On Monday, August 18^th, around 85 employees, managers and students from, for example, the Academic Council, the four departments and center fora, as well as from the faculty management team were assembled at Kasernen, for a debate on the departmental structure within the Arts faculty. The occasion was the senior management team's decision to give the current organization a thorough inspection, in the wake of the problem analysis.

`When I was appointed, it had already become evident that we needed an open and unprejudiced dialog regarding the organization of Arts, with a special focus upon local needs, as well as upon the academic core activities," Acting Dean Johnny Laursen said, when opening the meeting. He emphasized the importance of cross-faculty considerations such as education, involvement and joint finances, but also called for a larger degree of flexibility within the organization.

What needs inspection?

The first part of the meeting consisted of a number of presentations by, among others, Per Stounbjerg, Department of Aesthetics and Communication (Academic debate in the various departments, and at faculty level) and Hanne Knudsen, Education (Departmental need for visibility, and for interaction with society).  The second part was dedicated to deciding on process plan and a mandate of any future investigative group. This part of the meeting was chaired by Andreas Roepsdorff from the expert group. .

The speakers pointed out different aspects, which they felt should be highlighted in connection with the future `Arts process´, for example, inclusive management, the size of board of studies, and professional visibility at department level. Subsequently, the attendees were given the same task, namely to identify the biggest challenges and opportunities related to establishing a suitable departmental structure.

Three scenarios

At an early point in the debate, Johnny Laursen made it clear that any necessary changes will be taking place within the framework of the faculty. Soon after, the attendees were able to agree on three main scenarios, each of which could be the result of the process that took place last autumn:

1: The current departmental structure remains unchanged

2: The current departmental structure is maintained, with some changes within the existing departments.

3: The current departmental structure is changed, fundamentally

A new, simplified process

In the proposal for the meeting the faculty management team had prepared a draft plan for the inspection of Arts, which included a preparatory working group. Both the process and the working group's task was discussed thoroughly, and then revised, after having received input from staff members and students alike.

Therefore, process will now be initiated, de-centrally, at departments, centers, etc., from where input and contributions will be forwarded to the working group and the faculty management team, on the basis of 3-5 selected topics. The presentations are processed by the working group on a one-day seminar. On the following day the working group will meet with the management team, which, after discussions with, among others, FSU and the Academic Council will prepare a proposal that will provide the basis of the decision-making Process. Proposed decision subjected to a hearing at departments, centers, etc., as well as in the Academic Council and the FSU.

`That way, it is realistic to think that we can have a resolution ready before Christmas, without overburdening the members of the working group´ said Johnny Laursen.

Johnny Laursen has published a letter regarding the appointment of committee members, as well as a revised plan and a proposal for the local discussions that lie ahead.

The composition of the working group

Each departmental forum will appoint 2 members of the academic staff and 2 student representatives, center forum at CUDiM will appoint 1 member of the academic staff. The Technical/administrative staff representatives in the Academic Councils will appoint 1 member, and the PhD students in the faculty's PhD committee will appoint 1 PhD student as a member of the working group. Representatives are appointed by the fora mentioned above, but membership of one of in these bodies is not a prerequisite for taking a seat in the working group. The working group will elect its own chairman from among its members.

Keep yourself updated, and participate!

You can follow the process on the Arts Staff Portal. Here, you also have the opportunity of contributing to the debate, and/or following the debate on Twitter (#artsproces).