The proposal to reunite the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences and the Department of Psychology: Social and Health Sciences was met with contentious questions and bristling sensitivity by members of the Academic Council Thursday.
Provost Peter Lange introduced the idea of remarriage for the departments, which divorced in 1990. Lange attributed the separation to "personality conflicts," but Patricia Bauer, co-chair of the department unification steering committee and chair of the psychological and brain sciences department, attributed it to popular trends in psychology at the time.
Tim Strauman, the other co-chair of the steering committee and chair of the Psychology: Social and Health Sciences department, presented the plan for reunification to the Council. Strauman explained that the division currently limits collaboration across disciplines in psychology.
Strauman added that under the current system, it would be difficult for him, as a clinical and research psychologist, to work with a cognitive neuroscientist to train a graduate student.
"Duke is one of the few places in the world that actually can, and should, train students who would draw both on clinical psychology... and on the methods of cognitive neuroscience," Strauman said. "So in our discussions privately, as well as a part of the unification committee, that is the kind of intellectual agenda that actually emerged, and that's one of the things that I am most psyched about."
Bauer, Strauman and Lange also cited the unification of the two departments would prove more attractive, forward-thinking and vibrant to prospective faculty.
Both departments currently have the potential to hire multiple new faculty members and anticipate more new hires upon unification, Bauer and Strauman said. Bauer and Strauman also expect that the new department would prove more attractive for gaining National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation grants.
The most contentious debate was spurred by Michael Lavine, professor of statistics and the environment, who said that members of the departments are under the impression that new hires will only occur if the two departments merge, which is not in fact an accurate perception.
Lavine also asked why members of the two psychology departments felt collaboration was limited when he feels that examples of cross-disciplinary collaboration are rampant.
Bauer replied that the unification "could constitute a new program," to which Lavine retorted, "Well, it sounds like your making this up."
Other members of the Council questioned the interest of the respective faculty members in both departments in reuniting, suggesting they be polled prior to the Academic Council's vote in April.
J.B. Duke Professor of Physics Berndt Mueller asked whether physical distance could become an issue for a unified department, as the two departments are currently spread across four different areas on campus.
Lange explained that although the entire process is currently in the "seed stage," the initial plan calls for a substantial part of the psychology department to move to vacated space in the Old Chemistry Building. Such a move would allow for the entire department to be situated together on Main West Campus.
In other business:
Dr. Ross McKinney, vice dean for research for the School of Medicine, and Dr. Sanders Williams, dean of the School of Medicine and vice chancellor for medical center affairs, presented a proposal to change the titles of two non-tenure track positions in the medical school. They said such a change would make the titles less confusing and more favorable in attracting NIH grants.
McKinney and Williams also proposed that a new title of medical instructor be added for a pre-tenure track position, which would supplant the title of associate of the department. The title change proposal will be voted on at the next Academic Council meeting.
Williams presented a clinical Appointment, Promotions and Tenure report concerning faculty growth, which showed an increase in female and minority faculty in the medical school since 1995. The report also showed an increase in offers to hire women and minority candidates.
Lange addressed a question based on faculty dissatisfaction with salaries and rewards for teaching and service compared to research. He stated that the administration is attempting to respond to the Duke Faculty Survey by improving classrooms and said that salary considerations must be understood in the context of what the University must spend in other areas. Lange also added that the survey showed faculty on the whole were not dissatisfied with salaries.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.