Deans Approve Policy on Centers

The first comprehensive guidelines for the creation, review and termination of academic centers at the University has been drafted and approved by the deans and University President Lawrence H. Summers.

The desire of clusters of faculty to pursue specialized research outside the structure of their departments has resulted in the establishment of these University-funded centers, the number of which now exceeds 100.

While a limited number of centers have had a long-standing presence at Harvard—including the well known Center for European Studies, the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies and the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs—recently dozens of smaller, more specialized centers have emerged.

Such centers, established within the past five years, include the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations and the Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration and Repair.

Motivated by concerns over the centers’ competitions with departments for funding and faculty, Summers, as well as several deans and heads of existing centers, have said rethinking their purpose was a top priority.

“We want to make sure that these add-ons don’t actually take resources away from the core mission of the schools,” said University Provost Steven E. Hyman.

Many administrators, including Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) Barry R. Bloom, see the sheer number of centers as troublesome.

“You don’t want to bump into three centers every time you walk down the hallway,” he said.

The new guidelines require that each new center have an explicit missions statement that supplements, but not duplicates, work being done in individual departments.

In the past, centers could be created without articulating such a purpose. The new guidelines will be applied to existing centers, said Alan J. Stone, vice president for government, community and public affairs.

And while centers currently need not be interdisciplinary, the new policy said that new center must at least provide opportunities for interfaculty relations among the school and University.

“Rather than being sort of centers of academic activity in which faculty and students don’t have involvement...where possible and where appropriate, [centers should] foster cooperation across different parts of the University,” Summers said.

The policy also specifically mandates that the centers be reviewed every five years by an ad hoc committee—a provision that aims to ensure their legitimacy in light of changing research trends and leadership changes.

“A center often begins with a set of problems and often an entrepreneurial or charismatic leader and a donor. What may happen years down the road when the leader has moved on is that the center may languish and may lack strong regular faculty leadership,” Hyman said.

Bloom said he agrees periodic review of centers—a practice he said rarely occurs today—is necessary.

“Some things are hot and some things are not...This level of scrutiny limits cases of turfness,” he said.

Bloom initiated HSPH’s own adoption of guidelines for new centers last year, which reduced the number of centers from 16 to six over the past year.

HSPH’s policies served as a model for the guidelines adopted by the University, according to Hyman.

“He really in many ways brought this issue to the table,” he said.

The reduction in centers at HSPH under the school’s new policy has not negatively impacted research.

“There has been no blood shed or revolution and it has lead to a clarity of priorities,” Bloom said.

And Bloom said that the lesson is one that others schools can benefit from.

“There is a seduction to centers because they are so topical...but they were taking funds for the core interests of the school,” Bloom said. “And that makes it harder to support our mission as a University.”

—Staff writer Jessica E. Vascellaro can be reached at vascell@fas.harvard.edu.