CAFNR Divison Structure

Division of Animal Sciences

Division of Applied Social Sciences

• Department of Agricultural Economics
• Department of Agricultural Education
• Department of Rural Sociology
• Agricultural Journalism Program

Division of Biochemistry (joint with the School of Medicine)

Division of Food Systems and Bioengineering

• Department of Biological Engineering (joint with the College of Engineering)
• Food and Hospitality Systems Program
  • Food Science Program
  • Hotel and Restaurant Management Program 
• Agricultural Systems Management Program

Division of Plant Sciences (to be formed by the consolidation of the Departments of Agronomy, Entomology, Horticulture and Plant Microbiology and Pathology into a unified Division structure pending campus and CBHE approval; the Division will offer B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees)

School of Natural Resources

Division —

• Something, such as a boundary or partition, that serves to divide or keep separate.
• One of the parts, sections, or groups into which something is regarded as divided and which together constitute a whole
  

A search of the word "division" yields a multitude of definitions; all useful in their own context. Math teachers, biologists and military strategists may use the same word, but in each of their worlds, they would have vastly different meaning. We in MU’s College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources are embarking on creating our own meaning based on planning across the College that culminated in the December 23, 2004, announcement by Vice-Chancellor and Dean Payne that our College would be comprised of five divisions and a school (see sidebar at left). 

What these new divisions replace is a structure of six units that were created in 1989 through the consolidation of some sixteen individual academic departments that existed at that time. In some cases, the organizational structure of these disciplinary departments trace back a hundred years or more and were celebrated as recently as last summer. 

An outcome of an era of academic specialization, these disciplines have been the organizing nuggets that have created the structure of our universities, our professional societies, our journals and our careers.

The rationale for transforming units into divisions was driven by both practical and philosophical arguments. On the practical side, the term "unit" was unique across our institution, and the administrators of these units (the Unit Leaders) had no real comparable peers or organizational structures. Making the switch to divisions led by Division Directors seems appropriate. Analgous to an organizational structure that exists in the College of Arts and Science with the Division of Biology, the size and scope of some CAFNR divisions are indeed as large, or larger, than some other colleges/divisions across campus.

On the philosophical side, in examining the division structure at left, one can’t help but see further evidence of the evolution of what has been the academic department. Depending on the current state-of-the-art among the areas of scholarship, in some cases disciplinary departments remain, in other cases they were converted to programs, and in still others they were consolidated into a single division.

My experience continues to reinforce the notion that organizational form should follow function. It should not be surprising that in the fields of animal and plant sciences, where much of the current science is increasingly universal and integrative, that departments would begin to dissolve. Indeed, the Life Sciences Center is perhaps our most prominent symbol of integration among the biological sciences. Even amidst today’s difficulty in generating funding, there always seems a wealth of sponsors willing to underwrite work towards developing sound solutions to real problems. More often than not, these solutions result from faculty working in an integrative, rather than an isolated fashion.

My hope is that we see the transformation of departments-to-units-to-divisions as a means of explaining the parts of a whole, rather than descriptors of a boundary to keep us separate. Biologists need economists, who need sociologists. Rather than spending our time looking inwards for funding, thus competing with each other for few funds that remain discretionary within the institution – let’s look outside the institution for applications of our work, that inherently bring funding. Such an outlook makes your MIzzou colleague a collaborator, not a competitor, and best serves our purpose. 

The transformation to our new divisions in most cases will be slow and deliberative. Your participation in new policy development, and the definitions you use in doing so, will determine the culture of our College for years to come.

Regards, John