“Efficiency” - appears four times in the nine points of the draft APP. Instead we should base decisions on resilience. Research suggests that the long-term health and persistence of a complex system, such as Ithaca College, requires resilience, not efficiency.
Dear Colleagues -
Thank you for your engagement and the time you’ve devoted in drafting first principles for academic program prioritization (APP). We appreciate the difficulty of creating and running focus groups, compiling comments, and developing overarching principles that could protect the learning and experiences of our students in these times of extraordinary change.
We would like to suggest that a systems approach be used to inform the APP and the choices made from those principles. The drafted principles appear to be based on the concept of efficiency and are focused on how to save money, not on how to re-imagine ourselves to be competitive in the shifting landscape of higher education. Our main argument is the term “efficiency” - which appears four times in the nine points of the draft APP - be eliminated and that the decisions be based on resilience. Research suggests that the long-term health and persistence of a complex system, such as Ithaca College, requires resilience, not efficiency (e.g., Ostrom, 2005). Efficiency is achieved by eliminating redundancies and maximizing use of all available resources – which even at its most well-intentioned, reduces both diversity and flexibility. A shift to “efficiency” will create an Ithaca College that can function only under a set of very specific and predictable conditions. At this point, however, clearly defined and predictable conditions no longer exist. If Ithaca College is to survive, it will require maximum resilience in order to adapt to stressors that we haven’t even thought of yet.
We must be completely cognizant that in a complex system such as Ithaca College, changing one thing will result in systemic effects that ripple throughout the institution. The notion that we can change one thing without incurring knock-on effects is faulty, as demonstrated by a long legacy of research on complex system dynamics (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Berkes et al., 2003; Walker and Salt, 2006; Chapin et al., 2009; Boyd and Folke, 2011). For example, a particular academic program may be considered inefficient in that it does not bring in direct tuition dollars (because it directly serves a small number of students) and/or that the cost of educating each student in that program is high. But such programs might offer non-majors and majors the most transformative experiences of their IC education. Or perhaps, the faculty in those programs might be particularly successful in bringing in institution-level external grants that make the overall institution more competitive in the long run.
Another assumption embedded in prioritizing efficiency is that our goal is to “do more with less.” Systems cannot do more with less; they can only do different with less. Yes, it may be necessary for Ithaca College’s financial viability to increase class sizes (point #3), but the sub-system that is each course will not just carry on as usual. For example, unless there are other significant changes, with increased numbers of students, the time a faculty member is able to devote to each student goes down. The amount of time faculty members have for meaningful feedback on student work goes down. And the amount of time each student has to speak in class goes down. We reiterate, altering the sub-system of the individual course means that the student experience of the course is also different—and therefore that the larger system of Ithaca College will be different. Ithaca College students want, need, and pay for face to face connection with faculty.
We recognize that Ithaca College has to rethink itself. But we sincerely hope that the principles which it uses to guide those changes will be grounded in a strong understanding of system dynamics. We must not focus on achieving maximally “efficient … academic programs.” Instead, we need resilient, diverse programs that optimize faculty/staff/administrative time and resources and that allow for changes in demand over time. It will not serve us well to focus on maximally “efficient use of space.” Instead, we need optimized use of space that achieves our goals and allows for flexibility in changing uses and conditions. We must not focus merely on “efficient … administrative support.” Instead, we must create systems for optimal administrative support that allows us to serve our students and to give them a reason to come here instead of going somewhere else. Ithaca College will have to be different, yes, but we need to focus these changes on improving our strengths – increasing our ability to be responsive to change in the world and increasing our students’ sense of connection to their mentors (academic and co-curricular alike).
In closing, we note that Ithaca College has faculty in a number of departments that are experts in designed change, system dynamics, and issues of risk in complex systems. Because we fully accept that the college must adapt and change, it is our hope that Ithaca College will avail itself of its own expertise before moving forward on such a crucial initiative at such a challenging and important time.
With best regards,
The Faculty Members of the Environmental Studies and Sciences Department
References
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Boyd, E., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2011). Adapting institutions: governance, complexity and social-ecological resilience. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Chapin III, F. S., Kofinas, G. P., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2009). Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York, Springer
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., & Norberg, J. (2003). Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,1(9), 488-494.
Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S., (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Norberg, J., & Cumming, G. (2008). Complexity theory for a sustainable future. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity, Princeton University Press.
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.
https://www.ithaca.edu/intercom/article.php/20200602095353280