@article{32eae1ed93144da4b5e902c37a0680b6,
title = "Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments",
abstract = "Background: This paper adapts the four-frame model of organizational change to the context of higher education. We offer the model as a tool for researchers and change agents who wish to study and enact systemic change within STEM departments. We provide the four frames in contrast to overly simplistic models of change that have been shown to be unlikely to result in sustainable improvements. As we outline the four frames, we discuss both how the frames provide insight into potential products for change and how they influence the process of change. We provide an extended example of how the four frames can be used to analyze an existing change effort and implications of this approach for future work. Conclusions: This paper adapts a model for promoting and understanding change efforts in STEM departments. This is a model that can be used by nearly any researcher or administrator to help increase the impact of their work.",
keywords = "Culture, Institutional change, Organizational learning, Systemic change",
author = "Reinholz, {Daniel L.} and Naneh Apkarian",
note = "Funding Information: We thank Renee Cole, Becky Matz, Chris Rasmussen, and Jayson Richardson for their contributions to earlier drafts of this paper. This work was funded in part by the Association of American Universities through the Helmsley Charitable Trust. Funding Information: Even for systemic, department-based efforts, sustainability can be an issue. Consider the Science Education Initiative (SEI), which focused on improving education in science departments (Chasteen et al. 2016). The SEI had three key features—(a) providing expertise and time, (b) working directly with departments, and (c) focusing on individual courses. SEI support was through a competitive grant process, and funded departments received approximately $650,000 over 5 years. This money was used primarily to hire science teaching fellows (STFs), who were postdocs with STEM disciplinary PhDs that received training from SEI leaders. STFs served as educational experts, directly embedded in the departments. The SEI is widely considered successful and has been used as a model for change efforts at number of other institutions. Despite this success, when resources were removed, sustainability became an issue, and course transformations did not necessarily persist (Chasteen et al. 2015). This points to the need for a systemic approach beyond course transformation that seriously considers larger systemic factors and sustainability from the outset. We now outline the four frames, which can be used to inform such an approach. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018, The Author(s).",
year = "2018",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "International Journal of STEM Education",
issn = "2196-7822",
publisher = "Springer Open",
number = "1",
}