It’s in Our DNA: Leadership Perspectives on Institutionalizing STEM Success in an Alliance

Background: A Network Approach to URM STEM Student Success and Organizational Change

The NSF Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) program was established in 1993 and is a signature program of the NSF which is geared towards providing resources for institutions to design, implement, and synergize institutional supports that have proven to contribute to the success of URM students majoring in STEM (Baber & Jackson, 2018; Clewell et al., 2006). The Urban Institute’s comprehensive report on the LSAMP program concluded that since the general LSAMP framework of initiatives is successful (e.g., promoting mentoring, internships, undergraduate research, peer support), all alliances should seek to replicate and expand the most promising LSAMP characteristics (Clewell et al., 2006). However, the report provided little guidance on the best strategies to promote the scaling-up of the identified successful components from one institution to another within an alliance.

As a result of these shifting realities, while examining initiatives within LSAMP for what works (National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2018), equity-centered STEM research runs the risk of overlooking the organizational components that impede or propel the scaling efforts. Consequently, there is a need to identify the ever-evolving challenges educators and leaders face (or create) in broadening access and success for URM students in STEM.

The Illinois Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (ILSAMP, or Alliance) represents one of several consortia of colleges and universities throughout the United States and Puerto Rico and consists of three 2-year institutions, nine 4-year institutions, and two industry partners in the state of Illinois (see Table 1). In terms of innovative initiatives within the ILSAMP, beyond sharing exemplar practices on cultivating undergraduate research or mentoring URM students in STEM, at the outset of a new funding cycle, the ILSAMP leadership agreed to implement a learning assistants’ program (see Sabella et al., 2016) at each member institution as its designated innovative intervention. Therefore, at the kickoff of the new round of funding in 2019, the Alliance and its institutions were primed to undertake an organizational change process to scale-up.

Hence, this study presents findings geared towards helping alliances and interested URM STEM organizations conceptualize and respond to the circumstances that organizations face in adopting and integrating empirically backed initiatives. The guiding research question was: How do higher education leaders’ agency affect the launch and development of initiatives to support the success of URM STEM students?

Table 1. Study Participant Institutional Type

Literature Review

In researching an equity-centered STEM network, like LSAMP, it is essential to underscore that the Alliance is undertaking several innovations at once. LSAMP’s scale-up efforts are multi-layered and complex due to the varied changes they hope to make. The LSAMP initiative is designed to provide access and support to URM STEM students, which includes creating mentoring and research opportunities, as well as implementing pedagogical innovations in STEM classrooms. Essentially, this requires an analysis of several types of literature, as there is varied research in each of these areas, and different types of researchers (e.g., higher education vs. STEM researchers) will have different perspectives on how to approach questions about STEM reform (Henderson et al., 2011). The literature on inclusive practices in STEM (i.e., sensitivity training for faculty), mentoring and research, and instructional innovation can differ in their findings and recommendations; however, Kezar (2011) points to a handful of challenges that are present in many efforts to scale-up initiatives.

Context

Kezar (2011) argued that “scale assumes that a successful innovation is independent of the implementation setting” (p. 237). There is little consideration for changing the implementation context prior to the innovation. Furthermore, innovation is considered essential and beneficial for progress and will therefore be routinely adopted without first preparing the context through structural or cultural changes that will prepare the context for the innovation. Structural changes can include policies and funding; cultural changes involve a change in beliefs and norms. Adjusting some (e.g., policies) but not all (e.g., core beliefs and funding) of these contextual issues will inevitably lead to failed scale-up efforts (Hill, 2020). Contexts also change over time and must therefore be monitored carefully to be adjusted as needed (Kezar, 2011). Additionally, innovations should be altered to fit the context. For example, an innovation implemented by an office of one staff member versus an office of 20 will be different and have different support needs. Further, contextual changes rely on people making adjustments.

Leadership

Another challenge to innovation is engagement or ownership of the reform by leaders at all levels (Jones, 2016; Kezar, 2011). The central critique involving leadership is that innovation cannot be a top-down mandate but is most often successful as a bottom-up, or grassroots, effort that involves “deep engagement of people over time” (Kezar, 2011, p. 238). Yet, positional leaders must be interested and committed to adjusting their context and monitoring the institutionalization (Jones, 2016). Leaders with institutional authority can also act as institutional agents: they can “directly transmit, or negotiate the transmission of, highly valued resources” to students (Stanton-Salazar, 2011, p. 1067). Institutional agents are especially important for students who have minoritized identities that have limited ability to develop these social networks through their families. Moreover, Gomez and colleagues (2021) argued that institutional agents were conceptualized as figures that would alter students’ behavior, capital, and resources, rather than changing the institution itself. Indeed, Stanton-Salazar (2011) discussed modeling and teaching students appropriate networking behavior to empower them to navigate oppressive systems. Instead, Gomez and colleagues (2021) offered transformation leaders, who “have authority, and unlike institutional agents, use their authority to change the institution to better adapt to students’ needs” (p. 17).

Scale-up efforts are also more likely to be successful if they can engage with other networks of leaders who are similarly participating in reform, like the LSAMP Alliance (Jones, 2016). This network provides support and a sounding board if effectively organized and utilized. With an emphasis on the challenges of context and recommendations for leadership within scale-up endeavors, the remainder of this literature review will focus on the three types of innovations the LSAMP is implementing: supporting URM STEM students, instituting instructional innovation, and creating mentoring and research opportunities, as well as how leaders can leverage their position to transform their institutions.

Supporting URM STEM Students

Underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities (e.g., African American, Latinx, and Native American) face multiple racialized conditions in the STEM fields. These range from inhospitable environments created by faculty and students (Espinosa, 2011) to faculty mindset beliefs (Canning et al., 2019). Many of these circumstances are related to a STEM culture and ecosystem (Lord et al., 2019) that is White and masculine (Carlone & Johnson 2007; Cheryan & Markus, 2020). One way that STEM culture is entrenched in masculine norms is the competitive nature of introductory courses with the intention of weeding out weak students (Carlone & Johnson, 2007), often aimed at deterring students from staying in STEM. For example, Espinosa (2011) found that high institutional selectivity was a negative predictor of persistence among women of color in STEM. Espinosa (2011) attributed this to an “institutional culture that values research over teaching and actively discourages students from STEM through competitive grading practices” (p. 234). Additionally, women of color in STEM often face microaggressions in the classroom but also find that courses are misaligned and inaccessible to their professional “goals of contributing to society” (Espinosa, 2011, p. 234). Regrettably, these are the universities that are well-appointed in training and guiding students in STEM fields. To create learning environments that promote a welcoming atmosphere for women of color, Espinosa (2011) recommends academic peer relationships, research exposure, curricular reform, and improved pedagogical practices. This is precisely what LSAMP is undertaking; however, there are additional STEM practices that invalidate and exclude URM students.

One such harmful characteristic of STEM faculty is a fixed mindset. Canning et al. (2019) found that STEM “faculty mindset beliefs predicted student achievement and motivation above and beyond any other faculty characteristic, including their gender, race/ethnicity, age, teaching experience, or tenure status” (p. 1). Faculty who believed in fixed intelligence had greater racial achievement gaps among students in their classes. A fixed mindset aligns with the “weed out” culture that not everyone is cut out for STEM. Moreover, students expressed lower motivation to do their best work when taking a course with a faculty member with a fixed mindset and suggested that these faculty were less likely to design pedagogical conditions that focused on developmental learning (Canning et al., 2019). Faculty beliefs about intelligence matter most for student performance in a course. For this reason, Canning et al. (2019) recommend providing resources for faculty training on growth mindset rather than policies that place the responsibility of change on students. Excluding faculty equity trainings such as these places the onus on students to navigate an inequitable and unethical STEM culture.

Jones (2016) advocated that to overcome the obstacles faced by URM students in STEM, leaders must first have a thorough understanding of their universities’ environment. This goes beyond having a command of policies and structures to knowing how various people relate to each other and to their students. Our study highlights how leaders interested in STEM diversity and equity should also know how to be aware of how different people can access resources and influence their departments (Jones, 2016), as well as use their authority to transform their institution. This knowledge would in turn allow leaders to be strategic in navigating diversity initiatives at their institution, and arguably knowing how to adjust contexts to make them more receptive to innovations. Jones (2016) further contended that this is an issue of understanding the political terrain, which means knowing who is likely to challenge or support scale-up efforts, as well as knowing where the tensions in relationships occur. Leaders cannot avoid the discomfort of these political circumstances as it comes at the cost of URM student success. Networks can leverage various strategies, including addressing faculty beliefs (Canning et al., 2019) to support URM students, but the focus needs to be on classroom practices as well and cannot be narrowed to one department. Broadening leadership training across the university could be the difference between changing the organization versus changing the student behavior to adjust to the university and STEM culture (Gomez et al., 2021).

Instituting Instructional Innovation

The literature on supporting URM STEM students distinctly calls for instructional and pedagogical change for the benefit of underrepresented students (Colbeck, 2002). Generally, “recent decades have seen increasing calls for fundamental change in the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)” (Henderson et al., 2011, p. 953). These reform appeals highlight the need to move from faculty-centered teaching to student-centered learning. Despite the call for change, courses, particularly introductory STEM courses that act as gatekeepers, continue to eschew active and engaged learning (Matz et al., 2018). The study led by Matz and colleagues (2018) highlighted that departments with a centralized and supportive structure were able to incorporate change to their gateway science courses, which included assessment changes (i.e., from multiple choice to constructed response) by adding support in the form of teaching and learning assistants, as well as hands-on activities. Changing pedagogical practices to focus on student-centered learning requires concentrating on policy and teacher reflection to change long-held beliefs about teaching and learning (Henderson et al., 2011). Yet again, these changes require leadership agency to address politically loaded collaborations (Jones, 2016).

Colbeck (2002) proposed utilizing a model of institutionalization that focuses on curriculum content and approach, as well as creating a more welcoming environment for URM students. Normative institutionalization in pedagogical reform requires demonstrated support from colleagues, department chairs, and deans. Yet, support is not enough, and regulative processes incorporate structure to that support. By rewarding—not penalizing—faculty for the effort and labor of engaging in instructional reform, professors are more likely to employ instructional innovation. These rewards should be present in what is traditionally considered the most uncompromising process: tenure and promotion (Gomez et al., 2021). Finally, cognitive institutionalization processes require that faculty fully embrace the principles of instructional reform (Colbeck, 2002). This model addresses structures, individual reflection and training, and policy changes, but all rely on leader agency to institute long-lasting changes.

Creating Mentoring and Research Opportunities

Another frequent exemplary practice for URM students is providing mentoring and research opportunities that connect students of color with faculty and peers in STEM activity. However, like instructional reform, there has also been an appeal to provide these opportunities for all STEM students. This broader request is largely due to the need to train students as researchers. Flowers (2020) described the research process—for example, exploring the scientific method and research ethics—as an art. However, providing mentoring and research opportunities for URM students has additional implications for the development of a science identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Formal and informal science interactions and activity contribute to how one perceives their science identity and how others perceive them as scientists. Recognition as a scientist is “a key component of science identity development for women of color” (Carlone & Johnson, 2007, p. 1197). Each learning activity, like research, advances the development of a science identity, and Rodriguez and Lehman (2017) argued the importance to not only women of color in general but specifically at community colleges where they also create mentoring opportunities. However, the opportunities must come with reflection and training, not unlike teaching, to develop an awareness and value of intersectional identities (Rodriguez & Lehman 2017). This further underpins the connection between all the interventions in order to be successful.

According to the literature on supporting URM students, the ILSAMP and networks like it may be well-positioned to provide the best possible support to URM students in STEM. This can be accomplished through programmatic initiatives already in place: instructional innovations that include peer to peer academic relationships (i.e., learning assistants), research opportunities that can provide both exposure to research methods and opportunities for STEM mentoring, and a network of other leaders who are also engaging in scale-up initiatives (i.e., the Alliance). Yet, the looming consideration remains around whether the network (i.e., LSAMP) leadership, across all levels of involvement in the entity, has the agency to adjust the context (e.g., programs, policies, organizational culture) so these innovations can be successfully implemented and/or sustained. Specifically, our review accentuated and focused on the potential of whether the leadership of a network is prepared to be transformational leaders (Gomez et al., 2021). They can do this by making changes to entrenched cultural norms within each of their unique contexts by drawing from insights gleaned through their participation in a STEM education network.

Theoretical Framework

Through the lens of Curry’s (1992) organizational change, Kezar and Sam’s (2013) institutionalization theory, and Alexander’s (2005) institutional transformation and planning, our three-pronged framework provided the foundation to understand and theorize the steps needed for change within an organization. It also allowed us to understand how to make innovative ideas long-lasting through institutionalization while acknowledging the specific context of each organization and the positional structure embedded within the organization. Our study reiterated that context is important and there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to innovation, even if multiple institutions or organizations are interested in implementing a similar program. Specifically, this framework further highlighted the important role institutional leaders play in institutionalization within their respective organizations to allow for change to occur.

We utilized Curry’s (1992) notion of organizational change and innovation to help contextualize the potential of a complex change process. Curry (1992) noted that organizational change often occurs in three steps: (a) mobilization, (b) implementation, and (c) institutionalization. Curry (1992) further argued that “innovations cannot become lasting without a rather significant role from leaders” (p. 5) and emphasized that leadership was not restricted to the highest-ranking officers of an institution. Rather, all members involved in the change process are integral to institutionalization and essential to understanding organizational change. This was important for our study because there are leaders within different positions and hierarchy (i.e., presidents, provosts, deans, coordinators, faculty) who each are a part of the Alliance, but their role varies significantly based on their respective campuses and job titles. Understanding how these leaders enact or support change at their institution or organization can be further understood through the change process. The first step, mobilization, involves increasing awareness and disseminating information to people around a certain cause or issue. Implementation, the second step, essentially begins to create structures to support the cause, issue, or reform, and can increase the number of those involved. Institutionalization, step three, is when the cause or issue becomes a normative feature of the organization (Curry, 1992). Ironically, when an innovation becomes institutionalized, it is no longer seen as innovative (Kezar & Sam, 2013). While Curry (1992) and Kezar and Sam (2013) articulated the significant role leaders have in this process, how they contribute is dependent on their own understanding of their capacity and agency. With our study’s focus on institutional leader agency, the steps of organizational change are important to acknowledge as they shape and influence perceived agency.

Curry’s (1992) steps of organizational change are essential to understand in relation to institutionalization theory. Kezar and Sam (2013) highlight institutionalization as one form of change and defined institutionalization as “a particular type of change that becomes sustainable and embedded into the fabric of the institution” (p. 59). This theory describes how practices, policies, or procedures are considered institutionalized once they are rooted in the culture of the organization. Institutionalization is a key factor for innovations continuing to exist and persist in organizations, and as mentioned, leaders have a significant role in this process. Institutionalization theory notes that leaders need to be aware of the stage that is occurring in order to know what strategy is best to use (Alexander, 2005; Curry, 1992; Kezar & Eckel, 2002). Our study utilized this theory to better understand how leaders within institutions in the Alliance were able or unable to institutionalize programming supported by NSF at their respective schools. In addition, we explored the leaders’ understanding of their roles and strategies available to them throughout the change process. As institutionalization is taking place to better support URM students, leaders’ awareness of this form of change impacts their agency and role in the change process.

Further, there is a need to understand how institutional transformation occurs and the inner workings of institutional design. Alexander (2005) defined institutional design as “the devising and realization of rules, procedures, and organizational structures that will enable and constrain behavior and action so as to accord with held values, achieve desired objectives, or execute given tasks” (p. 213). Alexander (2005) described three levels of institutional design as being applied to “whole societies or addresses significant macro-societal processes and institutions” (p. 214); meso-level as “planning and implementation structures and processes” (p. 214), such as physical planning; and the lowest level involving “intra-organizational design” (p. 215). Understanding at which level a leader is working is necessary in order to recognize how sustainable change is possible. Knowledge of institutional design is limited, though governance, coordination, and agency are three identified areas of knowledge that can help leaders utilize institutional design in their planning (Alexander, 2005). Although there is no prescriptive way of using institutional design, leaders need to be aware of this at their institutions to support a transformation that leads to institutionalization. Our study sought to further explore leaders’ perceptions of these dynamics at their institutions and how they used their agency to navigate transformation. Overall, this three-pronged theoretical framework informed how we conducted Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phased thematic analysis by using terms and concepts as starting points to review the data and create codes and themes, ultimately interpreting the findings and implications moving forward.

Research Design

Findings

Study findings suggest that leadership commitments are insufficient to materialize the scale-up of new STEM initiatives, despite institutions being primed for organizational change as a result of their connection to the ILSAMP Alliance. However, even as leaders shared their own dedication to change, they also underscore how their institutions are limited in their capacity to scale STEM activities and how their role within the institution can impact scalability. Adding depth and complexity to this issue, the following three identified themes exhibit the structural shortfalls that negatively impact institutional support efforts for URM STEM students within the Alliance: (a) limited communication prevents opportunity, (b) organizational structures constrain agency, and (c) resources and leadership impact innovation and development. In this section we discuss each finding in relation to Curry’s (1992) notion of organizational change.

Discussion

Recognizing organizational change and innovation is a complex process (Curry, 1992), and our study’s findings indicate that institutional leaders perceive their leadership as one of the critical levers to institutionalize organizational change and innovation. However, organizational structures serve as inhibitors to institutionalization and sustainability (Kezar, 2011), which results in additional barriers to support student success. Moreover, findings suggest limited change has occurred to the core structures and culture of the institutions to implement innovative interventions.

The contribution of this study relates to the illumination of the tension between institutional leaders’ agency to make change sustainable versus structural and leadership networks inhibiting STEM success efforts. Leaders’ efforts were focused on implementing the innovation itself—which led to individualization rather than institutionalization—rather than priming the environment for change. Hence, we discuss and theorize the need for a revised role of institutional leaders utilizing their agency to cultivate organizational changes to support the success of URM STEM students (Alexander, 2005; Curry, 1992; Kezar & Sam, 2013).

The study is in alignment with Jones (2016), advocating that leaders should have a thorough understanding of their university’s environment to overcome the obstacles faced by URM students in STEM. We were able to see that leaders in the Alliance had a clear understanding of the structural and political structure of their institutions. Where they could, participant leaders enact change within the power allowed by their respective roles. There was a clear delineation between senior administrators who could support overarching goals with large amounts of funding and the faculty and staff who instituted low-cost initiatives within their programs. Findings also showed leaders interested in STEM diversity and equity knew how to access resources and influence their departments (Jones, 2016), which sometimes came into conflict when trying to engage leaders outside of the program. Additionally, the leaders’ understanding of the university environment could play a larger role within the Alliance and relates to Jones’ (2016) contention that this is an issue of understanding the political terrain. There is an underdeveloped opportunity for senior administrators to use their experience to help faculty and staff navigate the upper echelons of their respective institutions for more support and funding.

Generally, institutions across the Alliance shared understanding and commitment for the success of URM STEM students. Efforts, both individual and institutional, to support the students have been extensively implemented. Evidence can be found in the programs developed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as student accommodations and partnerships with local government agencies. In these instances, the leaders received support from colleagues, department chairs, and deans of institutionalized pedagogical reform (Colbeck, 2002). It remains to be seen what, if any, of those reforms will remain and if the leaders will continue to receive the same level of support.

Yet, looking closely at the underlying tensions within the organizational structures of the participant Alliance institutions, we could see persistent organizational issues that restrain and sometimes nullify institutional efforts to scaffold URM students to success. As elaborated in the Findings section, lack of financial resources, lack of communication within institutions and among the Alliance, and inconsistencies in sustaining efforts, are sources of some of the tensions experienced and reported by the institutional leaders. Further, it was argued that the lack of diversity training among faculty could contribute to the unsustainability of change. Canning et al. (2019) explain that this could be due to students not seeing themselves represented in the faculty as well as the latter not fully understanding the social and economic challenges faced by URM students.

For Alexander (2005), institutional leaders’ awareness and practice of active agency and coordination scaffold their institutional planning, thereby institutionalizing change and making it sustainable. However, ambiguous and inconsistent engagement of faculty and administrators in the change processes was another prominent structural flaw the leaders reported as a source of institutional inefficiency that often leads to ineffective outcomes in supporting URM students. Alexander (2005) further posited that for institutional design to be effective and efficient, engaging leaders of varying levels is crucial. At the highest of levels, the strategic plan takes place, the meso-level “involves the institutional design of planning and implementation structures and processes” (Alexander, 2005, p. 214), and the lowest levels encompass “processes and interactions” (p. 215). While institutional leaders in this study demonstrated a strong commitment to the Alliance’s success, leadership at other levels struggled to change cultural norms and structures that prevent institutionalization.

Implications

Conclusion

Institutionalizing STEM success for URM students is a complex process that requires much more than temporary funding and sporadic leadership support. Individualized efforts are bound to be erratic, benefiting small numbers of students and providing inconsistent experiences until there is alignment across all levels of leadership. However, the reality for many of the institutions in this Alliance is that they are highly dependent on grant, federal, and state funding to maintain their support of URM students. Nevertheless, institutionalization requires institutional commitment, which may be elusive given “there is no real pressure (from peers) to achieve genuine progress” (López et al., 2022, p. 11). When other institutions do not achieve this success, what is the incentive to make changes to contexts that lead to meaningful and lasting change?

Disclosure Statement

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) award number HRD-1911341.

Conflict of Interest Statement

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References