Search for: All records

While the role of teams in leading transformations within academia is increasingly recognized, few studies have analyzed how teams form. Understanding the processes of interdisciplinary team formation within higher education will allow leaders to intentionally bring together individuals and form teams with higher likelihoods of success. In this study, we examine the early stages of change team formation within higher education, specifically looking at the two interconnected processes of search and selection, and we explore how a community of practice influences these processes through situated learning. Our longitudinal qualitative analysis demonstrates how teams form and transform over time, from the initial search process for team members to the factors that informed the initial and ongoing selection of team members. We find that a community of practice influenced these processes by shaping how teams understood their instrumental needs and how members understood their role within interdisciplinary teams. Finally, we examine a correlation between leadership structure and team member turnover, finding that a centralized leadership structure that lacks a vision for change shared among team members may drive turnover. The results provide insights into the dynamic nature of change team formation within academia. 

This research paper addresses how faculty learn to become change agents in driving and sustaining change efforts in engineering education. Despite repeated calls and ample funding allotted to transform STEM higher education, initiatives targeted at the course and curriculum levels have not led to pervasive changes in how we educate undergraduate engineering students. Shifting the focus from what or how faculty teach, we turn to the structures that support change-making. Specifically, we examine the types of shared practices and interactions that help faculty develop change capacity and agency in the context of a cross-institutional community of practice (CoP). Our analysis emerged in the context of participatory action research with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) grant recipient teams, who come together during monthly virtual CoP sessions facilitated by our participatory action research team. Using participant observation, transcription, and qualitative analysis of 31 1-hour long meetings across three years, we map out facilitation practices and interpersonal interactions that empower participants to develop into a community of change agents in a field particularly prone to inertia. We situate our work at the intersection of theories of change from sociological and situated learning perspectives. Doing so, we address the relationship between structure and collective action, and how faculty exert control over social relations and available resources in their collective contexts to advance change goals. This exchange between social theory and engineering education has the potential to empower engineering faculty to mobilize for pervasive changes. Our findings address the ways that the organizational structure of and types of interactions in a CoP inform its participants’ ability to advance change goals. Firstly, participants learn to be a community of changemakers through regular reflective practices, which help diffuse knowledge between participants across organizational boundaries and levels of changemaking experience. Having a dedicated space to reflect on experiences leads to community building and a collective understanding of goals and how to achieve them. Secondly, faculty use their interpersonal interactions in the community of practice to leverage and build their connections to external individuals and to existing resources and social networks. These connections help them compile and reclaim resources or extend the existing resources to new contexts. In the practice of mobilizing change-making resources, we see faculty developing into a community of change agents: engaging in reflective processes and utilizing the resources within their institutional cultures to transform those very contexts.