Abstract

In 2016, 10 universities launched a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) aimed at increasing the number of scholars from Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) populations entering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty careers. NICs bring together stakeholders focused on a common goal to accelerate innovation through structured, ongoing intervention development, implementation, and refinement. We theorized a NIC organizational structure would aid understandings of a complex problem in different contexts and accelerate opportunities to develop and improve interventions to address the problem. A distinctive feature of this NIC is its diverse institutional composition of public and private, predominantly white institutions, a historically Black university, a Hispanic-serving institution, and land grant institutions located across eight states and Washington, DC, United States. NIC members hold different positions within their institutions and have access to varied levers of change. Among the many lessons learned through this community case study, analyzing and addressing failed strategies is as equally important to a healthy NIC as is sharing learning from successful interventions. We initially relied on pre-existing relationships and assumptions about how we would work together, rather than making explicit how the NIC would develop, establish norms, understand common processes, and manage changing relationships. We had varied understandings of the depth of campus differences, sometimes resulting in frustrations about the disparate progress on goals. NIC structures require significant engagement with the group, often more intensive than traditional multi-institution organizational structures. They require time to develop and ongoing maintenance in order to advance the work. We continue to reevaluate our model for leadership, climate, diversity, conflict resolution, engagement, decision-making, roles, and data, leading to increased investment in the success of all NIC institutions. Our NIC has evolved from the traditional NIC model to become the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL) AGEP NIC model with five key characteristics: (1) A well-specified aim, (2) An understanding of systems, including a variety of contexts and different organizations, (3) A culture and practice of shared leadership and inclusivity, (4) The use of data reflecting different institutional contexts, and (5) The ability to accelerate infrastructure and interventions. We conclude with recommendations for those considering developing a NIC to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

Highlights

  • In 2016, 10 research universities in the United States launched a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) through the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program

  • As NICs are a newer formalized organizational structure, especially in higher education, there is much to learn about them in practice (LeMahieu et al, 2017). Given their potential for system change, we argue that NIC structures offer great promise to the national effort to broaden representation in STEM

  • We found restructuring our NIC with a focus on inclusivity turned the challenge of a variety of institutions and contexts into a strength of diversity

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, 10 research universities in the United States launched a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) through the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program. Each participating university worked toward our shared goal by utilizing different approaches, e.g., improving inclusiveness of the climate in departments and research groups, holistic admissions processes, peer mentoring, and improved advising They implemented local interventions focused on different portions of the driver diagram such as faculty member attitudes and behaviors, identity development and self-efficacy of AGEP scholars, and the inclusive climate of the lab, research group, or department. Well-specified aim Understanding the systems in which the problem is located, including the variety of contexts, local partnerships, and different organizations Incorporating data that reflect different campus contexts and varied analytical approaches while providing utility to the collective Culture and practice of shared leadership in determining questions to be addressed and actions to take, centered around inclusivity in our practices Accelerate local partnerships, infrastructure and interventions. Because grant-funded project budgets are unlikely to be able to equalize such institutional disparities, NIC members need to deal openly with these inequities and agree on productive ways to work together to the best of each institution’s and each individual’s abilities, budgets, and resources

LIMITATIONS
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
ETHICS STATEMENT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call