has, at this University, been discussed for more than 40 years.”

However, the departments of telecommunications and communication and culture are not as open to the idea of a complete reorganization.

According to Hanson during a Bloomington Faculty Council meeting on Feb. 2, communication and culture said that some aspects of reorganization would be acceptable and telecommunications “did not think that there was any reorganization that would be appropriate for its unit.”

Gregory Waller, chairman of communication and culture department, said faculty members tend to get nervous about questions of reorganization, especially when budgets are being discussed. He said members of the department voted earlier this year that they wanted to stay together as a single unit inside the College of Arts and Sciences.

“We think we’re a really unique and progressive way to do communication studies,” Waller said. “We want to be able to keep that kind of identity.”

Telecommunications department Chairman Walter Gantz said his faculty is very comfortable and happy to be in the College of Arts and Sciences as well.

“Across the three programs ... I think the differences are so significant and important that the units will stay separate,” he said. “I think there is a reason now, and five years from now, and 10 years from now, for these programs to stay as separate units.”

Still, Waller said undergraduates see connections across the departments, citing students who double major in communication and culture and either telecommunications or journalism.

“I think there’s some fluidity possible, but it’s not clear whether it would be inside the College, if the departments would stay the same shape as they are now or if it would be a new school outside of the College,” Waller said.

Hanson said some faculty are concerned because of this very reason. Aside from the three main departments under review, many majors offer some sort of communications classes. Communications is such a big field that any reorganization would involve the entire campus.

And then there’s the issue of resource implications.

“It’s not wholly a money issue, but we can’t say it’s not at all a money issue,” Hanson said. “It’s a resource issue, but all in a very complicated way.”

Hanson cited tuition, grants, external fundraising and the allocation of resources as things that would be affected in the event of a reorganization. For example, if telecommunications and communication and culture — two programs with high enrollment — were to become part of a separate school, less resources would be available for the College of Arts and Sciences.

Another issue takes an academic perspective. The units in the College are viewed as providing a liberal arts education, while journalism is often seen as a professional school, Hanson said. For some, the perceived differences would be hard to reconcile.
But reorganization isn’t a sure thing. The committees could report back to Hanson that nothing should be done at this point in time.

“If there’s a good reason for the organization to stay exactly as is — the faculty are able to do their best work there and the students are best educated — then that’s what the trustees would want to do,” she said. “They don’t have a prior view of how this should go.”

Still, Hamm said whether or not the question is answered in the near future, it will always remain. He said he doesn’t see it as one program absorbing others, but three programs looking at the best way to benefit students.

“I think that three strong programs, either with this structure or a different structure, would still be three strong programs,” Hamm said. “The goal is to help all three excel independently and together.”